Yes, but datatbases are small.
Last edited by LightBit; 06-01-2012 at 12:01 PM.
Here is how my brain translates the article
By 'solaris' they mean 'ZFS'. Which is fine.- Solaris features without being beholden to Oracle.
who gives a crap?- The FreeBSD community focuses more on tech than on licensing and political activism like a certain freeware Unix "alike"
The port system has you compiling software, which is miserable and terrible.- The ports system does a far better job of balancing tracking recent software releases and stability than other systems of the same sort (most typically exemplified by certain popular Unix "alikes")
Oh snap. My sarcasm self-defense mechanism just kicked in. We are in for a bumpy ride now.- Well-structured OS (i.e. filesystem, kernel and its config, etc)
It's well-structered AND it is stable!!! OMG.
Wasn't this already brought up?- The ports system
WOW.- FreeBSD known for its ability to handle heavy network traffic with high performance and rock solid reliability
ROCK SOLID! Can understand STABLE and WELL STRUCTURED. But also ROCK SOLID HANDLING OF NETWORK TRAFFIC?
That just blows my mind. I am a bit weak in the knees now.
OMG. Not only is it STABLE, WELL STRUCTURED, ROCK SOLID, it is also SYSTEM OF CHOICE?- FreeBSD is the system of choice for high performance network
NOW ONLY IF IT WAS SCALABLE AND SERVER-FOCUSED.
- A kick-ass combo of features and very server-focused.
Wow. I am stunned.
KICK-ASS COMBO OF FEATURES?
It seems that both of these concepts deserve their own bullet points. Why combine both of these excellect comments in one line. Each point deserves their own sentence! FreeBSD utterly overflows.
Man. Nobody like automated brainfucks. Linux must suck. I hate to imagine what would happen if I tried to install Linux to my laptop and then it came to life to perform a automated brain fuck on me. That sounds very uncomfortable.- FreeBSD is NOT Linux = FreeBSD is stable, reliable, simple (there are no automated brainfucks... like udev, hal and dbus in base system)
Does this mean that I have to glue together my installation cdrom for Linux? That sounds like it would be difficult.- Not fragmented as Linux, (relation to many distro, that not have idea/goal)
Yes. I can tell this by the highly technical and thoughtful post that it lacks fragmentation.- The community - Unlike Linux which is very fragmented by all the different flavours and hence individual communities, FreeBSD has one community who are always happy to help with hints tips and advice. This simply cant be beaten!
Yes. Everybody loves high quality development.- The BSD license. Contrary to popular belief, it has brought a lot of high quality development to FreeBSD
There is the final piece of the puzzle!!!!- Universal toolkit. It scales easily from the thinnest embedded system, to various desktops to huge servers -- all with the same familiar tools and environment
FreeBSD is a NONFRAGMENTED ROCK SOLID COMBO OF WELL STRUCTURED STABLE SCALABLE SERVER ORIENTED FEATURES that is THE SYSTEM OF CHOICE FOR NETWORKING PERFORMANCE that isn't Linux and it's not even going to try to brainfuck you!
What more can you ask for? It's SCIENCE!
Last edited by drag; 06-01-2012 at 12:49 PM.
When Apple starting developing MacOSX (from the NeXtStep/Openstep code-base) they took a pretty hard look at various tech in *nix systems and pulled all of the stuff they felt was the best fit and that could be integrated well, with the goals they had in mind. One example beyond stuff that i've already stated, would be Apple deciding to support BSD's ports via Macports. - Which IMHO was an excellent move (I'm sure all the Gentoo and Archlinux folks would tend to agree, even if they don't like Apple - because if they didn't they have some serious cognitive dissonance going on, lol )
I wouldn't call MacOSX a mess, either. In fact, (as has been discussed previously in these forums) One great example is the MacOSX file-system layout is much more organized and elegant than any linux distro and/or BSD. Generally, all of Apple (software) components are well-defined and organized, and in most cases seem to be very well thought out.
now, if you care to give some reasons why MacOSX is so messy, i am all ears.
In Fact, i won't even use a Linux distro that doesn't have a similar build system, which is why I've settled on Archlinux - I wouldn't even consider (seriously) using any OS that don't provide a ports-like build system, not on my machines at home anyway. (ie: i wouldn't use Debian/ubuntu/Fedora/etc or Windows, on my own accord).
One of the biggest problems in Linux these days is the enabling of manual illiteracy. RTFM is a valid response when the manual is well written. Don't enable manual illiteracy. RTFM!
Unfortunately, thanks to certain idiotic forums and their candy-assed policies, STFW is rarely useful these days as most queries just bring back multiple unhelpful or unanswered threads from the same forum (and heaven help you if you answer one of those old threads).
it always annoys me when i am looking at new posts in the Archlinux forums (to possibly provide some assistance), and the poster of the thread asks the most basic stupid question and hasn't even bothered to skim through the relevant ArchWiki on the subject. I am glad that most archer's call them on it (whether they are moderators or not) and point them to the wiki, without answering their question, or maybe just giving them a hint.
I think the BSD community is smart to operate this way ~ likewise so are the Gentoo and Archlinux communities (among others). Ubuntu could learn a thing or two from this, their forums are laughable, and there documentation isn't much better, with some exceptions.