Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 28th Apr 2003 15:48 UTC
Original OSNews Interviews Today we feature an in-depth interview with three members of FreeBSD's Core (Wes Peters, Greg Lehey and M. Warner Losh) and also a major FreeBSD developer (Scott Long). It is a long read, but we touch a number of hot issues, from the Java port to corporate backing, the Linux competition, the 5.x branch and how it stacks up against the other Unices, UFS2, the possible XFree86 fork, SCO and its Unix IP situation, even re-unification of the BSDs. If you are into (any) Unix, this interview is a must read.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
re: bascule
by phil on Tue 29th Apr 2003 14:49 UTC

However, FreeBSD 5.0's locking granularity is much finer than in Linux.

That really isn't true at all. Both Linux 2.5 and FBSD 5.0 continue to use a global lock although the former currently uses it far less than the latter (is seems this is largely because work to push Giant down hasn't progressed very far yet.)

Linux has a very ecclectic VM implementation, especially in 2.6, utilizing new, untested, and untuned technologies almost exclusively. This lack of testing and maturity was what lead to the VM switch in the 2.4 series.

That isn't a mistake which'll happen again as organisations like OSDL have been performing extensive regression testing and benchmarking all throughout the 2.5 development process.

Linux's VM has to stretch a lot further than FreeBSD's - with Linux being used on everything from swapless embedded devices to SSI boxes with half a terrabyte of RAM there are a lot of cases to cover. A /lot/ of work has been done on the VM in 2.5 and current indications are extremely good.

FreeBSD's VM is very robust within the <=4GiB PC/Server segment, but it hasn't been tuned (or even designed) to cope with situations outside of this bracket. cf. the PAE work.

It's also not fair to claim that the technologies used in 2.5's VM are untested or untuned - the work done by OSDL, IBM and various other vendors combined with the leasons of the early 2.4 debacle mean that it's far from untuned and untested.