Why Should You Use FreeBSD? Here's Some Reasons

[ninez]

The only mess in OSX I know is memory management subsystem. And this bite hard. Under memory pressure conditions I had to reboot system a couple times a day, or use some obscure tools like 'purge'.

Are you sure it isn't a memory leak in an app that you are using?

I do lots of recordings in MacOSX using significant memory, including on occasion having to 'bounce tracks/mixdown' so that i could ditch some plugins, in order to free up memory. (to not do this would result in using all CPU and RAM). I've never had issues where i had to reboot.

What kind of computing are you doing, and what version of MAcOSX are you using? (out of curiosity)

cheerz

[blacknova]

Are you sure it isn't a memory leak in an app that you are using?

I do lots of recordings in MacOSX using significant memory, including on occasion having to 'bounce tracks/mixdown' so that i could ditch some plugins, in order to free up memory. (to not do this would result in using all CPU and RAM). I've never had issues where i had to reboot.

What kind of computing are you doing, and what version of MAcOSX are you using? (out of curiosity)

cheerz

That is not entirely impossible.

My main system usage is iOS app development. So normal application working set is something like - Adium,Skype, FF, Thunderbird, Xcode, some dashes and of course apps running by default like Finder.
Everything is running on MBP13" mid 2010 (Core2 duo model) with 4gb RAM. OSX is latest Lion (10.7.4 i think).

[LightBit]

Not true. It can happen on specific configurations. The same on Linux. When comes to Linux the 3.3 kernel promised to fix this. There's no ETA for Windows or FreeBSD.

How does (hardware) configuration affect on scheduler?
Yes, 3.3 really improved it.

It's not a mystery Firefox wasn't too optimized for Linux in the past. Furthermore this is about java script and not SQL which is much smoother with Firefox under Linux.

Also SQLite isn't optimised for Windows. From my experiences Firefox is overly faster on Windows.

Their mailing list quoted in this article is a great proof. Another one is foolBSD forums.

Their mailing list quoted in this article shows trolling and definitely not ignorance.
What about when Linux was young?

[kraftman]

About HFS+ - you mean this thread;

http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?13683-Mac-OS-X-10-5-vs-Ubuntu-8-10-Benchmarks/page10

Where you go on about how ext3 is better than HFS+ but didn't even know what you are talking about (claiming HFS+ can't be case-sensitive, etc), and then when you are given links to technical links, you then go on to say 'you don't trust apple, and claim they delete BSOD posts from their forum' ...lol ...interesting.

Yes, something wrong? I also meant Linus, as well. HFS+ used in OS X have been using POSIX emulation layer and maybe it's still using it. It's old and legacy crap compared to other file systems. The thing about BSOD is also true and it was a known fact that Apple deleted such threads. About being case insensitive it was also true:

http://davidwinter.me/articles/2008/05/17/mac-os-xhfs-case-insensitive-why/

As For HFS+ being 'utter crap' i disagree. It has been very usable, very stable and i have NEVER EVER had issues on a Mac i've ever owned, nor anyone else i've known - including about 3-4 years ago, when i was servicing Apple computers in my spare time for cash (for an Apple-licensed computer store/distributor). To say HFS+ is utter crap would entail nearly every single apple computer having issues and every single client i had at the time, would have had major problems... So i'm not going to take your word on this, being as in previous posts you claimed things that ANYONE who has ever formatted an HFS+ partition (using disk utility) would have known was completely false.

I said from the end user perspective OS X is ok. End user doesn't care much about file system when he's doing nothing special.

You also really haven't said much to support this idea that because they recycled code, it is a mess. Everything is well-defined and well-documented and works well. All of my friends who develop on a Mac love it. They hate using Windows or Linux for the same shit, after getting a Mac. So if it was really such a 'cluster fuck' i imagine no one would want to be developing on that platform, and we wouldn't see such rapid development of apps for the platform (including iOS).

While OS X is a cluster it suggests there's not enough man power to develop it on their own. Furthermore is seems Apple has to depend on some third party developers.

[kraftman]

How does (hardware) configuration affect on scheduler?
Yes, 3.3 really improved it.

I don't know if this affects scheduler, but different hardware can behave differently with the same scheduler. Firmware can be the case sometimes. It's great to hear 3.3 is much better now.

Also SQLite isn't optimised for Windows. From my experiences Firefox is overly faster on Windows.

Or it's ntfs or some other Windows part that's not optimized for SQLite. Firefox seems to be smoother on Windows when comes to graphic part, but not when your typing in the address bar.

Their mailing list quoted in this article shows trolling and definitely not ignorance.
What about when Linux was young?

When Linux was young it was treated in similar way like BSD is being treated now.

[LightBit]

Or it's ntfs or some other Windows part that's not optimized for SQLite. Firefox seems to be smoother on Windows when comes to graphic part, but not when your typing in the address bar.

What if Linux isn't optimized for Firefox?

When Linux was young it was treated in similar way like BSD is being treated now.

PROFF!?

[ninez]

Yes, something wrong? I also meant Linus, as well. HFS+ used in OS X have been using POSIX emulation layer and maybe it's still using it. It's old and legacy crap compared to other file systems. The thing about BSOD is also true and it was a known fact that Apple deleted such threads. About being case insensitive it was also true:

How come HFS+ supports significantly larger file-sizes and volumes than EXT4 then? care to explain that? (it's like 8 EB or something like that, can't remember). Now, if you are going to compare it to something like BTRFS or HAMMER or some file-system like that - don't bother, that is pretty much a pointless comparison, as in the example of BTRFS - it isn't even stable enough to ship as a default file-system on any distro. Where as HFS+ has been stable since 1998, and is actually fairly comparable to something like EXT4, in many areas but EXT4 also has the odd feature HFS+ does not (being as EXT4 is aimed at markets that HFS+ is really not).

I can google MacOSX BSOD and find postings in apple's forums / i can also search their forums directly and find them. I don't know Apple's policies regarding their forums, but it doesn't really matter.... by your logic i shouldn't have been able to even find a single post on the subject, especially since some appeared to be somewhat old. If you don't believe me, go there yourself;

https://discussions.apple.com/search.jspa?start=15&q=BSOD&peopleEnabled=true&dateRange=all&rankBy=relevance

this was a pretty generic search, but i bet i could turn up lots more (some of these date back to 2007 - shouldn't they have been deleted by now??).

http://davidwinter.me/articles/2008/05/17/mac-os-xhfs-case-insensitive-why/

AHAHAHAHA - that article says it DOES support Case-sensitivity. And unlike you (who obviously doesn't have MacOSX i do).

To quote that article;

Mac OS X/HFS+ case-insensitive? Why?

I just found out that HFS+, the preferred file system for Mac OS X, is case-insensitive when it comes to files and directories. I don't understand why? It's sure as hell causing issues with stuff I'm copying from my Ubuntu PC.

Just seems like a dumb idea.

...and even more hilarious - you think this is evidence to support your claims. What a laughable joke! Even most of the comments are way out of date, off the mark.

Furthermore, i was pointing out your old post to showcase how you moved onto another topic, when challenged on your point of view, you were also told in that thread by someone else that HFS+ gives you the option of case-sensitivity or not ~ you just choose to ignore FACTS. (and here we are years later, and you are still just as ignorant on the reality of this stuff, and are dumb enough to argue with people who KNOW better).

....and to further show that you are wrong -> Although, i forgot my MacBook Pro at the office on Friday (and i'm not driving for an hour to prove you wrong) - i do also have a 10.6.8 SL VM that will work just fine;



Are you still going to argue this now, are you really that ignorant (and/or moronic)? (i would hope not). And if you are going to argue that SL is newer, and this wasn't true in 2008 - just try me bud - i still have the MacOSX 10.5 leopard ISO (release date 2007) and can boot it up into VMware and take a sceenshot. You just have no idea what you are talking about and it is PAINFULLY obvious to anyone who is ACTUALLY familiar with the technology.

I said from the end user perspective OS X is ok. End user doesn't care much about file system when he's doing nothing special.

Um, i know lots of Mac users who have things like RAID setups and other more specialized uses. Now if we are talking about things like snapshots, sure HFS+ doesn't do that, but Apple has taken a different approach to backups, and in my experience and other people i know, it works just fine If you are expecting HFS+ to be the ideal modern server or cluster/cloud file-system, well it simply is not really designed for that. (and thus shouldn't even be compared to those file-systems). Historically, Apple is more aimed at Multimedia applications, but in the last few years have really shifted their efforts into being a developer's platform and also as usual (obviously) catering to the masses, who don't do anything beyond average computing.

While OS X is a cluster it suggests there's not enough man power to develop it on their own. Furthermore is seems Apple has to depend on some third party developers.

Where you get the idea that Apple doesn't have the 'man power' to develop it on their own, is beyond me. Apple is fucking rich, and can hire whom ever they like - and in fact did so, when developing MacOSX. They hired some Sun Microsystems programmers initially to work alongside their own programmers, which was a good idea. If code is good and can be used / adapted and fits the purpose, almost any programmer i know would use it over starting from scratch - unless their were technical reasons to not do so. ~ ever heard the phrase "stop re-inventing the wheel", there are reasons why a statement like that exists....

and AFAIK most if not all OSes rely on third-party developers for their platform. Look at how many companies MS has purchased over the years, those companies were '3rd parties' whose technology ultimately become apart of MS' platform (and MS bought them, instead of writing something similar from scratch, which goes back to what i said above. Unix and Linux have also relied on many third parties, this is common stuff. - how you've come to the conclusion this isn't the case, i have no clue. All i can do is laugh at how stupid that is...

Clearly, you are just talking out your ass and don't even have a clue as to what you are talking about. You come off as just an Apple-hater.

[yogi_berra]

I think he was saying about things like dbus, udisk, udev etc. Arch Linux also provides things you have mentioned and if BSD ports provides the same they're much less stable than Debian or RHEL. So BSD with up to date ports sucks for servers.

That's nice, but ports is nothing like the rolling release of Arch. The kernel and toolchain doesn't change (apart from security updates, of course) while you have up to date packages, it's what the desktop oriented LTS releases should (but don't) provide.

[ninez]

That's nice, but ports is nothing like the rolling release of Arch. The kernel and toolchain doesn't change (apart from security updates, of course) while you have up to date packages, it's what the desktop oriented LTS releases should (but don't) provide.

+1

ABS (Arch build system) isn't the same as ports, although they both provide an automated way of building software. They both use build-scripts to do this, but aside from that they inherently differ in many ways. (not even including whether or not the kernel and/or toolkit changes).

Portage (in Gentoo) and obviously Macports (in MacOSX) actually would share a lot more in common with Ports in *BSD than Arch's ABS does.

that is my observation anyway, having used all of them...

[kraftman]

What if Linux isn't optimized for Firefox?

It handles SQLite quite good. Much better than Windows basing on my experience.

PROFF!?

You want me to proof I was in the park few years ago?