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

Groups > comp.misc > #28105 > unrolled thread

“Rock-Solid” FreeBSD

Started byLawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
First post2025-12-19 07:33 +0000
Last post2026-02-21 21:31 +0000
Articles 7 on this page of 47 — 14 participants

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 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#28167

Fromarnold@freefriends.org (Aharon Robbins)
Date2026-01-07 06:41 +0000
Message-ID<695e0025$0$675$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>
In reply to#28165
I asserted:

>> 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?

Harumph. I should not have been so glib. "There shouldn't be AT&T code
in FreeBSD" would have been better.

That code came from Sun, who paid <someone> to be able to release
Solaris as open source.  So that's what you're seeing. It's part
of ZFS, which Sun developed originally.

I suspect that the AT&T copyright notices are simply copy/paste from
whatever file the Sun engineers copied before turning the file into
part of ZFS.

In any case, I doubt that there's anything illegal there.  Any further
questions should be taken up with the FreeBSD people.

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

#28224

FromLawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date2026-02-06 06:14 +0000
Message-ID<10m40s6$3srk3$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#28161
On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 22:50:13 -0000 (UTC), I wrote:

> 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!

Now, in a new article
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/freebsd-linux-review/>, he’s changed
his tune ever so slightly:

    Once you get FreeBSD up and running, you can absolutely rely on
    it.

    Getting it up and running is the issue.

Kind of walking back his claims, without actually walking them back?

He continues:

    However, upon glancing at the start menu, there were very few apps
    installed. So, I fired up KDE Discover, only to find out it
    wouldn't work. The reason for this is PackageKit, an open-source
    software suite that simplifies the installation and management of
    software packages on Linux systems. Simplify, being the operative
    word.

    Unfortunately, PackageKit continually crashed, so KDE Discover was
    useless, and all app installations had to be done via the command
    line. Given I'm very comfortable with the command line, that's
    perfectly fine.

    On a whim, I installed GNOME, but the GDM login manager wouldn't
    start, so I stuck with KDE Plasma.

So he thought he had got it running, then tried to make a change, and
failed.

That “rock solid” claim is starting to sound more and more flimsy,
don’t you think ...

> 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.

Now he’s got a new analogy to try to prop his “stability” myth:

    Imagine two companies that make cars. One outsources all of its
    components from other manufacturers and assembles them in its
    warehouse. The second builds all of its components and also
    assembles them in its warehouse.

    As you might assume, the second manufacturer's cars most likely
    work and perform better than the first because it knows every part
    that goes into creating the car and can make all sorts of
    adjustments to improve every aspect of it. The first manufacturer,
    on the other hand, doesn't have nearly the control over how those
    components are built.

Except that’s not how car manufacture works at all. *Everybody* buys
in outsourced components for at least some parts of their vehicles.
Are cars less reliable as a result? On the contrary, they are *more*
reliable (and safer) now than they have ever been.

A similar thing applies to Linux: the common distros were always, from
the beginning, built up out of modular pieces from a great many
sources. Over time, most of the rough edges in getting those pieces
working together have been smoothed out, which is why you can have
hundreds of Linux distros available, and interoperate so easily
between them.

By contrast, the BSDs have become too accustomed to having centralized
control over everything. This is why there are so few BSD variants,
yet there is so much fragmentation between them. Another result is, as
they try to adopt components coming from the Linux world, they are
unfamiliar with how modular, collaborative software development works,
and the quality of the result suffers.

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

#28226

Fromvallor <vallor@vallor.earth>
Date2026-02-07 03:55 +0000
Message-ID<10m6d4d$obt1$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to#28224
At Fri, 6 Feb 2026 06:14:31 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 22:50:13 -0000 (UTC), I wrote:
>
> > 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!
>
> Now, in a new article
> <https://www.zdnet.com/article/freebsd-linux-review/>, he’s changed
> his tune ever so slightly:
>
>     Once you get FreeBSD up and running, you can absolutely rely on
>     it.
>
>     Getting it up and running is the issue.
>
> Kind of walking back his claims, without actually walking them back?
>
> He continues:
>
>     However, upon glancing at the start menu, there were very few apps
>     installed. So, I fired up KDE Discover, only to find out it
>     wouldn't work. The reason for this is PackageKit, an open-source
>     software suite that simplifies the installation and management of
>     software packages on Linux systems. Simplify, being the operative
>     word.
>
>     Unfortunately, PackageKit continually crashed, so KDE Discover was
>     useless, and all app installations had to be done via the command
>     line. Given I'm very comfortable with the command line, that's
>     perfectly fine.
>
>     On a whim, I installed GNOME, but the GDM login manager wouldn't
>     start, so I stuck with KDE Plasma.
>
> So he thought he had got it running, then tried to make a change, and
> failed.
>
> That “rock solid” claim is starting to sound more and more flimsy,
> don’t you think ...
>
> > 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.
>
> Now he’s got a new analogy to try to prop his “stability” myth:
>
>     Imagine two companies that make cars. One outsources all of its
>     components from other manufacturers and assembles them in its
>     warehouse. The second builds all of its components and also
>     assembles them in its warehouse.
>
>     As you might assume, the second manufacturer's cars most likely
>     work and perform better than the first because it knows every part
>     that goes into creating the car and can make all sorts of
>     adjustments to improve every aspect of it. The first manufacturer,
>     on the other hand, doesn't have nearly the control over how those
>     components are built.
>
> Except that’s not how car manufacture works at all. *Everybody* buys
> in outsourced components for at least some parts of their vehicles.
> Are cars less reliable as a result? On the contrary, they are *more*
> reliable (and safer) now than they have ever been.
>
> A similar thing applies to Linux: the common distros were always, from
> the beginning, built up out of modular pieces from a great many
> sources. Over time, most of the rough edges in getting those pieces
> working together have been smoothed out, which is why you can have
> hundreds of Linux distros available, and interoperate so easily
> between them.
>
> By contrast, the BSDs have become too accustomed to having centralized
> control over everything. This is why there are so few BSD variants,
> yet there is so much fragmentation between them. Another result is, as
> they try to adopt components coming from the Linux world, they are
> unfamiliar with how modular, collaborative software development works,
> and the quality of the result suffers.

Almost like a BSD "Cathedral" vs. the Linux distro "Bazaar"

From The Jargon File (version 4.4.7, 29 Dec 2003) [jargon]:

  bazaar
   n.,adj.
  
      In 1997, after meditating on the success of {Linux} for three
      years, the Jargon File's own editor ESR wrote an analytical paper
      on hacker culture and development models titled The Cathedral and
      the Bazaar. The main argument of the paper was that {Brooks's
      Law} is not the whole story; given the right social machinery,
      debugging can be efficiently parallelized across large numbers of
      programmers. The title metaphor caught on (see also {cathedral}),
      and the style of development typical in the Linux community is
      now often referred to as the bazaar mode. Its characteristics
      include releasing code early and often, and actively seeking the
      largest possible pool of peer reviewers. After 1998, the evident
      success of this way of doing things became one of the strongest
      arguments for {open source}.

-- 
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 Mem: 258G
   OS: Linux 6.18.9 D: Mint 22.3 DE: Xfce 4.18 (X11)
   NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090Ti (24G) (580.105.08)
   "If a program is useless, it must be documented."

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

#28246

FromLawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date2026-02-21 00:11 +0000
Message-ID<10nat6q$r5k5$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#28105
A new article from Jack Wallen, entitled “I found the best Linux
server distros for your home lab”
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/best-linux-server-distros-for-your-home-lab/>,
recommends a few of the usual suspects for getting experience with
servers: Ubuntu Server, Debian, Rocky (as the successor to late,
lamented CentOS), plus Fedora Server, which was a new one to me.

This quote is rather telling:

    The primary reason I would recommend Debian as your server OS is
    its legendary stability. There simply is not a more stable OS on
    the planet. Some people might argue that Slackware is more stable
    because of its Unix-like nature. I say this call is too close to
    make, but either OS is solid. However, Debian is easier to use.

So, what happened to “rock-solid” FreeBSD? Remember this quote from
his first article:

    Sure, I talk a lot about how reliable Debian is, but even Debian
    can't touch the stability of FreeBSD.

I get the feeling he isn’t so keen on that any more ...

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

#28248 — Re: ???Rock-Solid??? FreeBSD

FromJim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk>
Date2026-02-21 19:09 +0000
SubjectRe: ???Rock-Solid??? FreeBSD
Message-ID<slrn10pk0mm.8c9.jj@iridium.wf32df>
In reply to#28246
On 2026-02-21, Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> A new article from Jack Wallen, entitled ???I found the best Linux
> server distros for your home lab???
><https://www.zdnet.com/article/best-linux-server-distros-for-your-home-lab/>,
> recommends a few of the usual suspects for getting experience with
> servers: Ubuntu Server, Debian, Rocky (as the successor to late,
> lamented CentOS), plus Fedora Server, which was a new one to me.
>
> This quote is rather telling:
>
>     The primary reason I would recommend Debian as your server OS is
>     its legendary stability. There simply is not a more stable OS on
>     the planet. Some people might argue that Slackware is more stable
>     because of its Unix-like nature. I say this call is too close to
>     make, but either OS is solid. However, Debian is easier to use.
>
> So, what happened to ???rock-solid??? FreeBSD? Remember this quote from
> his first article:
>
>     Sure, I talk a lot about how reliable Debian is, but even Debian
>     can't touch the stability of FreeBSD.
>
> I get the feeling he isn???t so keen on that any more ...

Nah, he's just imitating AI - saying the first thing that come sinto his head.

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

#28249

Fromkludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Date2026-02-21 15:39 -0500
Message-ID<10nd55u$ait$1@panix2.panix.com>
In reply to#28246
Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=  <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>I get the feeling he isn't so keen on that any more ...

Umm... it's an article about Linux distros.  Why would anyone mention
BSD?  
--scott

-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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

#28250

FromLawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date2026-02-21 21:31 +0000
Message-ID<10nd88d$1jipc$5@dont-email.me>
In reply to#28249
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 15:39:26 -0500 (EST), Scott Dorsey wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 00:11:07 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> I get the feeling he isn't so keen on that any more ...
>
> Umm... it's an article about Linux distros. Why would anyone mention
> BSD?

After he was so keen on it before?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web