Features Coming For FreeBSD 10

[Sergio]

for good or bad freebsd will be pushed to the margins at time goes on. it will be typecasted as a web server OS that is worthless as for almost anything else.

Perhaps this will be the case (although the last word isn't said). Throughout history, nevertheless, products success is not necessarily related to its technical merits. If people were consequent with what they say, they would have spent time developing FreeBSD in the 90's and not waste time with (at the time) a toy OS like Linux. Now Linux is a phenomena and FreeBSD is dubbed a toy OS (although it isn't). Tomorrow we'll see.

[Sergio]

No, FreeBSD is pathetic. Cherry picking sources & stat ranks is one of the most pathetic ways to prove anything. If that hurts your feelings about BSD that's your problem. I still see people talking about how good/wonderful Solaris is just because of a few marginally used features, like containers. There should be OS/2 or DOS features that don't exist in Linux, or that work better, but that doesn't prove anything.

And oh, if you wanna "get the facts" and "read stats" go to Microsoft's site, they're also into that kind of arguments like yours. (Un)Surprisingly they think window$ is better than both Linux and BSD, also based on facts, stats and ranks.

So you are saying that analizing a systems behaviour under real-world situations and under the most demanding workloads is pathetic? Not only this; it doesn't prove that FreeBSD is at least as stable as Linux... So let's us all just go to the academy and work with academic operating systems where you can have a satisfactory mathematical proof showing X system outperforms Y system in theory.
If testing a software system under the most demanding of situations isn't the way to test a practical system's performance/reliability then let's just all go with MINIX, or a Haskell-based (mathematically supported) microkernel...

If FreeBSD were pathetic, Apple, Juniper, Netflix, etc, would have failed to build they're products with it's help (think that, although the primary reason for FreeBSD could have been licensing, would they be equally succesfull if chosen MINIX instead? After all, MINIX is BSD licensed...)

[mark45]

So you are saying that analizing a systems behaviour under real-world situations and under the most demanding workloads is pathetic? Not only this; it doesn't prove that FreeBSD is at least as stable as Linux... So let's us all just go to the academy and work with academic operating systems where you can have a satisfactory mathematical proof showing X system outperforms Y system in theory.
If testing a software system under the most demanding of situations isn't the way to test a practical system's performance/reliability then let's just all go with MINIX, or a Haskell-based (mathematically supported) microkernel...

If FreeBSD were pathetic, Apple, Juniper, Netflix, etc, would have failed to build they're products with it's help (think that, although the primary reason for FreeBSD could have been licensing, would they be equally succesfull if chosen MINIX instead? After all, MINIX is BSD licensed...)

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?

[ryao]

I tried freebsd last week but i didn't found any real advantages over linux . It just feels and acts like an outdated and less supported linux

I could say the same about Linux with regard to FreeBSD, except I will state some actual points. Linux:

• lacks support for in-tree ZFS or something comparable (btrfs is not comparable)
• merges buggy code and then tags releases before the code is production quality.
• is limited to GCC and often relies on quirks in the GCC compiler.
• does not have anything equivalent to DTrace (systemtap is not there yet)
• lacks dump devices that could helps people can debug kernel panics.
• lacks its own userland and often uses a userland developed for the GNU operating system. This causes integration problems between the kernel and userspace.
• has a known deadlock in the VM subsystem that will cripple the system when triggered. Getting it fixed is a pain because certain kernel developers are more interested in patching that affect select groups of people than they are in fixing bugs. One prominent Linux kernel developer actually made clear to me in an email that he believes that any kernel bugs that do not affect things he considers to be worthwhile in some obvious way should be left unfixed, even if patches are available.
• only works toward POSIX compliance (or anything else for that matter) when it could help software run on Linux (but not when it could help software that runs on Linux run elsewhere).
• lacks decent in-tree OS-level virtualization. The out-of-tree solutions are not quite as well implemented as FreeBSD jails, which are far superior to the Linux concept of a jail.

FreeBSD is superior in all of these areas. Some might disagree, but there is a difference between implementing something well and implementing something in a way that lets you claim to have a feature, even though your implementation is inferior.

[mark45]

I could say the same about Linux with regard to FreeBSD, except I will state some actual points. Linux:

• lacks support for in-tree ZFS or something comparable (btrfs is not comparable) - why? because you say so?
• merges buggy code and then tags releases before the code is production quality. - who decides when the code is good enough, you?
• is limited to GCC and often relies on quirks in the GCC compiler. - No kidding.
• does not have anything equivalent to DTrace (systemtap is not there yet) - true, it also lacks the name "Solaris" and other worthy features.
• lacks dump devices that could helps people can debug kernel panics. - it can helps peoples cans debug and make helpes kernels panicks
• uses userland utilities are developed for the GNU operating system, causing integration problems between the kernel and userspace. -
• has a known deadlock in the VM subsystem that will cripple the system when triggered. Getting patches into the kernel to fix it is hard because certain kernel developers are more interested in patching that affect select groups of people than they are in fixing bugs. One prominent Linux kernel developer actually made clear to me in an email that he believes that any kernel bugs that do not affect things he considers to be worthwhile in some obvious way should be left unfixed. - can't think of a more pathetic cherry picking of bugs and use that as an argument.
• only works toward POSIX compliance (or anything else for that matter) when it could help software run on Linux (but not when it could help software that runs on Linux run elsewhere). - you pulled that out of your ass, the features which don't make enough sense aren't implemented in Linux and won't be.
• lacks decent in-tree OS-level virtualization. The out-of-tree solutions are not quite as well implemented as FreeBSD jails, which are far superior to the Linux concept of a jail. - no kidding?

FreeBSD is superior in all of these areas. Some might disagree, but there is a difference between implementing something well and implementing something in a way that lets you claim to have a feature, even though your implementation is inferior. - and because BSD is so superior it sucks so much in mobile, desktop and supercomputers where Linux reigns supreme, even on Desktop Linux is king compared to BSD.

10 chars rule

[Sergio]

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?

I understand and agree with what you say. Nevertheless I think netcraft's studies are sufficiently objetive to imply that FreeBSD is at least as stable as Linux under the most demanding of situations (I believe these tests are demanding for virtually every major subsystem of the OS).
I understood your Microsoft and Solaris argument, and again, I agree; it is possible to argue that MINIX is more reliable than Linux or FreeBSD, and that doesn't imply it is going to be seriously considered. I just think netcraft's argument is overall valid, and calling FreeBSD pathetic is exagerated. But again, is your opinion and I respect it.

[ryao]

can't think of a more pathetic cherry picking of bugs and use that as an argument.

For what it is worth, that bug will cripple your system and I am one of the few people in the world doing something to get it fixed.

Edit: How many issues have you tried to get fixed?

[mark45]

For what it is worth, that bug will cripple your system and I am one of the few people in the world doing something to get it fixed.

Edit: How many issues have you tried to get fixed?

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?

[Alex Sarmiento]

I could say the same about Linux with regard to FreeBSD, except I will state some actual points. Linux:

• lacks support for in-tree ZFS or something comparable (btrfs is not comparable)
• merges buggy code and then tags releases before the code is production quality.
• is limited to GCC and often relies on quirks in the GCC compiler.
• does not have anything equivalent to DTrace (systemtap is not there yet)
• lacks dump devices that could helps people can debug kernel panics.
• lacks its own userland and often uses a userland developed for the GNU operating system. This causes integration problems between the kernel and userspace.
• has a known deadlock in the VM subsystem that will cripple the system when triggered. Getting it fixed is a pain because certain kernel developers are more interested in patching that affect select groups of people than they are in fixing bugs. One prominent Linux kernel developer actually made clear to me in an email that he believes that any kernel bugs that do not affect things he considers to be worthwhile in some obvious way should be left unfixed, even if patches are available.
• only works toward POSIX compliance (or anything else for that matter) when it could help software run on Linux (but not when it could help software that runs on Linux run elsewhere).
• lacks decent in-tree OS-level virtualization. The out-of-tree solutions are not quite as well implemented as FreeBSD jails, which are far superior to the Linux concept of a jail.

FreeBSD is superior in all of these areas. Some might disagree, but there is a difference between implementing something well and implementing something in a way that lets you claim to have a feature, even though your implementation is inferior.

As i said.... i didn't found any REAL advantages over linux

[Sergio]

As i said.... i didn't found any REAL advantages over linux

What REAL advantage from Linux over FreeBSD?