Bye bye BSD, Hello Linux: A Sys Admin's Story

[System25]

Its not "my" solaris and BSD crap, becaus i'm not using this eigher

It only "yours" because you attempted to promote it like if it could be some sane replacement. Which is obviously not a case.

Few days ago I've been browsing some stuff on Apache's web site. Then their server gave an error message due to wrong URL. It could be worth of nothing on its own. Except the fact server banner suggested it is apache2 running on Ubuntu. Tee-hee, rumors about Apache deploying new hosts on Linux were true. They are doing it for sure. So they ARE saying good-bye to BSDs as well it seems. And Apache known to be long-term supporters of BSDs.

True for Multimedia Hardware, sure.

True for heck a lot of totally different hardware. Ranging from mobile SoCs to supercomputers.

As of the total amount of Software (i believe) there is more software out there for the End user/Desktop than for server purposes.

On side note I can admit that using same OS on server and desktop can be very convenient for developers, QAs and so on. Learning server-only system which can't handle my desktop? IT STINKS. Speaking for myself - I have zero motivation to do it. IMO it is really nice when OS can scale and adapt. This makes knowledge reusable and overall my life is getting easier.

As there are created so called Distributions from Open Source technology, and this model translated to other kernels would result in the reuse of packages for many different kernels. Builds could also be automatted.

Theoretically it could be the case. Practically it looks like alive maintainers are needed to keep software quality adequate. Nobody needs bunch of auto-converted crap where you're the very first user who is going to test it on your own skin. Because it doomed to be really unpleasant experience, full of bugs. Basically in this case users are doomed to be beta testers when they are actually supposed it to be more or less prodaction run. Systems can have various differences and its not like you can do fully automatic conversion all the time and would never face side effects. And lack of alive maintainers ensures it is users who would run into bugs. And as user, if I'm up for some mission critical task, last thing I want to face is some critical bug blocking the way. Alive maintainers make sure it will be rare. Everything else just does not works well. Many tried, many failed. Then we can see Debian and derivatives which are here due to large community which also manintains huge packages base.

As of Linux.

The Network Stack of Linux (a commonly known issue) is the cause of certain types of Internet (Giganews for example) services to be either Powered by non-Linux OSs or compensated by massive scale-outs.

And are there any proof of that? I can see Wikipedia serving whole planet with relatively few servers and most servers seems to be installed for bandwith distribution across planet or to generate dynamic content. Then there is google, facebook and many others. Global, serving whole planet. Some have relatively few servers. You claim they scale poorly? Basically Linux keeps heck a lot of high-profile projects running these days so these mumblings do not seem to correlate well with simple fact everyone can observe in web on their own. And TBH I do not even have idea what is Giganews. Are they at least part of top of 1000 busiest sites? And what was their prob with Linux they can't handle?

Are there Operating Systems that do tcp ip right?

The proprietary AIX, HPUX, Thru64 do

OSv does
Plan9 does

And what is your definition of right? Is it anyhow different from "left"? I fail to see AIX, HPUX, Thru64 or OSv keeping world-scale projects running. Basically you did very bold claim, but where I can see actual proof?

P.S. I would agree Linux isn't architecturally sound, etc. Just some common working horse. But it usually fixed here and there to keep things running. This is more than enough for success in real world - it can handle real-world tasks and often it does it better than others. Then it costs nothing and easy to manage. So to my taste overall it works best for me and my tasks. Sure, there is always room to improve and it is silly to deny it. And it's not like if I can offload my tasks to AIX, HPUX, Thru64 or whatever due to one reason or another. So IMO its not big gain if they got "right" TCP/IP stack - well, "left" stack from Linux works for me.

[jake_lesser]

Few days ago I've been browsing some stuff on Apache's web site. Then their server gave an error message due to wrong URL. It could be worth of nothing on its own. Except the fact server banner suggested it is apache2 running on Ubuntu. Tee-hee, rumors about Apache deploying new hosts on Linux were true. They are doing it for sure. So they ARE saying good-bye to BSDs as well it seems. And Apache known to be long-term supporters of BSDs.

As a matter of fact, the OpenBSD Foundation's website is hosted by shaw communications which runs Linux server. Therefore, the OpenBSD foundation runs Linux . They should give a fraction of their donations to the Linux foundation. The Linux foundation deserves a lot something from them.

Also, 701 First Ave (who used to host FreeBSD.org) has got rid of the last of their FreeBSD servers. Plus www.FreeBSDwiki.org is running directly of a Linux server according to netcraft.

Also, the number of WhatsApp servers being BSD is decreasing replaced by Linux servers.

[Sergio]

As a matter of fact, the OpenBSD Foundation's website is hosted by shaw communications which runs Linux server. Therefore, the OpenBSD foundation runs Linux . They should give a fraction of their donations to the Linux foundation. The Linux foundation deserves a lot something from them.

Also, 701 First Ave (who used to host FreeBSD.org) has got rid of the last of their FreeBSD servers. Plus www.FreeBSDwiki.org is running directly of a Linux server according to netcraft.

Also, the number of WhatsApp servers being BSD is decreasing replaced by Linux servers.

Hahahahaha sure, whatever you say... Fckin loser.

[nasyt]

On side note I can admit that using same OS on server and desktop can be very convenient for developers, QAs and so on. Learning server-only system which can't handle my desktop? IT STINKS. Speaking for myself - I have zero motivation to do it. IMO it is really nice when OS can scale and adapt. This makes knowledge reusable and overall my life is getting easier.

I can also admit, that it can be convenient. One time, i had to write a Server Application to be deployed on a Heterogenous Cluster, ranging from Windows Server, over Linux and various Unix like things to some weird Alien-Like stuff.

And are there any proof of that? I can see Wikipedia serving whole planet with relatively few servers and most servers seems to be installed for bandwith distribution across planet or to generate dynamic content. Then there is google, facebook and many others. Global, serving whole planet. Some have relatively few servers. You claim they scale poorly? Basically Linux keeps heck a lot of high-profile projects running these days so these mumblings do not seem to correlate well with simple fact everyone can observe in web on their own. And TBH I do not even have idea what is Giganews. Are they at least part of top of 1000 busiest sites? And what was their prob with Linux they can't handle?

On sites like Wikipedia, some lost connections don't matter. Network problems get usually fixed through firewall/netfilter treaks or throtteling or load-balancers. I had also experienced that a network guy or admin just said something like: "It runs smoothly. Period."

Giganews is a Usenet provider. They're not listed as "Web sites".

And what is your definition of right? Is it anyhow different from "left"?

I'm speaking about "right and wrong", not "right and left".

PS: I admit that 100% of the Internet consists on networking done wrong. But, between ourselves, does anyone cares about that?

I fail to see AIX, HPUX, Thru64 or OSv keeping world-scale projects running. Basically you did very bold claim, but where I can see actual proof?

AIX, HPUX and Thru64 are too expensive and basically unavailable. I admit, that they behave too alien-like.

[thelongdivider]

I hate these debates

Can't we all just agree that windows is useless in all deployments? BSD is very good for servers, and some even use it for desktops. I like linux better for both cases, sure, but to each his own (except windows users).

[MoonMoon]

Can't we all just agree that windows is useless in all deployments? BSD is very good for servers, and some even use it for desktops. I like linux better for both cases, sure, but to each his own (except windows users).

No, we can't. Tell anyone dependent on Windows only software for his work or people playing Windows only games that don't work with Wine how useless their Windows installation is.
But we could agree if that statement would be: "Can't we just agree that zealots don't matter and that any OS and software has valid use cases?"

[thelongdivider]

No, we can't. Tell anyone dependent on Windows only software for his work or people playing Windows only games that don't work with Wine how useless their Windows installation is.
But we could agree if that statement would be: "Can't we just agree that zealots don't matter and that any OS and software has valid use cases?"

Or, alternatively, why not develop software on the linux side?

[Bwsyd2ton]

I personally look forward to mixing C# and Qt/QML though.

[TiberiusDuval]

When it comes to operating systems, best one is one that fit for you and task you are going to do. I don't generally understand OS-flamers, be they Windows-diehards, Linux-preachers, or BSD-zealots. I have triplebooting system, Windows 7 for Windows only games, software and so on. Linux(Distro's I use vary) and PC-BSD for more general usage, both have some strong points, and some weak points.

[MoonMoon]

Or, alternatively, why not develop software on the linux side?

People are already doing that. But in the meantime proprietary software, be it games or software needed for work still exist and will not cease to exist just because Linux alternatives exist. Just have a look at GIMP, despite its already quite long history it will still need some time to be ready to replace Photoshop in professional image editing.

The fact still remains that any OS/software has its use cases and no amount of zealotry or wishful thinking will change that. So best we just agree on: Use what fits your needs, I will do the same.