If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
As for me it is not. Sure, some very marginal users do not need much from PC and can use this crap as desktop. I don't see any reason to force me to use this crap when there are better solutions available and they come with sources as well. So I can learn them, change them and build them. If I want or need to. And no vendor lock-in. But why Linux? Linux takes several times less times for system management than any BSDs/windows/etc. I've attempted to use FreeBSD on one of my servers and it proven to be real nightmare. There is even no real package management system in place. In Linux it's norm and it makes system management much more pleasant task. Which also takes much less of my time than it would be otherwise.
Oh, Netflix? Those DRM-inclined nuts who also require silverlight M$ crap to play their content? Oh, now answer quickly: can you use Netflix services in your "adequate" BSD desktop, then? (and then BSD guys wonder why other ppl consider them proprietary footpads).
Oh, another proprietary nuts. And of course no full source for MacOS X. And absolutely no source for iOS. So with Liunx you can try to make your phone based on Linux stack if you want to. With BSDs only Apple can. That's where we can see how BSD "freedom" differs from GPL freedom...
So, can I grab the source, learn it, change it, rebuild it and use it on Juniper hardware if I own one? No? Such a pity. BSD "freedom" strikes again. It turns out only Juniper haves rights and freedoms. Not their customers. Since I'm not Juniper, I see absolutely no reasons to welcome this approach. Especially granted the fact it's customer who pays money for everything. So this scheme does not looks fair to say the least.
And Linux just powers biggest, most successful startups (Google and Facebook to name a two), most of TOP500 supercomputers, millions of phones, routers, servers and so on. And even gaming industry started looking at it. So it's finally getting considered by people as OS suitable for desktops. Not something that BSDs could afford. Ironically, Linux took several percents of market in the web. BSDs had 10 more years to get there. Yet they're used thousands times less than Linux. This definitely indicates BSDs are inconvenient to use and/or lack many features.
Only Apple can make a BSD base system , what do you mean ? Systems like OpenBSD , NetBSD and DragonflyBSD started as a FreeBSD fork.
This thread has shown that BSD is completeing shit. full stop.
Ah, you are back. I would ask you to try it with intelligent trolling this time, but it is pretty obvious that we can't expect anything intelligent from you, so don't try to hard, nobody wants you to get depressed about your failure.
Anyhow, back to bhyve:
PCI passthrough, good
boots from md images, zfs zvols, or iSCSI-limited functionality (why can't they boot from any block device?)
Intel EPT mandatory-I won't be checking it out anytime soon (though I probably wouldn't even if it did work with AMD or Atom, for other hardware-related reasons which make non-linux suboptimal here)
"alternative host OS support actively pursued"-what does this mean?
Bsd loose in some things and beats Linux , for example firewall application BSD today is better , PF packet filter is much better and easier to maintain than iptables ,
Oh, standard BSD fanboys mumblings detected.
1) When it comes to maintanance it's a matter of taste and preference and it's very subjective view what is better or worse. It haves nothing to do with "better" (something that BSD guys fail to understand all the time). It's just a matter of preferences. From my standpoint, it's highly debatable if it's "easier to maintain". Look, when I want to catch some data packet with known data at known offset, in Linux there is module which would do exactly that for me. With reasonable simple commands. Now your turn. I've seen how BSD guys implement things like this in BPF assembly language. Because there was no other ways to do so. And it has been a clear winner in "unobvious firewall rules contest" . OTOH in Linux you can have string matching rule in more or less human readable form. And features like this is what I would expect from more or less advanced firewall for sure.
2) Netfilter/iptables also would not make any discounts for these "wanna be a cool firewall". You see, there are really powerful and cool features. Say, ipset could ban a huge numbers of IPs without getting horribly slow. And it's better in terms of features than anything BSDs could offer.
but openbsd is not so good something like MySQL, postgres, performance in Linux is better for this, people here should have to recognize advantages of both systems and stop this stupid discussion.
And if I remember correctly, openbsd also unable to use more than 1 CPU core for firewall. Let's say, guys like vyatta are declaring 10Gbit routing and so on on Linux - in software. So it would be pretty lame to mumble that "1 core is enough" or something like that. In fact, Linux is strong competitor in networking and would not offer any discounts. So just some mumbling does not counts. If you can think some OScould work better, you have to try.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
really intelligent and meaningful discussion going on here. funny how gpl advocates have all the time in the world because they don't believe in earning money. and so opinionated never taking the time to contribute constructively. all while bsd users and contributors are too busy with a real life than to talk absolute non-sense on a 2-bit alternative tech news website forum.
I've accomplished more in 12 months with BSD's than I did in 15 years with GNU/Linux.
GNU/Linux is an absolute mess. The GPL is an unsustainable license that gets violated on a daily basis of which who's license holders can't sue or do anything about because they have no money.
There is a reason the likes of Apple, Juniper, Yahoo! and Netflix are so successful, because of great software and licensing.
What ever happened to the GPL rule of distributing the source code with the product? I don't see google sending you a copy of GNU/Linux every time you load their webpage or do a search.
Talk about resource management, why the hell does every major GNU/Linux distro have 8 ramdisks loaded into the kernel by default?
The thing about this stupid debate is in all my years I've never seen someone from the BSD community bad-mouth Linux, rather sit there and observe this bullshit that occurs constantly. And if it's not BSD, it's Microsoft, or apple or whatever. This all stems from the stupid idea that it's wrong to make money from software. Hating Microsoft or the alike is a disease or a mental disorder.
Why bitch about iOS being the only BSD based phone OS and not being able to hack it? Don't you have the proficiency to jailbreak an iPhone? It just shows your lack of skills. BSDs runs on a range of phones and embedded devices. I've ported numerous GPL and BSD software to ARM and MIPS.
Debating which OS is better for a desktop is bullshit. Linux sucks at it, only just got a decent scheduler. Windows is by far the greatest desktop in the world, followed by MacOSX. Gnome and KDE are always behind and always will be, the only decent alternative GUI is Enlgihtenment DR 0.17, which is, guess what... BSD licensed.
Virtualization.. Xen was bought by Citrix, nVidia drivers taint the kernel, very few games support OpenGL, Cedega is commercial. KVM is backed by IBM.
You guys don't know what the fuck you're talking about, come out from under the rock you've been hiding behind because it's the elephant in the room.
Linux can die in a hole. You're sick, mentally ill people.. I invite you to join us in the real world.
If you want to get serious about virtualization, you'd realise that it's stupid to run xen or kvm on a bloated gnu/linux distro. talk about wasting resources. Joyent's SmartOS is where it's at.