Linked by snydeq on Tue 8th Nov 2011 01:29 UTC
BSD and Darwin derivatives Deep End's Paul Venezia wonders why more folks aren't using FreeBSD on the desktop. 'There used to be a saying -- at least I've said it many times -- that my workstations run Linux, my servers run FreeBSD. Sure, it's quicker to build a Linux box, do a "yum install x y z" and toss it out into the wild as a fully functional server, but the extra time required to really get a FreeBSD box tuned will come back in spades through performance and stability metrics. You'll get more out of the hardware, be that virtual or physical, than you will on a generic Linux binary installation.'
Thread beginning with comment 496379
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I agree, 10 years ago.
by celt on Tue 8th Nov 2011 02:47 UTC in reply to "I agree, 10 years ago."
celt
Member since:
2005-07-06

A linux user calling BSD bloatware?

And you have anything better than ZFS?

Stability isn't there? Give me an example of that.

Troll...

Edited 2011-11-08 02:48 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -3

RE[2]: I agree, 10 years ago.
by TechGeek on Tue 8th Nov 2011 03:09 in reply to "RE: I agree, 10 years ago."
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

you question a few of his points and call him a troll, ignoring all the points everyone knows. ZFS is hacked together in BSD, just like it is on Linux. Not a big shocker there. As for stability, I dont really know anything about that. But I do know that BSD is falling way behind and its the license that is the problem. Corporations are not willing to dump resources into a BSD licensed project that anyone can then steal without contributing anything back. And Linux has taken off in the business sector. It may not be that BSD support has waned, it just hasn't grown like Linux support. And the license is the reason.

Edited 2011-11-08 03:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

First, ZFS is stable and production ready in FreeBSD, as of 8.0
http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=197221

Second, the license issue isn't something that can clearly be pointed at for Linux's success over BSD. There are plenty of projects that have permissive licenses that are actively developed by many contributors who don't seem to worry about their code being misappropriated.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

But I do know that BSD is falling way behind and its the license that is the problem.


A) it's not falling "way behind"
B) the license is not a problem

Corporations are not willing to dump resources into a BSD licensed project that anyone can then steal without contributing anything back.


Really. That sure explains the success of Python, Perl, X, Apache, Ruby on Rails, Django and all the other big, successful projects licensed under more permissive license than the GPL. You might notice that many of them are BSD/MIT style licenses. Yes, surely no company ever poured resources into any of them...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: I agree, 10 years ago.
by sean on Tue 8th Nov 2011 18:45 in reply to "RE[2]: I agree, 10 years ago."
sean Member since:
2005-06-29

But I do know that BSD is falling way behind and its the license that is the problem. Corporations are not willing to dump resources into a BSD licensed project that anyone can then steal without contributing anything back. And Linux has taken off in the business sector. It may not be that BSD support has waned, it just hasn't grown like Linux support. And the license is the reason.


I disagree. Companies that use FreeBSD do give back without the need for a license to force it. Blue Coat Systems, iXsystems and Juniper come to mind. Intel and nVidia develop drivers for FreeBSD.

It is definitely not the license.

Reply Parent Score: 1