Slashdot Mirror
NetBSD Quarterly Status Report
An anonymous reader writes "NetBSD's Jan Schaumann announced today that, in order to provide a summary of the most
important changes over the last few months, the NetBSD Foundation has decided
to follow the example of other projects of releasing official status reports
on a regular basis. The first quarterly status report, covering the
activities within the NetBSD Project during the first three months of 2004 is
now available online."
I, for one, am looking forward to the upcoming NetBSD 2.0 release. Just installed NetBSD-current on a new four-way server and it's running great with SMP. Looks like the 2.0 release is scheduled in the next several months.
resigned
I'm glad that NetBSD seems to have a strong roadmap that is going somewhere soon. Since I've started fiddling with FreeBSD, I've thought that NetBSD didn't have the drive and commitment that FreeBSD did. Bully for them, putting out an optimistic showing for v 2.0. I wonder what the new logo will be.
If you're thinking of deploying Open Source solutions in your company, hopefully this unbiased and detailed guide will help!
Unbiased? So you say.
Detailed? You have got to be kidding me. That read like a review of the latest Duke Nukem, from some crappy gamer mag. I'm surprised you didn't give FreeBSD 2 Bullets and Linux 9 Bullets.
People say that this Unix should be used because it is most supported, etc. But in reality, what any Unix needs is good admin. Whether a Solaris, AIX, HPUX, Linux or BSD is being taken care of, chances are that there have been customizations that require a good local admin. He rarely needs this support you talk of. FreeBSD is very reliable on the hardware that you would want to run servers on.
I'll take FreeBSD with a good admin, over Fedora with a good admin, any day.
How far will you get with Fedora, when the problem arises from one of your in-house perl scripts? Local knowledge with a consistent system wins every time.
The "good admin" is your local knowledge, and FreeBSD is your consistent system.
PS, regarding OEM driver support, OEM support even in Linux, is proving to be poor quality. The OEM's might know their hardware and Windows very well, but how well do they know Linux for example? I'll continue to choose hardware based on how well it is documented. That is where the real support is in OSS.
The new port Xen virtual machine monitor for i386 sure looks interesting. The guest OS has to be ported to the Xen architecture, though.
Why is it that every time something happens in the FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, et al. communities (or, at least, when it gets on slashdot) some Linux zealot (AC) has to go touting the problems of FreeBSD (note only one)? ALL OSes have problems! IMHO, all of the BSD derivatives (NetBSD for me) suck less than any of the other 73(!) OSes I've ever tried. Also, this wasn't even about FreeBSD: I hate it when people like you treat the BSDs as if they're all the same, with FreeBSD being the ringleader and the only one with commercial support (ever hear of Wasabi Systems?). If you don't like the BSDs, why would you waste your time on BSD slashdot? Do you seriously think you're going to magically make us care?
Now, I, like most other hackers, am a libertarian in most ways: I believe you have the right to express an opinion. But seriously, what the hell are you trying to prove? Mod me flamebait if you will, but I for one am tired of all the supposedly-unbiased BSD-against-Linux crap. This is not meant to offent anyone (besides the parent AC), but really, why can't Linux and BSD users just stop pissing each other off?
*Storms away*
PS: I do use Linux (Debian and Slack at school, at home I run a multiboot system with 4 different Linuxes and 9 other systems) on occasion and find them nice for some things (like good binary packages).
PPS: Debian has many packages (and is a good all-around distro), but I'll need to see some lists *without* virtual packages, dummy packages, meta packages, stubs, and a zillion different libraries that are normally bundled with their respective reverse-dependancies before I will believe that FreeBSD's collection isn't larger. Also, Woody still has less than FreeBSD, and you really shouldn't (at least, I wouldn't) use Sid on a server
-Bruce
-----------
|\|3+85D: f0r t3h r3a1 133+ h4x0r5!!!!!1 Those who know will attest! They will agree! They already use it! They will not use annoying hacker-esque stereotypes!
Actually, Wasabi supports NetBSD.
When I first saw your post, I thought you where just another Slashdot troll, and did not reply. If it was not a troll, then I must say that your reasons and methology is superficial. I would not trust your jugdement based upon this, nor should your managers.
Regrettably, however, there is truth in a lot of what you say. There was a time when FreeBSD was clearly a superior solution to Linux in every department, but today Linux has better SMP support, far better hardware support, and better software support too. FreeBSD 5.x is still not really "stable", 4.x is very stable but has lagging hardware support and poor SMP and threading, and the linuxulator can handle most but not all Linux binaries.
As for NetBSD, some of the above applies to it too. Its hardware support is often a bit better than FreeBSD (or even Linux -- NetBSD was the first free OS to have USB support, for example). But the smallness of its userbase means it will always lag linux in some hardware support and some usability aspects at the very least.
Nevertheless, after a year or so with Linux, I switched back to BSD (specifically, to DragonFly, a FreeBSD fork). Why? For the learning experience. The BSDs take their documentation seriously: not just commands and function names, but entire kernel subsystems are carefully documented in the manpages. And the source code is much cleaner. These things didn't matter to me earlier but I'm doing more and more programming now and find BSD a much nicer environment. You also learn a lot lurking on the lists. The linux kernel list is just too chaotic for me, this is not my primary focus in life. FreeBSD has the sense to use separate lists for separate topics (-current, -stable, -hackers, -mobile, -arch, -hardware, and most crucially -chat for the "offtopic" stuff), and DragonFly is still small enough that its lists are quite clean.
First, you don't counter ANY of the points raised; instead, you compare FreeBSD with Fedora. If you'd read the post properly, you'd see that the author also dismisses Fedora. He/she talks about Debian, so your point is completely moot.
No, actually I did read the post. Debian is easy to take care of (when all goes smoothly) but does not provide the support that the enterprise expects, which Fedora does.
Second, you say that a good FreeBSD admin will beat a bad Linux admin. Well, duh. A good Windows admin will beat a bad FreeBSD admin too.
Read it again, fuckwit. Talk about, "If you'd read the post properly"! I said, "I'll take FreeBSD with a good admin, over Fedora with a good admin, any day".
Amazing. The BSD zealots STILL can't refute the strenghts of Linux, instead opting to hand-wave their way out of the argument. Sheesh!
You need to improve your comprehension skills. I do not refute the strengths of Linux, in fact I have deployed more Debian Linux than BSD. My point is, that ANY Unix system that requires daily admin, also requires a good admin, since the "support" you get from ANY Unix is not enough to cover the weaknesses of a lesser admin. Where a good admin is on the job, a consistent platform shines. FreeBSD is consistent and Debian is too for that matter. I happen to prefer FreeBSD for systems that I use every day and Debian for systems which I only attend every now and then.
OK, so here are the points and my stance on them (it might shock you to know that I might not actually disagree with all of them):
Performance
Single CPU server: FreeBSD just edged ahead of Linux on this one.
A pretty generic statement. Hardly detailed.
Multi CPU server: With kernel 2.6, Linux performed considerably better than both FreeBSD 4.9 and 5.2.1. The updated SMP code and revised scheduler have worked wonders here, so 1 for Linux.
True. For now.
Desktop: Linux 2.6 is much faster than either FreeBSD, particularly when the system is heavily loaded. Application start times are slightly better, while responsiveness is remarkably superior to FreeBSD. Another 1 for Linux.
There have been times, when I've been compiling a BSD kernel in the background and completely forgot. I noticed no difference in responsiveness while the CPU is regularly near 100% occupancy and only slight delays with IDE disks when they are thrashing.
Stability
Linux distributions vary greatly in terms of stability, with Mandrake Linux and Fedora Core aiming for bleeding-edge desktop features, while Slackware and Debian put great emphasis on stability. FreeBSD is indeed a reliable OS, but the smaller development and testing community puts it behind Linux
FreeBSD behind Linux on stability? Garbage. They are both very close, assuming we're talking about the Linux kernel at it's best and not gcc optimized to hell by some distro that gives up stability for marginal performance gains.
I see FreeBSD as being slightly more stable than Linux, but this is only my subjective opinion.
additionally, there are more full-time Linux developers working with commercial companies on hardware support and core component testing.
Yes and I have done my fair share in the past. I've since moved over to the very clean BSD's and I'm no longer under NDA.
Commercial hardware companies fall into a few major categories. 1. Full documentation of hardware or driver source. 2. NDA documentation of hardware, resulting in binary only drivers or a mixture of some binary and source. 3. No support at all, reverse engineering required.
I don't really want to buy anything from 3 or 2. At least 2 can sometimes give the BSD developers a head start and some leads with some Linux code. With 1, BSD developers can either write their own driver from documentation or port from Linux driver source.
So, that point is moot.
Our Debian and Sla
Actually, Wasabi supports NetBSD.
I thought that was his point, that FreeBSD is not the only BSD with commercial support.
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
'[FreeBSD] Stable is always supported'
er, that's a bit like saying 'fedora is always supported, providing you upgrade with each release'. as the OP said, each x.x release of FreeBSD is only supported by the security team for 12 months. once those 12 months are up, you either upgrade to the next release or face security problems.
now, if you work in a business with lots of systems on the go, that is a _huge_ concern. yes its easy to upgrade freebsd, but even among the stable branch you get changes to libraries, the kernel, supporting apps (ports) etc. fbsd 4.7 and fbsd 4.8 are slightly different in many many ways, and this means that mission-critical apps have to be retested, again and again every 12 months.
that is, unless you don't mind upgrading operating environments without testing. in big business and serious work, thats essential. so although I dont agree with some of the stuff the OP said, he or she was spot-on with the support (should be known as 'release lifespan'). why do you think there was so much discussion when win98 and winnt4 were EOLed? and those were supported for AGES
so freebsd's 12 months doesn't cut it in serious work. sorry, but its a fact. having to upgrade to slightly different environments every 12 months is unacceptable, and a hinderance to fbsd's progress. debian's 2.5ish years isnt great either, but a lot better.
Once again, you have shown that you have comprehension troubles. If you have trouble comprehending English, I imagine C might be too much for you and that is why you are a one command admin.
Your argument is that Debian is easy to update and therefore the best for large networks. My argument is that any important Unix server or network, needs a good admin who will be proficient with any Unix. He won't need Debian because he can do as well or better with Unix tools regardless of whether he is using Debian or a BSD.
I never had DOS crash on me either.
DOS has crashed on me MANY times. What have you been doing all that time with DOS? Spending all your time in edit?
The REAL facts are that Linux has a MUCH larger testing and QA community, along with the further patching and fixing from distro vendors, so if you want to use code that's been really hammered on, Linux is a far better choice.
Look at how much more secure Linux is over the BSD's...
Debian Linux 2.x 56 advisories in 2003, 37 in 2002.
FreeBSD 4.x 24 advisories in 2003, 7 in 2002.
Debian 3.x 186 advisories in 2003, 62 in 2002 (55 so far for 2004).
FreeBSD 5.x 21 advisories in 2003 (6 so far for 2004).
NetBSD 1.x 19 advisories in 2003, 14 in 2002 (4 so far for 2004).
Then we come to security. I pointed out that Debian's update system is so, so much easier and simpler than FreeBSD's, which is critical in our business with thousands of machines.
If you need the ease of Debian, you are a failure.
"Do you not read the code changes that you're about to deploy to production systems?"
Eh? Of course! And that has NOTHING to do with the issue. I can check the changes and make sure everything's OK, and then roll-out updates quickly and simply. You know, just because you can binary update an OS, doesn't mean you never see the source.
So you assume the binary that you are about to deploy, came from the good source? Monkey see, monkey do.
So your point is redundant and irrelevant. In BOTH OSes you can read the code changes.
No, actually my point goes deeper than what you seem to be capable of seeing. My point is that you can't trust a binary unless you compile it yourself. If you compile it yourself, you can also deploy that binary, just as quickly as you could in Debian. If I had an important Debian server, I would compile patches.
There is a huge difference between reading code changes and being sure that the binary you have, only contains those changes. The fix for that is to compile it yourself.
But in one you have to mess around with downloading and patches, recompiling and installing altered binaries, and in the other it's typically a single command. Guess which one is more suitable for large deployments?
A large deployment, requires a team which includes a testing team who reads patch code, compiles it, tests it on a staging server and then deploys it gradually. They don't need Debian for that. They can do it with ANY Unix and that is my point.
They would NEVER just deploy a binary from a project (read any project) which has their servers compromised every now and then. I have taken care of some of the largest WAN's on Earth, including financial and edu. A one command admin who is too lazy to read patches, compile them, test, then deploy, would not be acceptable there. If you honestly think that Debian's one command updating offsets the burden of taking care of many machines, then you shouldn't be taking care of large networks.
I realise that you could have a Debian staging server and point apt to it, but if you are going to all that trouble, for a large network, then you don't need Debia
DOS has crashed on me MANY times. What have you been doing all that time with DOS? Spending all your time in edit?
Wow, once again you completely miss the point. I've no doubt that DOS was prone to crashes. But you were saying "subjectively, FreeBSD is more stable to me", and I was demonstrating how redundant such a comment was. Subjectively, DOS was stable in my use, but that doesn't mean it IS per se. So anecdotal 'evidence' is meaningless.
Look at how much more secure Linux is over the BSD's...
Ooh, that's REALLY scraping the barrel -- and it's sad. If I had used such 'stats' to prove a point, you'd have jumped all over me because we both know they're meaningless. Most significantly, Debian has a much larger number of packages to maintain, and in many cases Debian uses multiple packages where FreeBSD uses one. So that makes your argument useless from the start.
On top of that, it may surprise you to learn that a lot of FreeBSD Ports go unmaintained -- quite a few are marked as broken, and others don't see updates for large amounts of time. If the FreeBSD project maintained the same number of packages as Debian and with the same level of quality and consistency, the figures you quoted may be more accurate. But with fewer Ports, broken Ports and unmaintained Ports, it's laughable to even compare them.
Finally, when talking about Linux-specific low-level components (kernel, glibc etc.), many security advisories have no known exploit and are fixed to stop any potential problems in future. Think about it: Linux's developer and testing community is at least 10x larger than FreeBSD's, and includes many professionals working full-time on security matters. If you shifted these hundreds (possibly thousands) of people over to the FreeBSD kernel, you'd start to see a lot more hard-to-find security issues being discovered too.
Desktop: Using your arguments, Windows is the best choice here.
But it isn't. It's about FreeBSD vs Linux. Why can't you stay on track? I never mentioned Windows, and the fact that you have to bring it up is a sign that you can't argue the matter in hand.
It's like in your previous post. I'd mentioned that Linux has much broader hardware support, and your argument was that "BSD developers can copy Linux drivers". So what? That doesn't change what's actually true HERE and NOW!
Commercial Support: Has proven to be no match for mailing lists.
Oh, come on. Try telling that to your boss. Sure, as a geek I agree with you that newsgroups, mailing lists and IRC almost always offer a solution, but that doesn't matter in the real world. When a critical server falls down, you can't say "Boss, I know this guy called [HaCkD00d] on #freebsd, let me see if he's around". You need someone to call, to divert the blame, and someone who can be out 24x7.
As said, that doesn't matter so much to me personally, but you're insane if you're dismissing the value of commercial support. It's one of the reasons Windows is doing so well. Big companies need this, and as such, Linux is a better choice for them right now.
I was demonstrating how redundant such a comment was. Subjectively, DOS was stable in my use, but that doesn't mean it IS per se. So anecdotal 'evidence' is meaningless.
I never meant for my anecdotes to be taken as evidence or proof, which is WHY I used the word "subjective".
Subjectively, DOS was quite stable for me too. But having used it I could not say that it has "never" crashed on me. Every version I ever used, since 3.3, I managed to crash with normal use, from time to time.
Your anecdote demonstration is ridiculous, because I fail to see how anyone can claim that DOS (to have used it long enough to be able to make stability claims) never crashed on them and then be taken seriously. Saying that about Linux, a BSD or even Windows XP is beleivable.
My anecdote is real, as perceived by myself. It also holds true against anecdotes of other BSD users. Your DOS anecdote does not. If my anecdote does not hold true against Linux user anecdotes, then we have a very difficult to resolve dilema. But then, I am not the one claiming one is more stable than the other. An anecdote is all that I can provide, so I make it obvious that that is what I am providing. You on the other hand, have faith...
The hipocrisy is that your claim that Linux is more stable than FreeBSD, is based on this theory of more eyes looking at code. Can you prove it is more stable? If not, then that seems worse than anecdotes. At least I disclaim my anecdotes as being subjective.
When I specifically use the word "subjective", I hope that the reader is inteligent enough to realise that I am openly NOT trying to provide proof or appear to be.
OpenBSD has very few eyes, yet very high security. You can argue that this is because so much is not switched on by default, but the truth is that many services which get remote root in Linux, merely allow a DoS of that service within OpenBSD, assuming that it wasn't already patched by OpenBSD developers, long ago (which happens from time to time, maybe those Linux eyes should look at BSD every now and then).
If I had used such 'stats' to prove a point, you'd have jumped all over me because we both know they're meaningless.
Be careful. I did NOT claim that FreeBSD IS more stable than Linux. I was trying to show that they are very close, which I have stated in this thread. Any slight difference that I perceive, is just that, perception. I stated that, plain as day. Please take my words as they are. You are reading more than what I convey.
Finally, when talking about Linux-specific low-level components (kernel, glibc etc.), many security advisories have no known exploit and are fixed to stop any potential problems in future.
The same thing can be said about BSD specific vulnerabilities. Especially OpenBSD. They go to town closing things they find, regardless of how remote it might seem to be able to exploit them.
Linux's developer and testing community is at least 10x larger than FreeBSD's, and includes many professionals working full-time on security matters.
There are plenty of professionals working full time on BSD code. Many of which don't have to be up front about it and give back, because of the BSD licence. BSD code ends up in lots of places that you might not know about. Some companies do give back, like Apple. I know of a photocopier that runs NetBSD, a few security appliances that run OpenBSD and storage appliances that run FreeBSD. That's just off the top of my head.
With this in mind, I ask you to prove your, "Linux's developer and testing community is at least 10x larger than FreeBSD's" claim. You attack me for openly providing an obvious subjective anecdote and then make a claim like that. You'll need to prove the number in the Linux camp and prove to number in the (often closed) BSD camp, before you can put the words "at", "least" and "10x" together in a statement regarding Linux and BSD dev/testing population. I'm sure
This is a worthless incoherent fucking rambling pile of drivel if ever I've seen one. You managed to get on your high horse and get very offended at lots of things but that was about all.
Come back when you learn how to form coherent arguments and succinctly communicate your points. Until then I won't bother wasting my time with you.
Two things, then:
1) That offensive reply, shortly after you posted, wasn't from me. Hey, I may disagree with some of the things you've said but you clearly know your stuff and I like a good debate.
2) You've also side-stepped some of my points (eg about Debian having more packages, and some of FreeBSD's Ports being unmaintained), so we're both guilty of that.
Might get some time later to write a proper response...
Two things, then:
1) That offensive reply, shortly after you posted, wasn't from me. Hey, I may disagree with some of the things you've said but you clearly know your stuff and I like a good debate.
I felt that it probably was not you.
I respect your opinions, some are quite thought provoking.
2) You've also side-stepped some of my points (eg about Debian having more packages, and some of FreeBSD's Ports being unmaintained), so we're both guilty of that.
I honestly have not tried to side-step any comments. Pull me up on them and I will try to address it.
It seems to me that Debian has lots of unmaintained packages, metas, fake, whatever and it seems difficult to accurately compare the practical state of Debian packages with FreeBSD packages and it's certainly very difficult to compare stability. I did not want to be an asshole and link to Netcraft's uptime stats, because I'm sure we both know that uptime counters roll over in some Linux and BSD kernels, so it's hard to qualify.
Might get some time later to write a proper response...
The really thought provoking stuff you've started me on, is that even Debian and FreeBSD have a major hurdle in corporate acceptance due to ongoing support. I've worked in large places and with people who would maintain private trees, but they were stock exchange and telco type of high end. Most corporates wouldn't bother with private tree maintenance.
Maybe some would maintain private trees with nothing more than back porting, but that would become a bigger and bigger headache as time goes on.
Come back when you learn how to form coherent arguments and succinctly communicate your points.
After 14 years of online discussions, I've learned to not succinctly communicate my points. Because if I am not verbose, I run the risk of being misinterpretted.
Certainly, maybe I can reduce the length of points and improve the meaning. I'm trying to work on that.
Thanks for the feedback.
After 14 years of online discussions, I've learned to not succinctly communicate my points. Because if I am not verbose, I run the risk of being misinterpretted.
No, it might seem like you are winning your arguments or getting your points across because your audience has left or is asleep.
Certainly, maybe I can reduce the length of points and improve the meaning. I'm trying to work on that.
That would be nice.
Sorry I was rude to you, BTW.
I've had a lot a stress lately, with family, money, health, etc...
Spending Easter arguing over the merits of BSD and Linux is not my idea of fun. : / The irony is that I've been spending the past couple days downloading Gentoo 2004.0 ISO's over 56k dial-up and Debian is by far my favourite Linux distro and one of my favorite shirts is the Debian Code shirt, which is now very worn out. ; )
I prefer OpenBSD and NetBSD, but I need to chill out! The Gentoo download is almost finished (has about 9 hours to go), so I should be enjoying it soon. I think this is the most I've ever downloaded over such a short period (over 56k), about 1.3GB in about 85 hours.
No, it might seem like you are winning your arguments
This is not a competition for everyone.
You don't have to read it.