Features Coming For FreeBSD 10

[gamerk2]

Are you a kid? Why are you complaining to me about bugs? There's gazillions of bugs in any big project why should I bother about the one that bothers you?

Boy, imagine if every developer thought like you did...

[gamerk2]

However, by saying FreeBSD is pathetic I don't think he was talking about stability. Linux and Unix like systems are the most stable. The problem with BSD is it's always behind, because of the lack of manpower. The features that are comming to FreeBSD 10 are already present in Linux.

Translation: BSD is about where Linux was a decade ago. Therefore, Linux, a decade ago (according to some), was pathetic.

No, I'm NOT knocking Linux, but pointing out the logical fail by some here. FreeBSD is less developed, but its innards are actually quite well designed. I don't believe its out of the OS race yet.

[ryao]

Fact is that Linux has a FAR greater reach than BSD, and it continues to advance at a breakneck pace while BSD isn't apparently going anyware very fast.

Mac OS X and iOS derive significant amounts of kernel and userland code from FreeBSD, so that is not true. As far as I know, the total number of BSD-based operating systems with which the general public interacts far exceeds those containing Linux code.

The unfortunate problem with the BSD license, is that for it to be successful, everybody who works on it or uses it HAS to VOLUNTARILY contribute back to it. It depends on the HONOR system, and we all know that MOST people and organizations LACK HONOR.

The honorable thing that some of the organizations that contribute code to Linux could do with their code would be to delete it. Not everything is worth contributing, or even using. Not having a driver is often better than having one that is full of bugs. It would be better for everyone if these companies released hardware documentation instead of code.

[vertexSymphony]

I'm saying that there's always something about an OS which one can extrapolate into making others believe it's a better OS than another one. I even gave you the Microsoft example, how come you didn't get it?

Well, this argument can be used against the first thing you said on this thread .... admit it, Sergio && ryao gave you a terrible bitchslap.
nonetheless, some people fail to see those FreeBSD/Solaris-only features that in certain enviroments make a difference (ex: btrfs can't hold a candle to zfs) when picking one OS or another.

These operating systems have a lot to put on the table, and, as long it's that way, they're not going anywhere anytime soon ... And I'm glad to see the diversity that gets us SO dickhard when we talk about systems like linux and gnu to people new in the FOSS world

Regards.

[Rallos Zek]

BSD is Great, Linux is Great

SystemD sucks as does PulseAudio. Thankfully Slackware is smart enough not to taint my system with such a god ugly mess that's not in the Spirit of UNIX

As a Slackware user and former FreeBSD user I like the BSD init system far better then SystemD or System V

The one thing I hate about the BSD's is that you can't mix and match your system, if there is a new driver for FreeBSD you cant just get a new kernel version and compile it, you most of the time have to update your whole system to the new release.

With Linux I can use a distro release from 5 years ago and have the newest kernel with the latest drivers without updating the whole system I should choose.

BSD as a system is alot more clean and sane then most Linux distros, but the Linux kernel is far better than anything in BSD land.

Slackware gives me the best of BSD like saneness and Linux awesomeness.

[vertexSymphony]

One could start by saying that at least Linux doesn't need a freebsd api or layer compatibility emulation.
God i love geek flamewars

The linuxulator is no emulator ... inform yourself → http://www.leidinger.net/blog/2010/1...lopers-basics/
Well, it's there to allow more software to be available in FreeBSD, that for one reason or another can't be ported or as an inmediate way to have access to a software that's there for linux.

Linux needs no FreeBSD compat layer, in general people at FreeBSD writes in a fairly portable manner (unless we talk about a very specific OS thing), so there's no need =)

An outdated Xorg, no wayland in the horizon , outdated and less drivers, lack of a modern init system like systemd, no pulse audio, only one distribution... etc

FreeBSD is not trying to compete with Windows like linux does, by trying to get into the desktop
Some desktop things are implemented, but they are not a priority, at all ...

That should be promoted as a feature

Actually there's pulseaudio support (despite lennart's biased bitching), but it's not shoven down to everyone's throats ... I could perflectly have a system without using it (and, in fact, I was happier that way, honestly)
systemd is irrelevant, we need a simple init system that works for production systems ... honestly, you don't restart a production system often, do you?

On the topic of Wayland, video games like Unigine Oilrush have no problems drawing at the refresh rate with the right hardware and driver combinations while Xorg performs extremely well on my system. In the few cases where Xorg does not, I have found flaws in software, such as usleep() being used in konsole's draw routine. While Statements from users claim that Wayland is some wonder cure, statements from Wayland developers say that any improvements would likely be imperceptible. I have also yet to see an explanation as to how a protocol that ran smoothly on hardware from the 1980s could be a performance bottleneck on hardware today.

I'ts mainly a change for developers, thing that will benefit indirectly the users ... allowing to have newer stuff implemented elegantly, having a simpler and cleaner code base and such.
Again, the Desktop OS argument.

The features that are comming to FreeBSD 10 are already present in Linux.

Michael didn't post a lot of stuff that people suscribed to mailing lists knows ... ignoring the fact that things like ZFS is on the list (and the possible support for boot enviroments too), and libc++ too (last time I checked, no linux support), I grant the others, of course.

Yes, there are some nice features of BSD that Linux lacks. I think there are more nice features in Linux that aren't in BSD, but that's my opinion so fuck off if you feel like countering this point.

Ok, "fuck off" granted .... *rolleyes*

The one thing I hate about the BSD's is that you can't mix and match your system, if there is a new driver for FreeBSD you cant just get a new kernel version and compile it,

Actually KBI is VERY stable and you can actually do it ... in fact, you can use the old kernel with new driver if it does not change a subsystem or an old driver in a newer kernel (in fact, I used in 9-CURRENT a driver I compiled in a previous version of FreeBSD, same file, no recompile).
A lot of people actually backports drivers, and it's not much of an issue, honestly ...

And again, you can manage kernel and userland (world) on their own and manage different revisions to a certain point, naturally ...and those 2 things separated from system software like firefox.
That flexibility in linux simply doesn't exist.


Regards.

[smitty3268]

I have also yet to see an explanation as to how a protocol that ran smoothly on hardware from the 1980s could be a performance bottleneck on hardware today.

Well, let me do that for you, it's easy.

First, the protocol from the '80s isn't really the same one used today, after all the extensions that have been added on to it.

Second, and more importantly, the way that protocol is being used is completely different. GTK and Qt use the protocol completely differently than any toolkits did in the '80s, and most apps are built on top of those toolkits.

Then there is the extra layer of complexity caused by adding a compositor on top of the old system, and having to sync everything correctly between all those different processes that are running.

[Sydney]

Despite my love for FreeBSD and the sympathy towards the, imo, more "mature" and "canny" user base, i have started to fade away from *BSD towards Linux, from a "server-side"-point of view, for the following, pure technical, reasons:

- Virtualization: While the year-long well-matured BSD Implementation of a OS Virtualization is to me, without question, one or the best there is, FreeBSD has fallen short in almost every other Discipline. E.g. KVM and Xen, while Linux has even support for "native" Block- and Net-Devices built-in the kernel, FreeBSD runs barely as a Guest under Xen, for Instance under Amazons EC2 (See work of C. Percival?!? about bringing FreeBSD to EC2). Meanwhile, the Linux Kernel has received it's Implementation of OS Virtualization in the form the "wonderpatch" cgroups and LXC. And has Resource Management built in to, even a fully virtualized Network-Stack. In Conjunction with e.g. OpenvSwitch, the Lights go completely out, which leads me to my next Point.

- Software: Wether we like it or not, but Linux has a for wider reachability, thus it is only consequent to start your Projects with a Focus on Linux. Wether it's the development of OS SW like netatalk or OpenVSwitch, or partly prorietary SW like Java, Alfresco or Zarafa. As a FreeBSD-User you are always limited in choice and almost by nature, falling behind.

- Filesystems: Surely FreeBSD's ZFS is a bullet point. Still, the default FS is and will probably be for the next future, UFS2. I'am not saying one could or should compare ZFS with Btrfs, because Btrfs has still a very long road on front of it, remember how long it took ZFS to the point where it is today, or every other FS, which is no part you switch every 2-3 years. But ZFS Development, at Oracle, well, it's a Oracle, so thats that, and in the Illumos Community i have not too much confidence, that there will be rising much. On the other hand, Btrfs is very much in active development and has since it is bound to the GPL a real future. And under the non-COW-Filesystems ext3-4 is far more advanced than ufs2. Apart from "just" the filesystem, you have tools like lvm or drbd, which could for instance compared to HAST stretch its cluster over more than 2 nodes.

- Many, many other little things: faster arm development, availability at hosting-services, Userland Filesystems, lack of drivers, etc..

Off course, FreeBSD still has too very very interesting tools linux doesn't has, DTrace, CARP & pfsync, etc..

But at the end of the Day and since i have to make a living of it too, and since i cant eat freedom, i have started to slip over more and more, even tough when i read stuff like this: "Are you a kid? Why are you complaining to me about bugs?", my heart is bleeding.

To me, in the End, Linux wins, Today. But one has to admit that what the *BSD Community is accomplishing, with their Budget and their Reachability, is a small wonder. At last, they gave us openssh, right?

[uid313]

Off course, FreeBSD still has too very very interesting tools linux doesn't has, DTrace, CARP & pfsync, etc..

Thanks for a very informative post!

Linux has ptrace, Systrace, SystemTap, strace, LTTng.
I don't know much about tracing, so DTrace probably is better because I have heard that it is good.
Tho, Linux have some alternatives.

Maybe someone (you?) could port or clone DTrace, CARP & pfsync, etc?

[Alex Sarmiento]

To me, in the End, Linux wins, Today. But one has to admit that what the *BSD Community is accomplishing, with their Budget and their Reachability, is a small wonder. At last, they gave us openssh, right?

Absolutely, people shouldn't , and i think in most cases is not, arguing against BSD quality. The problem of BSD is the same problem that linux suffers but just worst.


quote from Pirates of silicon valley :

Steve Jobs:
We're better than you are! We have better stuff.

Bill Gates:
You don't get it, Steve. That doesn't matter!