Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #28105 > unrolled thread

“Rock-Solid” FreeBSD

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-19 07:33 +0000
    Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-12-19 11:03 +0000
      Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-19 21:19 +0000
        Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-12-20 17:40 +0000
          Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-20 22:47 +0000
      Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2025-12-20 15:20 -0500
        Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-20 22:33 +0000
    Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2025-12-19 13:32 +0000
      Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-19 21:09 +0000
        Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2025-12-22 13:38 +0000
          Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-22 21:21 +0000
            Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2025-12-23 13:38 +0000
              Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-23 20:31 +0000
                Solaris (was: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2025-12-24 13:18 +0000
      Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2026-01-14 11:29 +0200
        ZFS on Linux (was: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-01-14 14:00 +0000
        Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-01-14 15:29 +0000
          Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2026-01-21 14:31 +0200
            Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-01-22 14:14 +0000
              Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2026-01-22 18:51 +0000
                Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-22 20:46 +0000
                Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Ian <${send-direct-email-to-news1021-at-jusme-dot-com-if-you-must}@jusme.com> - 2026-01-23 08:13 +0000
                  Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-23 20:51 +0000
                    Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Ian <${send-direct-email-to-news1021-at-jusme-dot-com-if-you-must}@jusme.com> - 2026-01-24 08:49 +0000
                      Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-24 21:27 +0000
                        Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Ian <${send-direct-email-to-news1021-at-jusme-dot-com-if-you-must}@jusme.com> - 2026-01-25 08:50 +0000
                          Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-25 18:56 +0000
                Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-01-23 12:25 +0000
                Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-01-25 11:02 +0100
                  Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-25 18:56 +0000
                    Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-01-28 19:25 +0100
              Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-01-24 10:46 -0500
                Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-01-26 23:10 +0000
                  Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-01-27 19:03 -0500
                    Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-01-28 13:23 +0000
                      Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-01-28 11:58 -0500
    Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-05 22:50 +0000
      Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-06 09:42 +0000
        Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD arnold@freefriends.org (Aharon Robbins) - 2026-01-06 14:08 +0000
          Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-06 22:59 +0000
            Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD arnold@freefriends.org (Aharon Robbins) - 2026-01-07 06:41 +0000
      Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-06 06:14 +0000
        Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-02-07 03:55 +0000
    Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-21 00:11 +0000
      Re: ???Rock-Solid??? FreeBSD Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2026-02-21 19:09 +0000
      Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-02-21 15:39 -0500
        Re: “Rock-Solid” FreeBSD Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-21 21:31 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#28195

On 22 Jan 2026 18:51:02 GMT, Aharon Robbins wrote:

> I have real work to get done, I don't need to spend weeks learning
> how BSD does the same thing I already know how to do.

Here’s another point: different BSDs do things differently --
different as in right down to the kernel level.

Compare: 300-over Linux distros on the one hand, versus less than half
a dozen BSD variants on the other. One offers a breathtaking, even
bewildering, level of variety of choice, with minimal interoperability
issues -- i.e. minimal fragmentation. The other offers much less
variety of choice, at the cost of much more fragmentation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28196

On 2026-01-22, Aharon Robbins <arnold@skeeve.com> wrote:
> In article <10ktbbd$ge1$1@reader2.panix.com>,
> Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>>...or you could just run FreeBSD and avoid the whole issue.  Why
>>bother with Linux?  What's so special about it that people feel
>>_compelled_ to run it?
>
> I don't use ZFS, so maybe your question is what's so special
> about the combination of ZFS and Linux?
>
> But if you're really asking the general question, I can tell you:
>
> 1. The user land is usually based on the GNU tools: No arbitrary limits
> applies.  I have no idea if there are still fixed limits in
> the BSD user land.
>
> 2. These days, just about *everything* just works, without fuss or muss.
>
> 	- Install on even fairly new hardware goes smoothly
> 	- Installers are usually graphical
> 	- One's choice of GUI environments (I use Ubuntu Mate)
> 	- Software updates (at least on Ubuntu) work super smoothly
> 	- Installing additional software is trivial
>
> 3. Linux performs quite well, and certainly better than Windows
> (yeah, not the comparison).
>
> I don't remember which BSD I recently tried to bring up in a VM
> (maybe FreeBSD) but installation was like jumping back 40 years
> in time to the ASCII-art spinning wheel. It didn't even come up
> with a GUI, or else it was X with TWM and no menus, or something
> ridiculous like that.
>
> I'll agree. A lot of it is familiarity, but also the fact that I see no
> compelling reason to switch.  Why climb a brand new learning curve
> just to get to the same point I'm already at?
>
> I have real work to get done, I don't need to spend weeks learning
> how BSD does the same thing I already know how to do.
>
> 4. The elephant in the room: Everybody else is on Linux, which
> means if I want something commercial that only runs on Linux, I
> can get it. Not so on *BSD.
>
> I've been using Linux as my daily driver since mid-1997. It's done
> real well for me. Why switch to something that I don't see is
> better?

Yes, Linux is becoming the new Windows - if you want something to
"just work", rather than become a project in itself.

Unfortunately there are still at least two major factions in the
Linux world, the debian/Ubuntu-like and the RedHat/Fedora-like,
and if your chosen tool was developed by fans of one camp you're
on a hiding to nothing trying to use it on the rival distribution.

Yes, some things really are truly portable, but not everything,
and the higher up the functionality-stack you go the less portable
it seems to be - understandably.

Fortunately I have a nice big virtualisation host, so deploying
a VM of the appropriate flavour for a tool isn't such a big deal
(CentOS, Alpine, Ubuntu, Windows, whatever).

-- 
Ian

"Tamahome!!!" - "Miaka!!!"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28200

On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 08:13:35 -0000 (UTC), Ian wrote:

> Yes, Linux is becoming the new Windows - if you want something to
> "just work", rather than become a project in itself.

The difference is, that was never true of Windows: it’s just that
people had long experience with an ever-growing collection of
voodoo/black-magic tricks (e.g. registry edits) to get things working.

> Unfortunately there are still at least two major factions in the
> Linux world, the debian/Ubuntu-like and the RedHat/Fedora-like, and
> if your chosen tool was developed by fans of one camp you're on a
> hiding to nothing trying to use it on the rival distribution.

Most command-line/scripting tools are very much in common. The package
managers may be different, but that’s not a major stumbling block.

> Yes, some things really are truly portable, but not everything, and
> the higher up the functionality-stack you go the less portable it
> seems to be - understandably.

Can you give examples of such interoperability issues, other than
perhaps GUI-based ones?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28201

On 2026-01-23, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 08:13:35 -0000 (UTC), Ian wrote:
>
>> Yes, Linux is becoming the new Windows - if you want something to
>> "just work", rather than become a project in itself.
>
> The difference is, that was never true of Windows: it’s just that
> people had long experience with an ever-growing collection of
> voodoo/black-magic tricks (e.g. registry edits) to get things working.

For the large part, it was (and mostly still is). And where hacks were
needed they were already known.


>> Unfortunately there are still at least two major factions in the
>> Linux world, the debian/Ubuntu-like and the RedHat/Fedora-like, and
>> if your chosen tool was developed by fans of one camp you're on a
>> hiding to nothing trying to use it on the rival distribution.
>
> Most command-line/scripting tools are very much in common. The package
> managers may be different, but that’s not a major stumbling block.
>
>> Yes, some things really are truly portable, but not everything, and
>> the higher up the functionality-stack you go the less portable it
>> seems to be - understandably.
>
> Can you give examples of such interoperability issues, other than
> perhaps GUI-based ones?

I'm talking about high-end applications, e.g. 3D modelling software,
video editing, media servers. At this level I just want to launch
the installer, click "yes" "yes" "yes", then get on learning / using
the tool, not spending a day tracking down some obscure dependency,
or hacking the config files because the binaries are in /usr/bin
instead of /opt/thing/bin or whatever.

-- 
Ian

"Tamahome!!!" - "Miaka!!!"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28203

On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 08:49:01 -0000 (UTC), Ian wrote:

> On 2026-01-23, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Can you give examples of such interoperability issues, other than
>> perhaps GUI-based ones?
>
> I'm talking about high-end applications, e.g. 3D modelling software,
> video editing, media servers. At this level I just want to launch
> the installer, click "yes" "yes" "yes", then get on learning / using
> the tool ...

Such things are usually available in the package repos: no need to hunt
down installers from third-party sites, just select from the package
manager, click “Install” and go.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28204

On 2026-01-24, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 08:49:01 -0000 (UTC), Ian wrote:
>
>> On 2026-01-23, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> Can you give examples of such interoperability issues, other than
>>> perhaps GUI-based ones?
>>
>> I'm talking about high-end applications, e.g. 3D modelling software,
>> video editing, media servers. At this level I just want to launch
>> the installer, click "yes" "yes" "yes", then get on learning / using
>> the tool ...
>
> Such things are usually available in the package repos: no need to hunt
> down installers from third-party sites, just select from the package
> manager, click “Install” and go.

"Usually". Experience says otherwise.

-- 
Ian

"Tamahome!!!" - "Miaka!!!"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28207

On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 08:50:21 -0000 (UTC), Ian wrote:

> On 2026-01-24, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 08:49:01 -0000 (UTC), Ian wrote:
>>
>>> On 2026-01-23, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Can you give examples of such interoperability issues, other than
>>>> perhaps GUI-based ones?
>>>
>>> I'm talking about high-end applications, e.g. 3D modelling
>>> software, video editing, media servers. At this level I just want
>>> to launch the installer, click "yes" "yes" "yes", then get on
>>> learning / using the tool ...
>>
>> Such things are usually available in the package repos: no need to
>> hunt down installers from third-party sites, just select from the
>> package manager, click “Install” and go.
>
> "Usually". Experience says otherwise.

All the ones you mentioned certainly are.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28197

In article <69727196$0$666$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>,
Aharon Robbins <arnold@skeeve.com> wrote:
>In article <10ktbbd$ge1$1@reader2.panix.com>,
>Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>>...or you could just run FreeBSD and avoid the whole issue.  Why
>>bother with Linux?  What's so special about it that people feel
>>_compelled_ to run it?
>
>I don't use ZFS, so maybe your question is what's so special
>about the combination of ZFS and Linux?

Yes, it was specifically about Linux and ZFS.

I do have a few follow-ups about some of your comments; inline.

>But if you're really asking the general question, I can tell you:
>
>1. The user land is usually based on the GNU tools: No arbitrary limits
>applies.  I have no idea if there are still fixed limits in
>the BSD user land.

My sense is that, at this point, pretty much all of these have
been removed.  Having seen the source for many of the GNU tools,
I'd put the BSD tools somewhat above them in terms of quality
and polish.  I would counter that most have useful man pages,
while some GNU tools seem to still rely on `info` for their
primary documentation.

>2. These days, just about *everything* just works, without fuss or muss.
>
>	- Install on even fairly new hardware goes smoothly
>	- Installers are usually graphical
>	- One's choice of GUI environments (I use Ubuntu Mate)
>	- Software updates (at least on Ubuntu) work super smoothly
>	- Installing additional software is trivial

I don't have many problems installing things on FreeBSD, it does
support multiple desktop environments, and installation of third
party software is trivial.  In the next release, the base system
will be changed to use the package management system, so updates
to the base system will use the same mechanism as third party
software.

The graphical installer thing is kind of an odd one to me; I've
heard this several times before.  I get that the TUI may not be
to everyone's taste, but surely you don't install the OS all the
time?

On the other hand, look at the installation process for (say)
Arch.  Not only is it non-graphical, it's extremely manual.  And
I'm often surprised at how many things are missing from from
either the Pacman or AUR repos: the `oo2c` compiler came up in
comp.lang.oberong the other day; it wasn't on my Arch system,
but worked just fine on FreeBSD.

>3. Linux performs quite well, and certainly better than Windows
>(yeah, not the comparison).

I think performance of BSD relative to Linux is quite good,
though it likely depends heavily on what one is doing.  Netflix
pushes hundreds of gigabits through the FreeBSD networking stack
on a single system; but UFS always "felt" slower than ext2
because of the way they handled metadata updates; on the flip
side it didn't tend to lose my data.  :-)

>I don't remember which BSD I recently tried to bring up in a VM
>(maybe FreeBSD) but installation was like jumping back 40 years
>in time to the ASCII-art spinning wheel. It didn't even come up
>with a GUI, or else it was X with TWM and no menus, or something
>ridiculous like that.
>
>I'll agree. A lot of it is familiarity, but also the fact that I see no
>compelling reason to switch.  Why climb a brand new learning curve
>just to get to the same point I'm already at?

Well, in this specific case, it was because ZFS is maintained
out of tree, and a kernel update could break the filesystem.  If
the system in question is, say, an NFS server or something, it
seems unecessarily risky to use ZFS on Linux just to run Linux.

>I have real work to get done, I don't need to spend weeks learning
>how BSD does the same thing I already know how to do.

Would it really be weeks, though?

>4. The elephant in the room: Everybody else is on Linux, which
>means if I want something commercial that only runs on Linux, I
>can get it. Not so on *BSD.

That's why I'm sitting in front of a Mac.  :-D  Note this is
also the strongest argument for Windows.

This is admittedly a weak area in the BSD ecosystem, but I would
counter that it's also somewhat niche.

The BSDs often have Linux compat layers for these use cases,
though I confess I've never used them and don't know how well
they would fare for complex use cases.

It bears point out, however, that ironically we're talking about
this because of software that's native and integrated into
FreeBSD, but requires out-of-tree shenanigans that are fragile
on Linux.  This is, perhaps, a rare case of something that runs
natively on FreeBSD, but requires hacks to run on Linux, rather
than software native to Linux that requires hacks on FreeBSD.

>I've been using Linux as my daily driver since mid-1997. It's done
>real well for me. Why switch to something that I don't see is
>better?

To be clear, I'm not necessarily saying that you should.

But if you wanted to do something esoteric (like run ZFS on
Linux, which I consider mildly esoteric) that works better on
BSD, one must ask, why try to force that square peg into a
round hole?  Linux has perfectly adequate in-tree filesystems
that perform well and are robust; on the other hand, as pointed
out, a kernel update could break your system pretty
spectacularly; workarounds exist, sure, but why open yourself up
to that possibility if you don't have to?  I mean, if it's just
as a learn exercise, then ok...but for production systems?  I'm
not sure that's a great idea.

There's also the matter that the rate of change on Linux is high
and distros change things in seemingly gratuitous ways.  systemd
vs system V-style init vs /etc/rc and inittab, and so on are the
obvious examples, but I would point to things like the `ip`
command replacing `ifconfig` and `ss` replacing `netstat` as
more subtle examples.

I think the first time I installed Linux was in 1993 (or perhaps
early 1994), and at the time it reminded me of SunOS; not when I
look at it, it's nothing like that at all.  I think we should
agree that the Linux you ran in 1997 just isn't the same Linux
as today, and we are all constantly changing the way we do
things as Linux evolves.  This isn't bad per se, but it does
weaken the argument about having to relearn things, though
granted it happens in a much more incremental, ship of Thesius
kind of way.  Nevermind that plethora of distributions that all
do things slightly differently (though in fairness there seem to
be only a few family strains...).

There's also the matter of Linux being a near monoculture.  Just
as with biological systems, these are susceptible to all sorts
of external dangers, so it is with software.  Diversity in terms
of the systems we run produces, I think, more robust and higher
quality software.  My own experience is that when I write
software that make sure runs across a variety of different
systems (Linux, *BSD, macOS, illumos...) the result tends to be
higher-quality than if I only run it on any one of those.

I suppose it's a matter of balancing the benefits from the
network effects one takes advnatage of when one uses Linux with
the possibility of instability when one also chooses to use ZFS
or something like it.  Which is more important is, of course, an
individual (or organization) question and there's no universal
answer.  But I suspect, things like the installer aside, and of
course systemd, BSD and Linux are a lot closer than most people
expect.

	- Dan C.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28205

On 22.01.2026 18:51 Uhr Aharon Robbins wrote:

> I don't remember which BSD I recently tried to bring up in a VM
> (maybe FreeBSD) but installation was like jumping back 40 years
> in time to the ASCII-art spinning wheel. It didn't even come up
> with a GUI, or else it was X with TWM and no menus, or something
> ridiculous like that.

The FreeBSD setup is indeed tui-only. After setup, you can install X11
and desktops like KDE if you like.

-- 
kind regards
Marco

Send spam to 1769104262muell@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28206

On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 11:02:52 +0100, Marco Moock wrote:

> The FreeBSD setup is indeed tui-only. After setup, you can install
> X11 and desktops like KDE if you like.

KDE is moving to drop support for X11, as I understand it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28214

On 25.01.2026 18:56 Uhr Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 11:02:52 +0100, Marco Moock wrote:
> 
> > The FreeBSD setup is indeed tui-only. After setup, you can install
> > X11 and desktops like KDE if you like.  
> 
> KDE is moving to drop support for X11, as I understand it.

IIRC Wayland is also supported on FreeBSD, but I haven't tested it.

-- 
kind regards
Marco

Send spam to 1769363760muell@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28202

Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>...or you could just run FreeBSD and avoid the whole issue.  Why
>bother with Linux?  What's so special about it that people feel
>_compelled_ to run it?

Third party commercial applications will run on it.  Matlab will not
run on BSD unfortunately.
--scott
-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28209

In article <10l2pga$i97$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>>...or you could just run FreeBSD and avoid the whole issue.  Why
>>bother with Linux?  What's so special about it that people feel
>>_compelled_ to run it?
>
>Third party commercial applications will run on it.  Matlab will not
>run on BSD unfortunately.

Yeah, I get that.  I do wonder whether it would work with the
Linux compat stuff, but really have no idea about that.  I
suppose then I would ask, given the requirement to run an
application like Matlab, which implies Linux, why bother with
ZFS?

	- Dan C.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28211

In article <10l8sa1$ft6$1@reader2.panix.com>,
Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>In article <10l2pga$i97$1@panix2.panix.com>,
>Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>>Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>>>...or you could just run FreeBSD and avoid the whole issue.  Why
>>>bother with Linux?  What's so special about it that people feel
>>>_compelled_ to run it?
>>
>>Third party commercial applications will run on it.  Matlab will not
>>run on BSD unfortunately.
>
>Yeah, I get that.  I do wonder whether it would work with the
>Linux compat stuff, but really have no idea about that.  I
>suppose then I would ask, given the requirement to run an
>application like Matlab, which implies Linux, why bother with
>ZFS?

I don't need ZFS.  There are plenty of other reasons to like BSD.
--scott
-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28212

In article <10lbjo4$r2n$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <10l8sa1$ft6$1@reader2.panix.com>,
>Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>>In article <10l2pga$i97$1@panix2.panix.com>,
>>Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>>>Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>>>>...or you could just run FreeBSD and avoid the whole issue.  Why
>>>>bother with Linux?  What's so special about it that people feel
>>>>_compelled_ to run it?
>>>
>>>Third party commercial applications will run on it.  Matlab will not
>>>run on BSD unfortunately.
>>
>>Yeah, I get that.  I do wonder whether it would work with the
>>Linux compat stuff, but really have no idea about that.  I
>>suppose then I would ask, given the requirement to run an
>>application like Matlab, which implies Linux, why bother with
>>ZFS?
>
>I don't need ZFS.  There are plenty of other reasons to like BSD.

That's fine.  This discussion in particular was about ZFS on
Linux, though.

	- Dan C.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28213

In article <10ld2k2$5ce$1@reader2.panix.com>,
Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>In article <10lbjo4$r2n$1@panix2.panix.com>,
>Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <10l8sa1$ft6$1@reader2.panix.com>,
>>Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>>>In article <10l2pga$i97$1@panix2.panix.com>,
>>>Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
>>>>>...or you could just run FreeBSD and avoid the whole issue.  Why
>>>>>bother with Linux?  What's so special about it that people feel
>>>>>_compelled_ to run it?
>>>>
>>>>Third party commercial applications will run on it.  Matlab will not
>>>>run on BSD unfortunately.
>>>
>>>Yeah, I get that.  I do wonder whether it would work with the
>>>Linux compat stuff, but really have no idea about that.  I
>>>suppose then I would ask, given the requirement to run an
>>>application like Matlab, which implies Linux, why bother with
>>>ZFS?
>>
>>I don't need ZFS.  There are plenty of other reasons to like BSD.
>
>That's fine.  This discussion in particular was about ZFS on
>Linux, though.

It did indeed start out that way, yes.
--scott
-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28161

Jack Wallen is at it again
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/freebsd-vs-slackware/>, still trying to
claim that

    ... FreeBSD is incredibly stable. I would go so far as to say that
    it's the most stable operating system available.

This in spite of the problems he had with the install before!

He also repeats the old myth

    Because FreeBSD is a descendant of the original AT&T UNIX code,
    you can bet it inherited the stability of its predecessor.

None of the BSDs have *any* AT&T Unix code in them. AT&T filed an
actual lawsuit to see to that.

Interesting how he sees an inflexible, monolithic development model
as an advantage:

    With Linux, the kernel is developed by one team, userland
    utilities are developed by other teams, libraries are developed by
    yet another, and documentation is created and maintained by
    another. FreeBSD, on the other hand, does all of that via the same
    team. What this does is create a highly stable, unified design
    that is rock-solid and reliable in ways most other operating
    systems can't touch.

If you want to argue age:

    The first version of FreeBSD was released in 1993, which means it
    has had a long time to mature.

then it’s worth noting that the first version of Linux was released
two years prior to that, so it has had an even longer time to mature.

Features that he somehow tries to suggest are FreeBSD-specific:

  • Native support for an advanced, fault-tolerant ZFS file system
    with pooled storage, snapshots, and data integrity.
  • Lightweight containerization for running isolated services to
    improve security and resource management beyond the traditional
    chroot found in Linux.
  • A built-in, efficient type-2 hypervisor for virtualization.
  • Highly optimized TCP/IP stack, robust tools, and support for
    modern protocols, perfect for network-intensive applications.
  • ACLs, MAC frameworks (TrustedBSD), auditing, and encryption (GELI).

All of these have Linux equivalents that are as good or better.
Remember that Linux invented containerization. And I would say its
networking stack has long left the BSDs in the dust.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28162

Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> He also repeats the old myth
>
>     Because FreeBSD is a descendant of the original AT&T UNIX code,
>     you can bet it inherited the stability of its predecessor.
>
> None of the BSDs have *any* AT&T Unix code in them. AT&T filed an
> actual lawsuit to see to that.

Counterexample:
https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src/blob/main/contrib/one-true-awk/awk.h

The copyright notice says 'Lucent' but that's an AT&T spinoff,
presumably the one that ended up owning that version of awk when they
did the split.

It’s not a recent addition, either. The version in 4.4BSDLite2,
https://github.com/sergev/4.4BSD-Lite2/blob/master/usr/src/contrib/awk.research/awk.h,
has an explicit AT&T copyright.

Compare
with https://github.com/calmsacibis995/svr4-src/blob/main/cmd/awk/awk.h,
the same file in SVR4, and the relationship is obvious.

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28163

In article <wwveco3axh8.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk>,
Richard Kettlewell  <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>> He also repeats the old myth
>>
>>     Because FreeBSD is a descendant of the original AT&T UNIX code,
>>     you can bet it inherited the stability of its predecessor.
>>
>> None of the BSDs have *any* AT&T Unix code in them. AT&T filed an
>> actual lawsuit to see to that.
>
>Counterexample:
>https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src/blob/main/contrib/one-true-awk/awk.h
>
>The copyright notice says 'Lucent' but that's an AT&T spinoff,
>presumably the one that ended up owning that version of awk when they
>did the split.
>
>It’s not a recent addition, either. The version in 4.4BSDLite2,
>https://github.com/sergev/4.4BSD-Lite2/blob/master/usr/src/contrib/awk.research/awk.h,
>has an explicit AT&T copyright.
>
>Compare
>with https://github.com/calmsacibis995/svr4-src/blob/main/cmd/awk/awk.h,
>the same file in SVR4, and the relationship is obvious.
>
>-- 
>https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

The one true awk has its own license. Yes, it was from Unix awk, but
there's no AT&T kernel code in FreeBSD.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#28165

arnold@freefriends.org (Aharon Robbins) writes:
> Richard Kettlewell  <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
>>> He also repeats the old myth
>>>
>>>     Because FreeBSD is a descendant of the original AT&T UNIX code,
>>>     you can bet it inherited the stability of its predecessor.
>>>
>>> None of the BSDs have *any* AT&T Unix code in them. AT&T filed an
>>> actual lawsuit to see to that.
>>
>>Counterexample:
>>https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src/blob/main/contrib/one-true-awk/awk.h
>>
>>The copyright notice says 'Lucent' but that's an AT&T spinoff,
>>presumably the one that ended up owning that version of awk when they
>>did the split.
>>
>>It’s not a recent addition, either. The version in 4.4BSDLite2,
>>https://github.com/sergev/4.4BSD-Lite2/blob/master/usr/src/contrib/awk.research/awk.h,
>>has an explicit AT&T copyright.
>>
>>Compare
>>with https://github.com/calmsacibis995/svr4-src/blob/main/cmd/awk/awk.h,
>>the same file in SVR4, and the relationship is obvious.
>
> The one true awk has its own license. Yes, it was from Unix awk, but
> there's no AT&T kernel code in FreeBSD.

How about
https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src/blob/main/sys/contrib/openzfs/module/os/freebsd/spl/spl_uio.c#L27
then?

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web