Linked by David Adams on Tue 8th Apr 2008 16:33 UTC
BSD and Darwin derivatives "I am very happy about the direction in which the Mac OS X GUI is going, although sadly many Mac users aren't interested in (or don't know about) the "lower levels" of the Macintosh Operating System. Have you ever wondered why the Terminal greets you with the words "Welcome to Darwin"? Why do BSD and Mac OS share certain bits of code? Why does Wikipedia describe Mac OS X as a graphical operating system? Today we're going to take a look at the underlying open source technology which powers your fancy Leopard OS - the hidden core set of components, named Darwin."
Thread beginning with comment 308709
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: What BSD could have been
by krreagan on Tue 8th Apr 2008 19:16 UTC in reply to "RE: What BSD could have been"
Member since:

I use BSD on both the desktop (PC-BSD) and server (FBSD) and like it much better then the Linux in either service, as I have to do at work. FBSD is cleaner, easier to administer/upgrade, 7.0 is faster, more scalable. The ports are the best system I have seen for managing SW installs...

The cluster f*&k that is the Linux development method has creadted the worst code base that I have ever seen!

TEHO I guess.


Reply Parent Score: 1

ari-free Member since:

but linux didn't fork like the bsd's.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Johann Chua Member since:

Then why are there so many Debian-based distros? If that's not forking, then what is?

Reply Parent Score: 3

sbergman27 Member since:

much better then the Linux
7.0 is faster, more scalable.

And for all those years in which Linux was undeniably faster at SMB and BSD's performance was nothing short of embarrassing?

No doubt you are referencing, as have so many other well meaning but misguided people, Kris Kennaway's tired and outdated old MySQL benchmark which pointed out a flaw in Glibc. (Thanks for that, BTW.) See the more recent benchmarks conducted by Nick Piggin, using the current Glibc, and note that Linux is now faster than FreeBSD:

What can I say? Nah, nah, neh nah nah? Or perhaps I should say that the idea of focusing on such a benchmark to make an absolute claim that one is faster than the other is silly and meaningless.

I'm glad you are pleased with FreeBSD. Not all of us have the same requirements and tastes.

Edited 2008-04-08 22:06 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

kernpanic Member since:

The Nick Piggin benchmarks are outdated too. From Jeff's blog:

"We tracked down our problem with the performance drop above 30 threads on Nick Piggin's mysql benchmark to conservative settings for the pthread adaptive spinning. We see a big gain relative to where we were before. Frankly at this point we're splitting hairs with linux and I don't really care where we stand. We had a tremendous problem and we resolved it. Time to move on.."

The only thing that shows FreeBSD performance clearly ahead of Linux is with pipes- yeah I know, its hardly something that will make a Datacentre manager start ripping out his Linux boxes and replace them with FreeBSD ;)

Reply Parent Score: 5

sakeniwefu Member since:

The people who modded you down should go to to at least have a founded opinion. I wouldn't say FreeBSD kernel source is as much better than Linux as their manpages are. They are similar in both performance and dirtyness.
If you want to read both clean secure code and useful manpages, try OpenBSD.

Reply Parent Score: 3