Username or EmailPassword
This is a serious question. These people are basically just taking everything we normally run on top of Linux and instead making it work on top of a FreeBSD kernel.
It seems to me that Linux tends to get a lot more developer attention than FreeBSD. It seems plausble, therefore, that Linux may be generally further ahead in terms of performance and other advancements.
So what is the advantage of switching to the FreeBSD kernel? I mean, why are they motivated to do it? And why would anyone want to use this?
It seems they left out "Stallman wants another obnoxiously awkward name mashup to inflict upon the heathens"
OMG, this link is so 2003. I even remember FreeBSD was 'the real hackers choice' of 2000. But..
- Standardized kernel interfaces: Single /dev implementation, OSS as the default sound system, OpenBSD Packet Filter (pf).
This one mostly refers to major holy wars in the community which are long gone and forgotten. IIRC, on Linux it's udev all the way; pretty sure ALSA improved a lot, as did netfilter both feature/performance wise.
It's up to individual OSes to choose standards to implement, and since OSS came first, no wonder it might be better represented. But why whine about ALSA? What is wrong with it? And since its the size of the user base of the particular OS/interface that matters, rather than number of venerable Unix-like platforms implementing OSS, doesn't ALSA look good to a potential developer?
- Security features, like jails.
Linux has, and already had, plenty.
- Support for NDIS drivers in the mainline kernel.
Since it is just one step with 'apt-get install', why should one care?
- Support for ZFS in the mainline kernel.
- kFreeBSD may have better performance and/or stability especially in disk/filesystem areas with ZFS.
That 'may have' is hilarious. And btrfs is doing well. I think the only real ZFS feature that could matter for an average/power user is easy snapshots, but there's a way to handle this with Linux, albeit with a couple more commands.
- kFreeBSD is less vulnerable to legal issues.
- kFreeBSD developers often have more..
- FreeBSD kernel might support some..
Yeah, yeah, yeah. We need more FUD and probably reference to that bizarre Linus guy. Don't know about you, but I'm totally not convinced why kFreeBSD at all.
"Yeah, yeah, yeah. We need more FUD and probably reference to that bizarre Linus guy. Don't know about you, but I'm totally not convinced why kFreeBSD at all."
Thank GOD you are not with FreeBSD. About spreading FUD- what you did just now?
FreeBSD got jails for ages but I never saw any jail real-life use in Linux and I am LPIC certified specialist.
About ZFS you are totally wrong- ZFS main feature is partitionless usage, self-healing and deduplication.
FreeBSD is alternative to Linux and get used to it. Every work should be done with right tools and sometimes Linux won't cut it. I see lots of five or more year old Linux installations and noone will update them because nobody can be sure it will survice any upgrade at all... You can do it with FreeBSD any time.
And why wouldn't you want to do that? Why another OS? Why another distribution of Linux? Why a fork of this or that?
You post a comment on a site that is (at least partly) dedicated to post news about the myriad of operating systems in the history of computers, and you question why would anyone want to port a specific userland to another operating system? It's what people do!
Alot of people chose FreeBSD over Linux, me included. It's called personal preference and one should always respect that in the end. The more choice in the world the better!
I always wonder, why every time Phoronix compares different Linux and FreeBSD versions that does not mach development cycle? If you compare current Linux then you should compare it to FreeBSD 9 development (now Beta1) not 8.something. And they always leave debugging on- of course FreeBSD will be slower.
Good to know that, but my experience with the OS is quite discouraging. The 8-1.1 kernel based release I was able to install, but it froze at the login screen. Apparently, letting the installer update the system while it was being installed made it eventually unusable. That seems to be a known problem.
A 8-2.1 kernel based testing release was just broken: its installation was perceivably quicker, but something just went wrong before the last packages were installed.
There's something that has to be done about the partitioner: it takes too long to do anything with it and does a lot of useless grinding for a very long time for no reason at all.
It is obviously a work in progress.