Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 24th Mar 2010 16:55 UTC, submitted by Joel Dahl
FreeBSD The FreeBSD team has released FreeBSD 7.3, the fourth release of the 7-STABLE branch. There will be one more release in this branch, but at this point, most developers are already working on the 8-STABLE branch. FreeBSD 7.3 focusses on bug fixes, but has a few new features as well.
Thread beginning with comment 415164
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: I have always liked FreeBSD
by rhavenn on Wed 24th Mar 2010 23:29 UTC in reply to "RE: I have always liked FreeBSD"
rhavenn
Member since:
2006-05-12

Which came first? The chicken or the egg? Same scenario here. Personally, I think the parent is correct. If BSD hadn't had the legal issues it did in the early 90s it had a really good shot at becoming the dominant "free" UNIX. Linux didn't start getting heavy commercial support and recognition until 2004/5 or so and now it's got a decent marketing wave behind where even many PHBs are okay with running Linux, but turn all white and pasty when you suggest something like FreeBSD.

Linux is the kernel and FreeBSD is the kernel plus base userland and a much more unified and integrated "system", plus it hasn't splintered into a bajillion little pieces like the Linux distros have. Many argue this is a good thing, but I counter that in the end it hurts the end user. It was great when it was a relatively unknown OS and no one really cared, but now you've got companies cherry picking distros to "support" and if it isn't one you like or run then you're screwed. I think Linux would have been better served maintaining a concentric core and base system. However, it's freedom of choice and I normally choose FreeBSD.

Reply Parent Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Linux is the kernel and FreeBSD is the kernel plus base userland and a much more unified and integrated "system", plus it hasn't splintered into a bajillion little pieces like the Linux distros have. Many argue this is a good thing, but I counter that in the end it hurts the end user.


It also works against admins as well. I don't like how Linus & co can send kernel changes downstream that can break working hardware. Contrary to popular belief Linus & co are not trying to design a kernel for server use. It's a general purpose hobby kernel to them. If their changes break your system well then too bad, go fix it. That has been their attitude while the FreeBSD developers have been more focused on providing a stable system. I also trust the port system in FreeBSD over any package manager.

Yes I know about LTS releases but that is a poor solution, especially with all the inter-dependencies that exist in Linux. Too much crap gets written on top of other crap that requires a specific kernel so companies end up staying with old software which is a security compromise.

Edited 2010-03-25 00:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Which came first? The chicken or the egg? Same scenario here. Personally, I think the parent is correct. If BSD hadn't had the legal issues it did in the early 90s it had a really good shot at becoming the dominant "free" UNIX.


The parent ascribed Linux dominance to hardware support, not to legal issues. But I'd agree with you on that - those legal issues were probably decisive at the time, in holding back BSD while Linux grew.

I think Linux would have been better served maintaining a concentric core and base system.


What are you counting as the base system? Linux distros are all pretty consistent about the basic userspace software - it's all the standard GNU packages, glibc, coreutils, etc. The differences between e.g Fedora and Ubuntu are infinitesimal compared to the differences between either of them and any other Unix variant...

The differences are mostly in package management and boot/network configuration - which I'll grant you, can be a pain sometimes, but don't really hold anything back...

Reply Parent Score: 3

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


What are you counting as the base system? Linux distros are all pretty consistent about the basic userspace software - it's all the standard GNU packages, glibc, coreutils, etc.


No they aren't when it comes to the libraries they have installed. They also don't all use the same kernel version.

But my issue is more that the people working on the kernel are not working with the distros and don't care if their changes cause problems. It would have been better if they provided a stable Unix-like OS and then let the distros fight over the GUI. This way they could standardize things like the audio system and package installation format. The current method just leads to chaos.

Not that I expect them to do anything of the sort. Linus has stated that he enjoys that chaos that often results. He doesn't want to provide a stable base.

Reply Parent Score: 3

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

I didn't equate linux dominance to its HW support. I simply stated that BSD and Solaris lack of HW support hurts their adoption.

Two very different things.

Linux, from a commercial SW development standpoint is an absolute nightmare. My point at a very basic level was that had the BSDs or Solaris had a similar level of HW suport (and other HW-coupled technologies like CUDA, OpenCL/GL et al) they would represent far ideal platforms to code and grow with.

From a hacking and single task customization standpoint, sure Linux is great.

Reply Parent Score: 3