Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 26th Feb 2008 20:59 UTC, submitted by Oliver
FreeBSD "FreeBSD is back to its incredible performance and now can take advantage of multi-core/CPUs systems very well... So well that some benchmarks on both Intel and AMD systems showed release 7.0 being faster than Linux 2.6 when running PostreSQL or MySQL. Federico Biancuzzi interviewed two dozen developers to discuss all the cool details of FreeBSD 7.0: networking and SMP performance, SCTP support, the new IPSEC stack, virtualization, monitoring frameworks, ports, storage limits and a new journaling facility, what changed in the accounting file format, jemalloc(), ULE, and more."
Thread beginning with comment 302714
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

> "Why - because lower quality is better?"

How do you say this is lower quality? All Linux/Windows/OS X applications are not source based buy yet some how they seems to have made their users productive without having to wait 8 hours for the damn OpenOffice distro to compile. Even if I compile from source its not like I am goign to get 50% better performance, even if I set all the options before compiling, I might get 1-3% improvement. I'll take the binary package any day for that.

> "C'mon it's of course nice to have something like apt-get/aptitude in Debian, but in the end you have to live with sometimes broken packages or packages compiled without essential features ("mature" maintainer). "

I am not sure what Linux distribution you have used but I have never experienced any package issues with apt-get. For that matter, I have encountered upteen broken ports. Ever experience compiling and you come back the next morning to find a compile error and then you start all over again.

Don't even get me started on mixing ports and packages. Have enough experience into "package X require version a.b.c or package Y but version a.b.d is installed" stuff. Eventually have to create symb links to get it to work.

> "Therefore people like the sourcecode as base and compiling from sourcecode isn't anything alien to a UNIX or free UNIX derivative."

Yes. I can see it clearly now. Ubuntu started about 10+ years after FreeBSD and garnered thousands of users many time over simply catering to all those people who wanted a non-optimized lower quality system that would be slow as hell and short on features and very unstable.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Oliver Member since:

Windows gathered even more users and it _is_ to some degree 'crap'. So what? Do you want a frequency discount for the quantity of users? The low quality of Ubuntu packages isn't a secret, maybe this low quality is enough for the desktop but not for really productive work (people really don't see the difference to Windows anymore). And if you don't like it's a wide spread experience among _exerienced_ users.

So why do you think big companies like Yahoo are using FreeBSD? Because they _know_ how to use it efficiently.

Apart from FreeBSD I'm using Debian since potato and Slack since the middle of the 90s.

Last not least you don't have to use FreeBSD if you don't like it. Therefore we have opensource, the freedom of choice. Something for the professional user and something for the shiny desktop with lot of glimmer.

Reply Parent Score: 2

PrimalDK Member since:

This old argument has been pushed over and over and I'm getting seriously tired of it.

You can argue to death that compiling from source is a better alternative, but you can't argue against the facts that it:

1) is more resource intensive in a given time span
2) takes longer time
3) isn't inheritly more secure
4) doesn't by definition/design mean more options
5) is in at least 99% of the cases done for the same 2
architectures (i386, x86-64/amd64)
6) of those 2 architectures generally is optimized to
run on i686, or it does not run faster
7) does not by definition/design run faster
8) does not by definition/design allow for better
9) ad infinitum ad nausseum...

In other words, it's not the holy grail of anything, except for the few that understand and _actually read_ the source code, which I bet you don't (because statistically I'll be right), and in the _specific_ case where the developers didn't bother to write the software with an interface that allows for a similar level of configurability.

FreeBSD is great, stable, useful and all kinds of other nice things, but the reason Yahoo isn't complaining has nothing to do with their having troubles with it or not. A large corporation doesn't tell its customers (and the world) that they're having troubles; they solve them internally or hire more people to solve the problems at hand, or - in one particular case I can think of - they silently ignore and publicly deny the existence of such problems and rename "security holes repair" to "service pack".

Reply Parent Score: 1