Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Should You Use FreeBSD? Here's Some Reasons

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

  • #41
    Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
    Where did this list of fBSD features come from? Is this from fBSD users? Or is this from Michael?
    There is a name (David Chisnall) and a link ( http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/f...ay/067788.html ) given right in the second paragraph...

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by LightBit View Post
      CFS and CFQ are very related. Windows 7 never lagged like Linux when copying large files. CFQ is fine for servers, but deadline is better for servers (faster read).
      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.

      FreeBSD SMP performace is very close to Linux.
      FreeBSD devs have done some tests in the past, but it seems they're no longer interested in such comparisons.

      Comment


      • #43
        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.
        A business can choose to pass the code back to BSD - the GPL can't allow for this so it's only ever a one way street

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by LightBit View Post
          Linux benefits from everything BSD did (like OpenSSH). Did BSD ever remove support for Linux from Gnome?
          Not from everything, but from some things and this is a prove BSD license doesn't serve it too well. Afaik Gnome was started as a Linux desktop environment. I was thinking about BSD attitude when Linux was young. They were usually hostile or ignorant. Now everything is turned by 180 degrees and BSD people get what they were doing in the past.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by froznen View Post
            4. BSD is much more stable than most Linux Distros. It is why I don't use Ubuntu, Mint, or a few of the other fast release cycle linux distros. 6 month releases are too fast given the way the linux kernel is developed. I can remember countless times where features that used to work in Ubuntu/Mint that break in the next cycle because it seems like every single time a new kernel is released, it breaks everything and there is always something missed in the testing of the new kernel for these distros. That is why debian is popular, it picks a kernel and doesn't release until everything is thoroughly tested.
            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.

            Comment


            • #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

                      Working...
                      X