FreeBSD Might Get A Linux Kernel API Wrapper To Help Porting Linux Drivers

[demonkoryu]

so perfect that nobody uses it and they try to implement linux in-kernel api to port linux drivers.

Let me tell you about this. In 2006, I was playing Linux 3D games (Wolfenstein Enemy Territory etc.) on FreeBSD using the Linux emulation layer on an old Sempron XP 2200+ w/ 512 MB RAM, with more FPS than the native Windows version of that game; whilst recompiling GCC, KDE and shit. Coming from Windows and Linux, I was just baffled about the responsiveness of the system. So, I must say I have never seen a big OS quite as close to perfection as FreeBSD (although nothing is perfect).

[TeamBlackFox]

I don't care if endman, Pawlerson, jake_lesser and such are the same person or not. What I find pretty funny is almost none of them do anything but promote systemd and PulseAudio when rc init or runit and OSS work fine. Simply put the only downsides to using any BSD over GNU/Linux is less drivers and consequently less hardware support. BSD traces back to the original UNIX, so unlike GNU/Linux it actually is a more proper implementation of the ideas.

[dungeon]

Let me tell you about this. In 2006, I was playing Linux 3D games (Wolfenstein Enemy Territory etc.) on FreeBSD using the Linux emulation layer on an old Sempron XP 2200+ w/ 512 MB RAM, with more FPS than the native Windows version of that game; whilst recompiling GCC, KDE and shit. Coming from Windows and Linux, I was just baffled about the responsiveness of the system. So, I must say I have never seen a big OS quite as close to perfection as FreeBSD (although nothing is perfect).

I remember how Windows 98 was great, until i changed hardware i somehow realise what all those people complain about Openindiana or even AmigaOS can be great OS but again on right hardware FreeBSD is probably great on Playstation 4

Can i run FreeBSD on AMD Kabini, do not answer Jaguar is not crap on Playstation 4

[Rallos Zek]

The FreeBSD kernel is very well designed and in many respects is superior to the Linux kernel. FreeBSD has while Linux has nothing close to it:

https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/dtrace-enable.html

Pipeline stall analysis is possible on FreeBSD through Pmcstat while it is not clear if Linux offers a way to do it yet:

http://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2014-10-31/cpi-flame-graphs.html

Facebook considers FreeBSD's TCP/IP stack to be superior:

http://bsd-beta.slashdot.org/story/14/08/06/1731218/facebook-seeks-devs-to-make-linux-network-stack-as-good-as-freebsds

FreeBSD has jails that are secure unlike the chroot command that Linux users often think of being for making jails. It pioneered the concept and is still far ahead in this area even today.

FreeBSD has an excellent sandboxing framework that Google ported to Linux for Chrome OS:

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/security/capsicum/freebsd.html

FreeBSD's kernel virtual memory is based on Mach and is far superior to Linux's. To be fair, Linux's kernel virtual memory was intentionally crippled as a design decision by Linux et al.

FreeBSD also has pf, netmap, ZFS. pf is a well regarded firewall from OpenBSD that is considered easier to use than iptables by those familiar with both. netmap is a way to push packet processing into userland that boosts performance in routing tasks and security. ZFS is a filesystem from OpenSolaris that is also available on Linux, but FreeBSD fully embraces it as a first class filesystem for the rootfs while Linux distributions are not quite there yet.

Linux unlike FreeBSD has Redhat behind it to fund things like graphics development. Developing graphics drivers for open source operating systems is generally not profitable to companies with the exception of hardware manufacturers who make things that use them. Consequently, most business executives would consider funding things like nouveau to bea waste of money. I assume their executives consider it to be a PR expense meant to generate goodwill. There is nothing about this arrangement that makes Linux fundamentally better than FreeBSD contrary to what your comment seems to imply. It just makes Linux lucky.

Most of this info is 20 years out of date. "freebsd" is a solid system and has a great kernel, but Linux the kernel passed it by 10 years ago.

FreeBSD and the other *BSDs can hope comeback now that Linux systems are tainted with the systemd infection.

[profoundWHALE]

I remember how Windows 98 was great, until i changed hardware i somehow realise what all those people complain about Openindiana or even AmigaOS can be great OS but again on right hardware FreeBSD is probably great on Playstation 4

Can i run FreeBSD on AMD Kabini, do not answer Jaguar is not crap on Playstation 4

In all fairness, Windows 98 was fast, really fast. It also had very little tolerance for failures and would often give me the BSOD among other things.

Amiga was also very fast, and way ahead of it's time for things like multi-tasking performance. I remember how my Dad was talking about owners wondering why "It's the best OS, but nobody knows it."

[Guest]

I don't care if endman, Pawlerson, jake_lesser and such are the same person or not. What I find pretty funny is almost none of them do anything but promote systemd and PulseAudio when rc init or runit and OSS work fine. Simply put the only downsides to using any BSD over GNU/Linux is less drivers and consequently less hardware support. BSD traces back to the original UNIX, so unlike GNU/Linux it actually is a more proper implementation of the ideas.

Talk for yourself. The OSS and rc init are pure shit to me. I didn't ever see anything worse than rc init. There's also Upstart if you're not aware. I prefer ALSA over PA, but PA become standard, so it's hard to fight against it. Yes, BSD traces back to original UNIX, but original UNIX didn't even support SMP. Furthermore, FreeBSD is far away from UNIX philosophy todays.

[Guest]

Let me tell you about this. In 2006, I was playing Linux 3D games (Wolfenstein Enemy Territory etc.) on FreeBSD using the Linux emulation layer on an old Sempron XP 2200+ w/ 512 MB RAM, with more FPS than the native Windows version of that game; whilst recompiling GCC, KDE and shit. Coming from Windows and Linux, I was just baffled about the responsiveness of the system. So, I must say I have never seen a big OS quite as close to perfection as FreeBSD (although nothing is perfect).

In 2006 the gaming experience on Linux was really awful. The main problem was CPU scheduler, but thankfully it was replaced by Ingo in 2008. However, FreeBSD has the new scheduler as well, but if old one was good is the new one better?

[TeamBlackFox]

Pawlerson, if you're going to talk to me, don't just say unsubstantiated claims. I'm perfectly fine with conversing, but if we're gonna debate, do me a favour and don't make a fool of yourself.

rc init (the BSD type init ) is no less shit than sysvinit... I don't consider the init system important if it works and does so quite simply - which has been for the majority of users. I know of Upstart, but since Canonical has abandoned it for systemd, it has a very uncertain future. Runit is currently maintained and I may even add it to my BSD installs for most of the benefits that improved init systems over the old init provide.

ALSA and Pulseaudio have never worked for my needs - frankly most of the applications I use rely on OSS, so it is better to avoid the latency of having ALSA and PA translating and running over it... I don't need the latency of that. OSS does most of what ALSA and PA do together, so I don't see why I should use either ALSA or PA. To each his own I guess, but keep in mind a large majority of programs use the OSS APIs which are emulated in ALSA. If my sound card supports it, why not use it I say.

What do you mean FreeBSD has left behind the UNIX philosophy? I'd say that more applies to GNU/Linux unless you're using Gentoo, Slack or Void. The UNIX philosophy has undergone several revisions and has a different definitions, but I tend to benchmark IRIX, which I still use for some applications that I can't afford to replace. IRIX has all the bits and bobs of UNIX, but also made the UNIX workstation accessible to professionals and effectively brought it to the rest of the *NIX world.

[nasyt]

there is no macos/ios sources.

Nope. The core of Mac OS X, Darwin, is open source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_%28operating_system%29

[Guest]

Pawlerson, if you're going to talk to me, don't just say unsubstantiated claims. I'm perfectly fine with conversing, but if we're gonna debate, do me a favour and don't make a fool of yourself.

rc init (the BSD type init ) is no less shit than sysvinit... I don't consider the init system important if it works and does so quite simply - which has been for the majority of users. I know of Upstart, but since Canonical has abandoned it for systemd, it has a very uncertain future. Runit is currently maintained and I may even add it to my BSD installs for most of the benefits that improved init systems over the old init provide.

You're right, both inits are shit. I do care about this, because there are sometimes big differences in OS loading speed. When comes to systemd it has nice advantages over rc init and sysvinit. It brings advantages over upstart as well. I was ignoring most of the anti systemd rant, so I don't know what disadvantages it brings and why it is so hatred by many people. However, it seems it's time to do some reading.

ALSA and Pulseaudio have never worked for my needs - frankly most of the applications I use rely on OSS, so it is better to avoid the latency of having ALSA and PA translating and running over it... I don't need the latency of that. OSS does most of what ALSA and PA do together, so I don't see why I should use either ALSA or PA. To each his own I guess, but keep in mind a large majority of programs use the OSS APIs which are emulated in ALSA. If my sound card supports it, why not use it I say.

In the past Pulseaudio introduced some additional CPU usage and I'm not sure if it was fixed. Todays there's huge latency in lmms and probably in other software as well. It's possible to get rid of PA, but it became de facto standard in most Linux distributions. ALSA always worked fine for me and it was free of PA disadvantages (however, it lacks some of its features, but I don't need them). If OSS is something that fits your need then you don't have to care about the issues I just mentioned.

What do you mean FreeBSD has left behind the UNIX philosophy? I'd say that more applies to GNU/Linux unless you're using Gentoo, Slack or Void. The UNIX philosophy has undergone several revisions and has a different definitions, but I tend to benchmark IRIX, which I still use for some applications that I can't afford to replace. IRIX has all the bits and bobs of UNIX, but also made the UNIX workstation accessible to professionals and effectively brought it to the rest of the *NIX world.

I meant this: do one thing and do it well. In some areas FreeBSD doesn't follow this principle. Let's take complicated soft updates or zfs. They're nice from end user perspective, but they affect too much of the OS in comparison to their counterparts. Yes, it applies to Linux as well when comes to leaving Unix behind. Not that I'm saying Unix was better than Linux or FreeBSD. It wasn't.