Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Should You Use FreeBSD? Here's Some Reasons

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    Really MacOSX is a combination of lots of *nix systems, constructs and concepts... MacOSX has really evolved into it's own brand of Unix.
    It seems OS X is a huge mess.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by »John« View Post
      As far as licensing is concerned, I wonder what makes the BSD guys both perfectly happy to get constantly ripped off by proprietary parasites and outraged by GPL reuse of BSD code. What's the difference⁈
      Just pointing out the obvious contradiction; no flame and/or trolling intended.
      When comes to Linux they're pissed off, because they see the code, but can't take it.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by kraftman View Post
        That's not true, because Windows 7 has very similar problems:

        http://social.technet.microsoft.com/...6-b88a82514fab
        http://social.technet.microsoft.com/...6-19437697f62b - this one even corrupts your files
        http://www.sevenforums.com/general-d...en-drives.html

        CFQ is very fine for desktop. I have XP next to Kubuntu and from my experience SQL performance sucks badly in Windows XP. It makes Firefox sometimes unusable. In Kubuntu it's very fast and responsive.
        Ok, but my Windows 7 never lagged. This are probably some bugs.
        Which SQL?
        Databases are for servers.
        Are you aware Windows XP was released in 2001?


        Originally posted by kraftman View Post
        FreeBSD devs have done some tests in the past, but it seems they're no longer interested in such comparisons.
        That is not their job. Maybe Michael could do it?

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
          They were usually hostile or ignorant.
          Any proof?

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
            What BSD? It's like comparing some desktop focused BSD to OpenBSD which has different policy. BSD aren't more stable than Debian or RHEL. What's good in Linux it's the big choice. Also, Ubuntu is much more feature rich than any BSD, so it's like comparing apples to oranges.
            Desktop focused BSD? PC-BSD is for Linux users.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by LightBit View Post
              Ok, but my Windows 7 never lagged. This are probably some bugs.
              Which SQL?
              Databases are for servers.
              Are you aware Windows XP was released in 2001?
              Bugs or rather design. Firefox is for desktop and it's using SQL. Yes, I'm aware, but the same happens with Vista my friend has.

              That is not their job. Maybe Michael could do it?
              He usually test defaults and such tests has to be done by someone who has a clue.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                Any proof?
                They're still hostile and ignorant. Maybe even more than they used to be, because they were in much better position years ago.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                  Bugs or rather design. Firefox is for desktop and it's using SQL. Yes, I'm aware, but the same happens with Vista my friend has.
                  If it would be design, everyone would have problems.
                  Yes, but datatbases are small.
                  http://www.tuxradar.com/content/benc...its-not-pretty


                  Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                  They're still hostile and ignorant. Maybe even more than they used to be, because they were in much better position years ago.
                  Still no proof.
                  Last edited by LightBit; 06-01-2012, 12:01 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by ninez View Post
                    There is code from BSD found in Darwin (kernel), such as it's process model, networking stack and a couple of other things. there is some BSD code in userspace too.
                    Wasn't the original Windows networking stack also taken from BSD?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Here is how my brain translates the article

                      - Solaris features without being beholden to Oracle.
                      By 'solaris' they mean 'ZFS'. Which is fine.

                      - The FreeBSD community focuses more on tech than on licensing and political activism like a certain freeware Unix "alike"
                      who gives a crap?

                      - The ports system does a far better job of balancing tracking recent software releases and stability than other systems of the same sort (most typically exemplified by certain popular Unix "alikes")
                      The port system has you compiling software, which is miserable and terrible.

                      - Stability
                      Yawn.

                      - Well-structured OS (i.e. filesystem, kernel and its config, etc)
                      Oh snap. My sarcasm self-defense mechanism just kicked in. We are in for a bumpy ride now.

                      It's well-structered AND it is stable!!! OMG.

                      - The ports system
                      Wasn't this already brought up?

                      - FreeBSD known for its ability to handle heavy network traffic with high performance and rock solid reliability
                      WOW.
                      ROCK SOLID! Can understand STABLE and WELL STRUCTURED. But also ROCK SOLID HANDLING OF NETWORK TRAFFIC?

                      That just blows my mind. I am a bit weak in the knees now.

                      - FreeBSD is the system of choice for high performance network
                      OMG. Not only is it STABLE, WELL STRUCTURED, ROCK SOLID, it is also SYSTEM OF CHOICE?

                      NOW ONLY IF IT WAS SCALABLE AND SERVER-FOCUSED.

                      - A kick-ass combo of features and very server-focused.

                      Wow. I am stunned.

                      KICK-ASS COMBO OF FEATURES?

                      and

                      VERY SERVER-FOCUSED?

                      It seems that both of these concepts deserve their own bullet points. Why combine both of these excellect comments in one line. Each point deserves their own sentence! FreeBSD utterly overflows.


                      - FreeBSD is NOT Linux = FreeBSD is stable, reliable, simple (there are no automated brainfucks... like udev, hal and dbus in base system)
                      Man. Nobody like automated brainfucks. Linux must suck. I hate to imagine what would happen if I tried to install Linux to my laptop and then it came to life to perform a automated brain fuck on me. That sounds very uncomfortable.

                      - Not fragmented as Linux, (relation to many distro, that not have idea/goal)
                      Does this mean that I have to glue together my installation cdrom for Linux? That sounds like it would be difficult.

                      - The community - Unlike Linux which is very fragmented by all the different flavours and hence individual communities, FreeBSD has one community who are always happy to help with hints tips and advice. This simply cant be beaten!
                      Yes. I can tell this by the highly technical and thoughtful post that it lacks fragmentation.

                      - The BSD license. Contrary to popular belief, it has brought a lot of high quality development to FreeBSD
                      Yes. Everybody loves high quality development.

                      - Universal toolkit. It scales easily from the thinnest embedded system, to various desktops to huge servers -- all with the same familiar tools and environment
                      There is the final piece of the puzzle!!!!


                      FreeBSD is a NONFRAGMENTED ROCK SOLID COMBO OF WELL STRUCTURED STABLE SCALABLE SERVER ORIENTED FEATURES that is THE SYSTEM OF CHOICE FOR NETWORKING PERFORMANCE that isn't Linux and it's not even going to try to brainfuck you!

                      What more can you ask for? It's SCIENCE!


                      PORTS!
                      Last edited by drag; 06-01-2012, 12:49 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                        It seems OS X is a huge mess.
                        This statement says absolutely nothing. Can you please provide reasons why you think this? (potentially, you should produce some data and/or examples to go along with it, if possible.) I tend to think the opposite is true based on what i know and have seen, after many years of using MacOS dating all the y back to the Apple II (which i still have, and still works!). I also don't see the correlation between integrating existing (useful/good) technology / code and how that makes MacOSX automatically a mess ~ care to explain? Code gets recycled all the time -> if it is good, useful and relevant... We see this all the time in open-source. Developer/Project/Distro/Company XYZ comes up with some useful idea, so someone ports it - whether it be something from platform to platform, some application, library or compiler, etc ... or from one distro to another...

                        When Apple starting developing MacOSX (from the NeXtStep/Openstep code-base) they took a pretty hard look at various tech in *nix systems and pulled all of the stuff they felt was the best fit and that could be integrated well, with the goals they had in mind. One example beyond stuff that i've already stated, would be Apple deciding to support BSD's ports via Macports. - Which IMHO was an excellent move (I'm sure all the Gentoo and Archlinux folks would tend to agree, even if they don't like Apple - because if they didn't they have some serious cognitive dissonance going on, lol )

                        I wouldn't call MacOSX a mess, either. In fact, (as has been discussed previously in these forums) One great example is the MacOSX file-system layout is much more organized and elegant than any linux distro and/or BSD. Generally, all of Apple (software) components are well-defined and organized, and in most cases seem to be very well thought out.

                        now, if you care to give some reasons why MacOSX is so messy, i am all ears.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by drag View Post
                          The port system has you compiling software, which is miserable and terrible.
                          Well, that is entirely debatable. You may not be good nor like compiling software, nor even have a use for it ~ But lots of us do. Ports provides an easy way to have that automated for you. When i decided to try out BSD, part of the attraction was Ports. it is a good build system and there are reason why it has been copied time and time again... Gentoo, Archlinux (the odd other source-type linux distros) and MacOSX implemented similar ports-like build systems for good reasons - it simplifies the whole process of compiling software, which is great. It also allows some flexibility and customization (which can be very important for the more advanced-user).

                          In Fact, i won't even use a Linux distro that doesn't have a similar build system, which is why I've settled on Archlinux - I wouldn't even consider (seriously) using any OS that don't provide a ports-like build system, not on my machines at home anyway. (ie: i wouldn't use Debian/ubuntu/Fedora/etc or Windows, on my own accord).

                          cheerz

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by froznen View Post
                            They fully expect you to read and understand the entire handbook before you ask a question. If you know everything in that handbook, you are basically an admin. So asking a quick and simple question, you will be pointed to extremely technical material. Most linux communities are much friendlier in that respect.
                            Heaven forbid people read existing documentation when it fully answers their question.

                            One of the biggest problems in Linux these days is the enabling of manual illiteracy. RTFM is a valid response when the manual is well written. Don't enable manual illiteracy. RTFM!

                            Unfortunately, thanks to certain idiotic forums and their candy-assed policies, STFW is rarely useful these days as most queries just bring back multiple unhelpful or unanswered threads from the same forum (and heaven help you if you answer one of those old threads).

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
                              Heaven forbid people read existing documentation when it fully answers their question.

                              One of the biggest problems in Linux these days is the enabling of manual illiteracy. RTFM is a valid response when the manual is well written. Don't enable manual illiteracy. RTFM!
                              +1

                              it always annoys me when i am looking at new posts in the Archlinux forums (to possibly provide some assistance), and the poster of the thread asks the most basic stupid question and hasn't even bothered to skim through the relevant ArchWiki on the subject. I am glad that most archer's call them on it (whether they are moderators or not) and point them to the wiki, without answering their question, or maybe just giving them a hint.

                              I think the BSD community is smart to operate this way ~ likewise so are the Gentoo and Archlinux communities (among others). Ubuntu could learn a thing or two from this, their forums are laughable, and there documentation isn't much better, with some exceptions.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by ninez View Post
                                I tend to think the opposite is true based on what i know and have seen, after many years of using MacOS dating all the y back to the Apple II (which i still have, and still works!).
                                I'm impressed. How did you get MacOS to run on an Apple II?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X