CD-Sized Image Of BSD-Based TrueOS Released For Servers

[phoronix]

Phoronix: CD-Sized Image Of BSD-Based TrueOS Released For Servers

In announcing their quarterly package updates that bring a wide assortment of improvements, the PC-BSD crew shared they managed to make a CD-sized image of their TrueOS server operating system...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTc4NjE

[M1kkko]

What's the advantage of this compared to a Linux server?

In other words, in what kind of use case/scenario would one want to use TrueOS on a server instead of linux?

[Ericg]

What's the advantage of this compared to a Linux server?

In other words, in what kind of use case/scenario would one want to use TrueOS on a server instead of linux?

If its based off FreeBSD then they have a better scaling network stack then Linux does (for now)

[wikinevick]

Huge advantages ...

What's the advantage of this compared to a Linux server?

In other words, in what kind of use case/scenario would one want to use TrueOS on a server instead of linux?

It is very useful when you need better networking and an advanced filesystem with features like working snapshots and compression. Most importantly, it doesn't have the systemd aberration.

It is highly regarded by endman and pawlerson (actually the same guy) that follows it closely but doesn't want to share the joy with anybody else.

[Guest]

It is very useful when you need better networking and an advanced filesystem with features like working snapshots and compression. Most importantly, it doesn't have the systemd aberration.

It is highly regarded by endman and pawlerson (actually the same guy) that follows it closely but doesn't want to share the joy with anybody else.

Keep spreading FUD about me and about Linux? When comes to "better networking": according to w3tech BSD server market share is 1% and Linux is 38%. According to Security Space Linux is 38% to 78% and BSD is less than 5%. According to netcraft Linux is much more reliable than *BSD. BSD file system is an old piece of utter shit (I'm not talking about the one stolen from solaris) and Linux has few far more advanced file systems (including ZFS). BSD isn't used in any serious markets, so bullshit about its file system being advanced is nothing, but wishful thinking. So, no advantages at all, but huge disadvantages and a lot of crap from BSD troll.

[kpedersen]

I think what Endman means is:
"FreeBSD has few far more advanced file systems (including ZFS)"

and a lot of crap from BSD troll.

I do agree with this statement though. BSD users do seem to hear a lot of crap from you. Actually, everyone seems to hear a lot of crap from you! haha.

[Guest]

I think what Endman means is:
"FreeBSD has few far more advanced file systems (including ZFS)"


I do agree with this statement though. BSD users do seem to hear a lot of crap from you. Actually, everyone seems to hear a lot of crap from you! haha.

Same person writing same crap all the time. It's just silly. FreeBSD has only one good file system: zfs. It was stolen from solaris. Its other file systems are from the stone age and they're just crap. You said they're more advanced, so I'd love to hear about their advantages. However, stupid troll is an obvious troll.

[kpedersen]

FreeBSD has only one good file system: zfs.

Frankly. I could humour you but largely we agree. FreeBSD does have an exceptional filesystem, ZFS, pioneered by Sun Microsystems, one of the most innovative companies to have ever existed.

As many sources state, including this presentation: http://wiki.illumos.org/download/att...1/zfs_last.pdf
"ZFS is the last word in filesystems"... so I am pretty much forbidden to mention any others. Sorry

FreeBSD and ZFS are fantastic. Both great projects with a perfect UNIX pedigree

... but that said. I am also very interested in Hammer2 from DragonFlyBSD. I do look forward to the completion of the ongoing work to port it to OpenBSD. Really exciting stuff.

[wikinevick]

Huge advantages ...

Keep spreading FUD about me and about Linux? When comes to "better networking": according to w3tech BSD server market share is 1% and Linux is 38%. According to Security Space Linux is 38% to 78% and BSD is less than 5%. According to netcraft Linux is much more reliable than *BSD.

Oh netcraft ... you'll have to crosscheck because anything coming from Apple and the Sony Playstation uses the BSD networking stack. Netflix claims that their 30% share of US Internet traffic is powered by BSD.

BSD file system is an old piece of utter shit (I'm not talking about the one stolen from solaris) and Linux has few far more advanced file systems (including ZFS). BSD isn't used in any serious markets, so bullshit about its file system being advanced is nothing, but wishful thinking. So, no advantages at all, but huge disadvantages and a lot of crap from BSD troll.

I am not talking about linux, which I admit is a fine kernel. TrueOS is a complete OS centered around ZFS and it's just wonderful: the "boot environments" are awesome. UFS2 is no toy either, soft updates is a technology that only the BSDs have been able to achieve.

[wikinevick]

Same person writing same crap all the time. It's just silly. FreeBSD has only one good file system: zfs. It was stolen from solaris. Its other file systems are from the stone age and they're just crap. You said they're more advanced, so I'd love to hear about their advantages.

Heh... I wonder how many local filesystems you need/use nowadays. I only use one, the same one used by Netflix but I am surely keeping an eye on ZFS.

However, stupid troll is an obvious troll.

Yeah Pawlerman ... you are pathetic. Not really worth my time calling you anything but a luser.