That's true, but BSD was first and they were ignoring Linux as well. Furthermore Linux and BSD are competitors. Now it's opposite and it's good, because we can't look back if we want to remain important. BSD didn't ever have enough manpower to make competitive system and its license is another culprit and that's why it's lagging behind. It had it chance in the past.
Originally Posted by LightBit
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).
Originally Posted by kraftman
FreeBSD SMP performace is very close to Linux.
Linux benefits from everything BSD did (like OpenSSH). Did BSD ever remove support for Linux from Gnome?
Originally Posted by kraftman
It is very intresting how many times they use Linux as a comparison . Well I'm happy this means Linux is somewhat a standard. This is another good reason to use freeBSD: comparison
Originally Posted by allquixotic
I'm sitting here using Opera on my Enlightenment Desktop while listening to music coming from Juk.
There's not a single *nix app that doesn't run on FreeBSD.
If there's no port - FreeBSD can run Linux binaries.
Configuration is actually very easy.
Nothing runs by default - everything can be enabled with a single line in rc.conf.
We have no automated stuff because we simply don't need it.
If you'd ask me for the biggest difference between Linux and BSD users:
We know all about Linux - They know nothing about BSD.
As a user of Debian, Slackware(old days), CentOS, FreeBSD, DragonflyBSD, and NetBSD, I can say there are pluses and minuses to both.
1. To the people mentioning linux domination in super computers and enterprise, I would imagine the super computer usage is probably based on the filesystem. UFS is just not as great as ext3/4 and will probably fall farther behind with btrfs. Dragonfly is working on HAMMER, which will hopefully be a step in the right direction. In terms of enterprise, it is all about support. Unless your company is Google or of similar size and can afford ridiculous salaries for people that work on an OS that is not commerically supported, the only real option in enterprise is Red Hat, which is what my company uses. The BSD's don't have great commercial support. That doesn't mean RedHat is better than any other distro, but major corporations will not use an OS that doesn't have great commercial support. As much as I love Debian, you will probably only see it on servers for Mom and Pop stores or Hobby sites that can't afford the support. Same with CentOS.
2. I don't see how they listed the BSD community as a plus. I observe the FreeBSD forum and it is not newbie friendly. 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.
3. The quality of developers for the BSD's is pretty high, even if there are fewer. I would rather have 10-15 great developers working on a project than 1-2 great developers, a couple good ones, and 300 kids in high school/college that barely have any experience. That usually leads to better security (OpenBSD) and better stability.
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.
I like both Linux and the BSDs. Dragonfly looks promising and it seems like the community is active. I will always have at least one version of both on the computers in my house, I don't understand all the animosity towards either of them.
Where did this list of fBSD features come from?
Is this from fBSD users? Or is this from Michael?
I will point out that those points are all very much based on one's particular perspective. fBSD is BUT ONE branch of BSD. For example, you've also got the macosx branch of BSD. It is plenty "fragmented". A more appropriate comparison between the fBSD "community" and a linux community, would be to compare it to ONE SPECIFIC LINUX DISTRO, like fBSD vs Fedora, or fBSD vs Ubuntu.
Some of the other points were based on their choice of version control systems, rather than an actual feature of the operating system. That, I would say, is a matter of personal preference, and nothing to do with the platform differences.
Overall, I have no issues with fBSD, so would certainly not participate in any flame wars.
Not really sure what their point was over the licensing. As I see it, if you're comfortable giving your code away to be commercialized by Apple with nothing in return, good for you. IMO though, their license is very much responsible for the slow pace that BSD advances since the real world wants to get something BACK for their contributions. It would really SUCK, IMO, to put $250,000 into a kernel and have some asshole like apple make money off it without at least giving something back in return for it.
From my perspective, BSD license is less threatening for a commercial consumer. It does make it more appealing in the event that you don't want to share code, it has the unfortunate side-effect though, of building black-hole commercial consumers. GPL, however, is a much more contribution-oriented license. If you want to commercialize something under GPL, then you pay for it by contributing to the advancement of that code. I think at this point, GPL has proven to be a much more successful licensing strategy, as evident by the MUCH more rapid pace of advancement and propagation in Linux compared to BSD. And contrary to the perspectives listed in the article, there is no effort wasted in blabbering about licensing EXCEPT when the BSD-ers bring it up.
Yes indeed you have too much ego when your stated reason for NOT using an operating system is your distaste for groupies.
Originally Posted by timofonic
Perhaps someone without so much ego might instead think about technical reasons
MacOSX is NOT a branch of BSD. That's actually a very inaccurate statement.
Originally Posted by droidhacker
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. But more accurately, MacOSX is a branch of NextStep/Openstep as more of code (and key design concepts) are derived from that project. - In the kernel; i/o kit, mach, mach IPC model, etc). MacOSX and it's user-interface are derived from NextStep/OpenStep things like Cocoa, The Mach-o binary format, heavy use of Objective-C, etc....and really how heavily is Objective-C even used in BSD?! (i'm guessing not very much). Since 10.5 or 10.6 Mac incorporates code from linux (SELinux for example), as well. But on top of all of this, apple has a lot of apple specific design, frameworks and code. (quartz, for example).
Really MacOSX is a combination of lots of *nix systems, constructs and concepts... MacOSX has really evolved into it's own brand of Unix.
Last edited by ninez; 06-01-2012 at 11:04 AM.
So are we supposed to contribute or not?
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⁈
Originally Posted by droidhacker
Just pointing out the obvious contradiction; no flame and/or trolling intended.