FreeBSD: Not Exactly Dead

quantumice writes "It would seem that despite being dead and there only being six of us who use it, FreeBSD has clocked up nearly 2.5 million active sites according to Netcraft. So by my estimates that must mean that I and each of my 5 friends run 416 667 sites. That might explain my high bandwidth usage."

Comments

Uptimes

[n0dez]

FreeBSD and BSD/OS are beating any OS. Just visit Sites with longest running systems by average uptime.

Re:Uptimes

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh. Linux, Solaris and some other UNIX variants wrap their uptime counters at 497 days -- so they CAN'T be on that list.

It's not remotely an indication of FreeBSD's quality.

Re:Uptimes

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a simple overlow problem. Essentialy at 497 days (or whatever the cutoff is), the unsigned 32-bit number reaches its max point and "resets" itself to 0. Now, you might be wondering which 32-bit number I'm referring to. Well, Netcraft uses the timestamping component of the TCP/IP header to figure out most of the reported uptimes. The timestamping component starts at 0 when the machine is first booted, and every X milliseconds it gets incremented (The X varies from platform to platform). If you google, you'll uncover more.

Re:Uptimes

[Anonymous Coward]

> Sigh. Linux, Solaris and some other UNIX variants wrap their uptime counters at 497 days -- so they CAN'T be on that list.

For those who just can't be bothered to check out their FAQ:

"What is 'Uptime' ?

The 'uptime' as presented in these reports is the "time since last reboot" of the front end computer or computers that are hosting a site. We can detect this by looking at the data that we record when we sample a site. We can detect how long the responding computer(s) hosting a web site has been running, and by recording these samples over a long period of time we can plot graphs that show this as a line. Note that this is not the same as the availability of a site."

Sounds like they're accounting for the wraparound.

Re:Free/Net/OpenBSD may not be dead

[Artega VH]

I call karma whore

I can't find the original source though... pity...

Re:I have..

[Nighttime]

One problem with one Linux distribution? Wrong, gnorw, wrong! The latest version of the Linux kernel has a very annoying bug... it doesn't detect correctly your hd's geometry and messes it up so you can't boot up Windows. So using ANY Linux distro with that kernel will give you problems. Maybe RMS introduced it as he wants everything to be GPL... a monopoly in the open source world! So, like Nas says in his "You can" song, read more learn!

Actually, it's the Windows installer that writes the incorrect partition table. When the Linux installer comes along it writes out a correct partition table that then prevents Windows from booting. But don't let the facts get in the way of a rant. :)

Are you serious???

[n0dez]

Not all OSes can have those uptimes. BTW, what you're saying about the uptime thing I guess it was resolved in the Linux kernel 2.6.x series.

Re:I have..

[Korpo]

BTW, AFAIK Unix wasn't the 1st system with Internet connection:

Then, in 1980, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency needed a team to implement its brand-new TCP/IP protocol stack on the VAX under Unix. The PDP-10s that powered the ARPANET at that time were aging, and indications that DEC might be forced to cancel the 10 in order to support the VAX were already in the air. DARPA considered contracting DEC to implement TCP/IP, but rejected that idea because they were concerned that DEC might not be responsive to requests for changes in their proprietary VAX/VMS operating system [Libes-Ressler]. Instead, DARPA chose Berkeley Unix as a platform -- explicitly because its source code was available and unencumbered [Leonard]. Berkeley's Computer Science Research Group was in the right place at the right time with the strongest development tools; the result became arguably the most critical turning point in Unix's history since its invention. Until the TCP/IP implementation was released with Berkeley 4.2 in 1983, Unix had had only the weakest networking support. Early experiments with Ethernet were unsatisfactory. An ugly but serviceable facility called UUCP (Unix to Unix Copy Program) had been developed at Bell Labs for distributing software over conventional telephone lines via modem.[16] UUCP could forward Unix mail between widely separated machines, and (after Usenet was invented in 1981) supported Usenet, a distributed bulletin-board facility that allowed users to broadcast text messages to anywhere that had phone lines and Unix systems.

(taken from "The Art of Unix Programming" by Eric S. Raymond)

Of course nobody is giving VMS any credit no matter what it accomplishes anyway ... ;)

Guess you're in for a history lesson, too.

Re:FreeBSD in a nutshell

[Anonymous Coward]

From my experience, FreeBSD is slower, albeit only marginally: I've been running apache and squid from FreeBSD for the past month or so, but I'm planning to switch back to Slackware when I get the time.

And while I appreciate the value of FreeBSD--I like its start-up script placement, its ports system, its feel of efficiency--I do not like its less than stellar hardware support. While poor hardware support was a problem in Linux (for me at least) seven years ago when I first started using it, it is no longer an issue: everything I have is correctly detected in Linux. Not everything is correctly detected in FreeBSD.

So, the only advantages FreeBSD has over some Linux distributions are its init scripts, its ease of upgrade, and its uniformity. Slackware uses *BSD style init scripts. Using slackgrade I can update my installed packages. And I am willing to sacrifice uniformity for a larger selection of software.

If there wasn't Slackware, maybe I'd use FreeBSD. Or maybe I'd use Gentoo ;).

The reason you dont see other OSs on there

[Tezkah]

From their FAQ:

Additionally HP-UX, Linux, NetApp NetCache, Solaris and recent releases of FreeBSD cycle back to zero after 497 days, exactly as if the machine had been rebooted at that precise point. Thus it is not possible to see a HP-UX, Linux or Solaris system with an uptime measurement above 497 days.

The *BSDs is very neat, and will probably be my OS of choice on my next computer (selling my mac and either getting a laptop or desktop PC), but lets not get carried away ;)

-Tezkah, user 7 of 7!?

Re:Gentlemen

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a bunch of persistent slashdot trolls. That's it. They don't bother sites that provide better coverage of all things BSD. The slashdot trolls seem to be afraid of BSD taking over their advocacy turf or something. Recall the rather bizarre hostile reaction to a bsd section being added to slashdot.

Re:The purpose of this story?

[Brandybuck]

It's a joke. Lighten up. Sheesh...

Re:Question

[MarcQuadra]

Yes, I don't know if you're serious, but Gentoo Linux is a build-from-source Linux distro that has a ports system called 'portage'

I myself use Gentoo because I prefer Linux over the *BSDs I've tried, but Gentoo lets me build from source VERY easily.

Re:FreeBSD in a nutshell

[jackrd]

For a good example of this, I'd suggest checking into the Debian GNU/FreeBSD project:

"There are currently two separate efforts for building a Debian distribution based on FreeBSD's kernel. Both are work in progress in experimental stage, and we have not fully decided yet which of them will become the official Debian GNU/FreeBSD."

-http://www.debian.org/ports/freebsd/index