Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 22nd Feb 2007 23:27 UTC, submitted by kwag
NetBSD The NetBSD Foundation announced that Force10 Networks, the pioneer in building and securing high performance networks, has leveraged NetBSD as the foundation for the Force10 Operating System (FTOS). Based on the open source UNIX-like system, FTOS provides the software scalability and resiliency that powers the Force10 TeraScale E-Series family of switch/routers.
Order by: Score:
Hmm
by Xaero_Vincent on Thu 22nd Feb 2007 23:37 UTC
Xaero_Vincent
Member since:
2006-08-18

Just for grins, why did FORCE10 choose NetBSD when FreeBSD has over 80% of the BSD marketshare?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hmm
by Kroc on Thu 22nd Feb 2007 23:44 UTC in reply to "Hmm"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Use the right tool for the job. I wouldn't choose Windows XP to run an important server just because it has the most marketshare in the world. Granted, I don't know the differences between the *BSDs, but there must have been some small presiding factor there.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Hmm
by Xaero_Vincent on Thu 22nd Feb 2007 23:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm"
Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

I think I figured it out:

"Force10 TeraScale E-Series family of switch/routers"

Exotic hardware.

FreeBSD isnt so great on hardware that doesn't fall into these catagories:

alpha, amd64, i386, ia64, pc98, powerpc, sparc64.

But I thought it was cool to learn that FBSD 6.2 now supports Macs and the Xbox 1.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Hmm
by Janizary on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 17:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmm"
Janizary Member since:
2006-03-12

FreeBSD doesn't work well on Alphas, support is depreciated, PPC and Sparc64 support are also lacking. FreeBSD is the i386, and to a lesser extent amd64 BSD, they only care about the "major" hardware platform. An Xbox is just an i386 box, like any other.

NetBSD and to a lesser extend OpenBSD are the more unusual hardware supporters.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Hmm
by Xaero_Vincent on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 20:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmm"
Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

PC98 support is good and PPC support is better now. Sparc64 is a Tier 1 platform but lagging a little.

Bottom line is FreeBSD works on the majority of systems on the market:

All the systems in my house are i386, for example.

Compared to other BSD solutions, FreeBSD has clear advantages on the systems it does support:

FreeBSD has the more ported software, drivers, far better 3D graphics support, Wine, and commercial support (Win4BSD, SoftMaker Office, etc).

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Hmm
by Janizary on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 21:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmm"
Janizary Member since:
2006-03-12

Lagging any more and the sparc64 port would be tier 2 right along side Alpha. The majority is i386, but not in any embedded market it's not, the Xscale/ARM stuff is king there.

I'd disagree with you on the more drivers bit there, I'd say different is a better word. Considering OpenBSD does support more of my machines better than FreeBSD does, and admittedly, all I have are i386 machines at home, though I have my eye on this one arm pda I've seen for sale. Perhaps I just use too much wireless stuff.

I also bring up the point of the terrible quality of the FreeBSD ports system, by supporting three seperate version of FreeBSD instead of just the release that it's on, FreeBSD significantly decreases the rate at which a port works on any of them. It also has so many unmaintained packages that it becomes problematic.

Yes, FreeBSD does have very, very limited 3d support, it's mostly through running Linux binaries - something that I dare say OpenBSD finds offensive from a security front and would never support, even if a company made native binaries.

I agree, FreeBSD has greater commercial support, an even lighter lip service than that which is given to Linux, but it is there. Unfortunately, many commercial programmes are old and made for the 4.x series of FreeBSD, not 7.

Regardless, the existances of ports, 3d suport, wine, commerical binaries, none of those matter for an embedded operating system, platforms supported most definately does, and there NetBSD wins.

Edited 2007-02-23 21:16

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Hmm
by nathanw on Sat 24th Feb 2007 04:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hmm"
nathanw Member since:
2006-11-05

As someone who actually runs FreeBSD on both sparc64 and alpha, I can assure you that sparc64 is in a *much* better state than alpha, which has been removed from -CURRENT (sadly). The sparc64 port is not in as good shape as the i386 port, of course, it's true, but this is true for pretty much all operating systems other than Solaris. In addition, FreeBSD 7 now contains a port to ARM.

FreeBSD's ports system actually works quite well, and on a variety of releases. I've never had any major problem with it, and maintain 30 FreeBSD machines on five architectures running releases 4.6 through 7-CURRENT.

This reliability is largely due to the build system of the software itself -- it probably is coded to support all releases of FreeBSD, as well as linux, Solaris, and what have you. It's fairly rare that anything in particular needs to be done by the packager to support a different OS release. This, in fact, is one of the port system's greatest strengths -- you can get current software on any release you like on any architecture without waiting for someone to build packages for your specific system.

FreeBSD's 3D support is not related at all to the linuxolator, either. It uses the standard X.org DRI drivers on supported hardware, and an nVidia driver supplied by nVidia on their hardware. This is one of 3 X11 drivers they provide -- for Linux, Solaris, and FreeBSD -- and is hardly related to Linux binary compatibility.

As for commercial software, some is made for FreeBSD 4.x, but I would remind you that as recently as a year and a half ago, 4.11 was still the official stable release. 7 is something that exists today only as a CVS tag, and 5 and 6 are essentially the same from a software vendor's point of view. I would remind you that a lot of commercial Linux software is listed as requiring some ancient release of Red Hat.

NetBSD, FreeBSD, and Linux all have their uses and places, but you should certainly be less misleading and deliberately inflamatory.

Edited 2007-02-24 05:00

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Hmm
by Janizary on Sat 24th Feb 2007 19:06 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hmm"
Janizary Member since:
2006-03-12

Speaking of deliberately inflamatory: "The FreeBSD SMP implementation (SMPng) is younger because it was rewritten not to be terrible."

Perhaps you see strengths where I see obvious weaknesses, I am seeing things from a different angle, from the vantage point of someone who tried and didn't like FreeBSD.

The ports tree's multi-release support leads to a great deal of instability, flaws are introduced regularly to ports because they are not tested on multiple releases and instead there must be the constant drive to fix flaws that should not have been introduced. Instead of having a stable tree, there is one in constant flux, a terrible thing for me, but you seem to be jizzing on it for the very reason I dislike it. Perhaps I got hit with it's problems too many times, and you consider it worth the pain to get more recent software on older releases. Hell, if I want recent software, I run a recent operating system.

If something only exists for an ungodly old release of Red Hat, then it's not really support for the system is it? If the commercial stuff only exists for a release from multiple years ago, it's no longer supported in my mind at least. I mean, I don't consider something released for Windows 2000 only to be supporting Windows, cause Windows is on the Vista release now.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Hmm
by ebasconp on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 00:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

NetBSD runs on several different and very "exotic" hardware architectures; FreeBSD runs in the most common architectures.

Also the FreeBSD SMP implementation is younger than the NetBSD impl; if you can several critical SMP servers, I think you should choose NetBSD over FreeBSD.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Hmm
by nathanw on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 04:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmm"
nathanw Member since:
2006-11-05

The FreeBSD SMP implementation (SMPng) is younger because it was rewritten not to be terrible. NetBSD's only runs the kernel on one CPU, for instance, preventing concurrency in kernel tasks. FreeBSD's current SMP implementation is much, much more scalable than anything in any other BSD, and anyone who wants to run a performance-critical SMP server and wants to use BSD would be mad not to use it.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Hmm
by ebasconp on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 04:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmm"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

Maybe he should think on using DragonFly!!!!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hmm
by butters on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 01:22 UTC in reply to "Hmm"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

Just for grins, why did FORCE10 choose NetBSD when FreeBSD has over 80% of the BSD marketshare?

Further, I guess they didn't choose Linux because they wanted to make it proprietary.

Edited 2007-02-23 01:22

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Hmm
by ebasconp on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 02:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

Sadly, you're completely right.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Hmm
by Soulbender on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 03:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Further, I guess they didn't choose Linux because they wanted to make it proprietary. "

Because we all know that as soon as someone picks anything over Linux it's because they want to make it proprietary and nothing else.
Hogwash.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Hmm
by PlatformAgnostic on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 03:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmm"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

It's probably true, though. I don't think proprietary is an evil word, though. Take the core which is open (hopefully fix the bugs and improve on it) and build your own stuff on top of it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Hmm
by butters on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 05:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmm"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

There was some facetiousness intended there...

Vendors are choosing Linux these days simply because it's very marketable. When a vendor chooses a BSD, it's almost always because of a real technical advantage (such as the outstanding pf packet filter) or the more permissive license. Nonetheless, if their business model was to sell network gear that uses proprietary kernel extensions, then Linux is a non-starter right off the bat.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Hmm
by Soulbender on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 07:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hmm"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Nonetheless, if their business model was to sell network gear that uses proprietary kernel extensions, then Linux is a non-starter right off the bat."

Not really. ImageStream (http://www.imagestream.com/) is using Linux with their own proprietary (IIRC) drivers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Hmm
by butters on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 16:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Hmm"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

I checked their site and confirmed that they use GPL kernel drivers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Hmm
by fsckit on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 05:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm"
fsckit Member since:
2006-09-24

Actually my first thought, since it's related to switches/routers was that they didn't choose Linux due to iptables sucking.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Hmm
by butters on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 05:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmm"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

It's certainly no pf, you got that right! Hey, I'm a Linux guy, but I admit where we're soundly beaten.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Hmm
by Oliver on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 18:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

Amen. - free as in freedom (the so-called freedom according to RMS and his fellowers) - take it, in real freedom (not a parody of it) every can have a different opinion too and only time will tell which one was the "best".
Tell some news about other *free* choices et voila some Linux/GPL zealots will pop up and poison the atmosphere. Please god, we don't want some free software communism, just real freedom and open-source.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Hmm
by hamster on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 18:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmm"
hamster Member since:
2006-10-06

Don't open that can of worms.. It will only result in a flamewar

Edited 2007-02-23 18:58

Reply Score: 2

great for netbsd
by happycamper on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 04:01 UTC
happycamper
Member since:
2006-01-01

I'm glad netbsd is finally getting attention it deserves.
it is a great os, and it's able to run on over 50 different platforms as a whole os, something that many more popular OS can not do, and it's very,very portable.

Edited 2007-02-23 04:02

Reply Score: 2

RE: great for netbsd
by Doc Pain on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 05:35 UTC in reply to "great for netbsd"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"it is a great os, and it's able to run on over 50 different platforms as a whole os, something that many more popular OS can not do, and it's very,very portable. "

And it runs on my toaster, too. :-)

You may want to check out the NetBSD Live 2007 live system CD to have a look at it. It features an SMP kernel as well. And KDE. The german internationalisation is quite good because it's not limited to KDE.

Reply Score: 2

network throuput records hold by NetBSD?
by TomHu on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 10:41 UTC
TomHu
Member since:
2005-07-20

I remember some network throughput records being set during the last years with NetBSD being involved. I simply guess, they have a really good network subsystem.

Oh and NetBSD-CURRENT has a new SMP implementation underway, so we yet have to wait for some major improvements to come.

Reply Score: 2

BSD vs BSD
by A.O.K. on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 13:27 UTC
A.O.K.
Member since:
2006-11-02

Atleast NetBSD has a decent logo.

Reply Score: 2

RE: BSD vs BSD
by Duffman on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 19:24 UTC in reply to "BSD vs BSD"
Duffman Member since:
2005-11-23

What ? The orange flag just suck.
I much prefer puffy and beasty.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: BSD vs BSD
by A.O.K. on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 21:52 UTC in reply to "RE: BSD vs BSD"
A.O.K. Member since:
2006-11-02

The reason I'm saying this is, I don't understand how people find an icon of the devil amusing. However I do understand it's wildly popular in many corners of the internet. This is probably the reason why governments such as the USA simply hires actors, to interface with the crowds, while the real decisions goes on behind the scenes. They see a country where, having the devil as a logo in a software, by people intelligent enough to program such a thing, find this acceptable. Ofcourse, one learns, and finds a solution.

Edited 2007-02-23 21:56

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: BSD vs BSD
by StephenBeDoper on Sat 24th Feb 2007 15:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: BSD vs BSD"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

...

If you're ever interested in writing for BeDoper, I'd say you're eminently qualified.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: BSD vs BSD
by A.O.K. on Sat 24th Feb 2007 15:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: BSD vs BSD"
A.O.K. Member since:
2006-11-02

No.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: BSD vs BSD
by StephenBeDoper on Sun 25th Feb 2007 07:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: BSD vs BSD"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Aw, please? That "BSD and the devil" rant was great. If you can write something equally insane - say, every a week or so - then you've got a real future as an internet humourist.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: BSD vs BSD
by A.O.K. on Sun 25th Feb 2007 12:32 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: BSD vs BSD"
A.O.K. Member since:
2006-11-02

No Be, No Dope. No Tikalovers either.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: BSD vs BSD
by StephenBeDoper on Mon 26th Feb 2007 02:56 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: BSD vs BSD"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

And here I thought North American hipsters were tiresome.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: BSD vs BSD
by Duffman on Sat 24th Feb 2007 16:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: BSD vs BSD"
Duffman Member since:
2005-11-23

I don't understand how people find an icon of the devil amusing

Perhaps because everyone doesn't take religions seriously or is not a fundamentalist ...

Reply Score: 1

v RE[4]: BSD vs BSD
by A.O.K. on Sat 24th Feb 2007 17:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: BSD vs BSD"
v RE[4]: BSD vs BSD
by A.O.K. on Sat 24th Feb 2007 18:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: BSD vs BSD"
RE[2]: BSD vs BSD
by Xaero_Vincent on Fri 23rd Feb 2007 19:49 UTC in reply to "BSD vs BSD"
Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

Yeah the new FreeBSD logo is hot.

Though I like this NetBSD one:

http://www.netbsd.org/images/NetBSD-old.jpg

Its almost reminicent of 9/11.

Reply Score: 2