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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[nasyt]

BSD commandline tools suck worst then UNIX. It can't compete with GNU.

GNU tools were designed to way outperform UNIX tools. Actually, GNU tools are used in both Mac OS X and Solaris because their own commandline and BSD tools were incapable of meeting users needs.

The should use "Plan9 from user space". Better.

?if it sucks, port it to more platforms? ? aiju

?In GNU utils, incompatible features and extensions are a feature, not a bug.? ? james2vegas in Hacker News

http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/GNU/

[nasyt]

btw. OpenVMS also does tcp ip right.

[nasyt]

Isn't it shameful when something sucks even when compared to suckers? That's what your solaris and BSD crap does when compared to Linux

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

Do you honestly think OS can be value on its own, regardelss of these issues?

Nope.

You see, Linux supports more hardware,

True for Multimedia Hardware, sure.

there're larger communities and as the result there are loads of software as well.

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

Who would write drivers for new hardware?

Ok, thats a real problem.

Who would package thousands of programs?

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.


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.

Are there Operating Systems that do tcp ip right?

The proprietary AIX, HPUX, Thru64 do

OSv does
Plan9 does

[System25]

LinSUX anyway. Long live OpenSolaris.

Isn't it shameful when something sucks even when compared to suckers? That's what your solaris and BSD crap does when compared to Linux

You see, Linux supports more hardware, there're larger communities and as the result there are loads of software as well. Who would write drivers for new hardware? Who would package thousands of programs? Do you honestly think OS can be value on its own, regardelss of these issues? Somehow, Oracle literally killed Solaris. Sun did it wrong when releasing source under CDDL and too late. But then it maybe had some chances. But Oracle finished it, without mercy. From what I can see, there're no communities around solaris who will be considered as some serious force which can compete on par with others. Say thanks to Sun for being stubborn and Oracle for helping it to finally die. And those who rely on system with a single vendor really deserve their sad fates.

[nasyt]

--LOL--

[brosis]

LinSUX anyway. Long live OpenSolaris.

OpenSUXlaris anyway. Long live typewriter.

Tis - my 999 post. Epic.

[nasyt]

BSD is not better on servers especially now when virtualization is a must and BSDs have been found time and time again to be slower, less reliable and less robust then Linux or even Windows.

BSD is not even good for the embedded side as it has very poor scalability and an install with only a partial base system is already too bloated and slow compared to a full desktop Linux install.

Best regards
endman

LinSUX anyway. Long live OpenSolaris.