Slashdot Mirror
FreeBSD, Stealthy Open Source Project
zam4ever writes "Sean Michael Kerner has written an article on how FreeBSD has become a Stealth-Growth Open Source Project with various reasons outlined for FreeBSD's growth over the last years."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Quandt also contends that FreeBSD is not currently on the same level as Linux when it comes to supporting heavy enterprise workloads...
:)
I was almost certain this paragraph was going to end praising FreeBSD over Linux, and I was slightly suprised to see this was not the case. FreeBSD's ability to cope with extremely high workloads is often cited as one of the reasons to use it over Linux in such environments.
However, I don't remember ever seeing any evidence of this, except that FreeBSD has proven itself time and time again on some of the largest, busiest internet sites. It'd be interesting to see how the two compared side-by-side in a real production environment. Perhaps someone can convince Yahoo to switch to Linux for a day
</ BSD advocacy >
FreeBSD is used on over 95 of the top 100 servers (greatest average uptime). FreeBSD is tested and true on the server-side in a way few linux distrobutions can claim. The closest any distro has come to actually matching reliability with FreeBSD is Debian. But even then, FreeBSD is still light-years ahead. I'm not really sure what inspired this article, but a simple google search reveals that BSD is the route most major corporations are taking with servers. So while I do appreciate GNU/GPL support, try to be less blatant. ;)
Woah, 3 devils on the main page (for me at least), all posted within a few minutes. Is BSD dying faster today or are they simply on Speed?
Bitten Apples are still better than dirty Windows...
Uh oh. I read the sentence "Linux actually inherits a lot of BSD code" and immdiately thought of Ken Brown. Ken, if you're reading this (or having it translated into a version using only monosyllabic words) be advised that the preceding quote refers to GNU/Linux, not the Linux kernel that Linux wrote in a year.
Actually, I was trying to be Insightful, not Funny.
It is now official. FreeBSD is Undead.
It has long been argued that FreeBSD is dead, but now new evidence is coming to light that it has been resurrected, and like a zombie process is lurching across the Unix landscape once again.
Recent growth in FreeBSD's market share, as reported by Slashdot, is evidence that a Faustian pact with the daemons has been made. Stay tuned for more on this recent development...
But why hasn't FreeBSD become as widespread as Linux? The answers may lie in its history.
That's roughly like asking: why do people eat less chocolate than they eat potatoes?
The answer is not history, it's that they are different kinds of "products" with different strengths and weaknesses.
The thing that sells me for FreeBSD in corporate environments is that FreeBSD is an operating system. The same group of people do the kernel *and* the OS. I've put a lot of FreeBSD boxes in production corporate environments, and I've never been bitten by the choice of OS, so I've become a pretty loyal punter. On the other hand, I just can't bring myself to put any OS that uses the linux *kernel* (there isn't an OS called 'linux' as best as I can tell) on a production enviroment - I've always had the impression that the Linuxes are all terribly fragmented, incoherent, and you never know what you're getting.
(by about now, all the script kids with mod points have cluelessly clicked the 'flamebait' button already... should I bother going on?!!! :-) )
In other news, I've become a really big fan of Gentoo Linux... it's just brilliant. I'm using it all kinds of non-production environments, and loving every minute of it. Bottom line though, it's too hard to sell something that is just a kernel as stable, reliable, and suitable for business.
I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
It is not "based" on FreeBSD. It incorporates much of FreeBSD here and there, (and NetBSD as well). It's atleast more "based" on mach than .. OSX.
FreeBSD. And no, Netcraft reports OSX as
FreeBSD is a "stealthy" open source project in the same way the Brooklyn Bridge is a "stealthy" public works project:
It's been there forever, doing its job, fully appreciated only by an informed minority.
PS: Neither are for sale. :-)
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
I have several corporate systems consisting of Sun E10k hosts, Linux, and FreeBSD systems. In my experience, FreeBSD performs very well under heavy load, on par with Solaris and slightly better than Linux. Not that I'm downing Linux; Each OS has strengths and weaknesses, but the author seemed to indicate that FreeBSD was not suitable for corporate use and I believe that it is.
Let me say that I'm a happy Linux user, with 3 systems, each working fairly well (only one is in constant use; the others I use for fun). In my experience Linux is a very robust system (I've tried Gentoo and Red Hat, with Gentoo being my favorite), but I also tried OpenBSD. It gave me the feeling that if I got to know it better, then it would be great. But I wasn't into running a big server, so I left it alone. At some point, I would like to try FreeBSD, because it has a great reputation. I don't have the hardware right now, but I heard about a FreeBSD LiveCD that I would like to know more about. Why do open-source projects bicker among each other so much? Think "Life of Brian": Brian: "People, people, we should be fighting the common enemy." Fighters: "The Judean People's Front!" Brian: "No! The Romans!" Until Windows is brought down to an equal level, there is no reason to compete among Open OSs. After all, the *NIX (or *BSD) motto is: do one thing, do it well.
As far as stability and consistancey goes, only Debian-Stable approaches BSD, because Debian enforces a strict development and testing process (as opposed to adding in just any random unstable bleeding edge package because it is "new").
Where Linux does badly is in "out of memory" situations. I doubt a load average of 7 will, by itself, kill any system, but I've seen Linux boxes become unusable because of memory leaks -- hard reboot required, or equally bad, eventually some random processes get killed that bring the machine back up but all those processes have to be restarted by hand. Ditto if all those processes contributing to the load average of 7 required a huge chunk of memory. FreeBSD shines in this situation. If you configure enough swap space, it will usually get through somehow, if not, it will kill the offending process but not butcher the system.
it uses a much more monolithic kernel than Linux, making it lose some flexibility
Wrong. FreeBSD uses KLD modules just as extensively as Linux.
You wouldn't really want to use FreeBSD for an embedded system
I'm using FreeBSD on Soekris net4801 boxes as router/postfix/imap/http/... low-power ADSL appliance.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
I don't believe (although I could well be wrong. Please correct me if I am) that it uses the new KSE in the 5.x branch, so it's still slower than on other platforms for multithreaded things.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I was a big RedHat/Linux user until about 5 or so years ago. I got sick of:
* The constantly changing startup environment and filesystem layout. I started typing "evolving", but that implies it was small changes for the better, not wholesale changes which weren't always for the worse.
* Kernel upgrades became a big nuisance, requiring me to track down a whole bunch of userland applications that needed updating for the kernel. to be usable (psutils, for one). Why the kernel and key kernel applications aren't packaged together is beyond me.
* The installer became more and more piggish, adding X11 elements even when I specifically told it not to. The portions were hard to remove, since they almost always were snared in RPM dependencies.
* RPM itself wasn't bad, but what DID drive me nuts about binary packages was the total absence of build documentation. So many UNIX applications have significant build-time options which are never documented in RPM. SRPM helped, but it was still an annoyance.
FreeBSD just seems how it *should* be. The filesystem and startup environment isn't static, but doesn't make wholesale changes. The entire system is rebuildable from source, applications are transparently and easily buildable from source thanks to ports.
FreeBSD's installer could be improved, though. sysinstall needs to be reinvented and perhaps have picobsd merged into it. I'd love to be able to install a variable-sized FreeBSD for firewall or appliance-type installs.
The article ignores the biggest obstacle that *BSD faced in its early days, which gave Linux a big head start: the AT&T lawsuit.
The FUD was flying and unlike today's situation with the SCO attacks, the open source model was not well known, and the idea of a free *BSD was not as established as Linux is today. The suit was eventually taken care of (AT&T had violated UCB's license terms, heh, heh) but the damage to *BSD's momentum was done, and Linux had taken a mindshare lead.
Benchmarks, smenchmarks. They reveal only so much as realworld tests is the only way to go. If you are serious, set up both systems, optimize them and beat the hell out of both with the server-daemon you intend to run (for db's, use Postgresql (optimized of course) instead of MySQL, if you intend to use a db under heavy load. Low-med loads anything will do). If you don't know how? Don't bother with benchmarks either. Instead, go for a Linux-system that requires little skill to set up, use and patch. For serious servers you test all options under proper conditions. Would you buy a car based upon other peoples tests without even driving it a bit yourself? After your tests you know which system is better for your setup. THAT is what counts, not benchmarks. ____________________________
Life is what happened when Good Intentions met Harsh Reality (the brother of the more infamous Chaos).
A lot of "Daemon worshipper since ever" and "Tried Linux, didn't like it" in here. Some "Like both". A few trolls have been modded down.
But when looking at it, *BSD users are throwing praise at each others in here. It's not like anyone is arguing in here, because mostly people with the same opinion responded to the article.
But no one is really talking about why Linux has more market/mind share. Or why the kernel developers for Linux have created a technologically similar kernel without having a head start (i.e. a full UNIX kernel). Or why - if any *nix - is taught, nearly always Linux is taught at universities. What made Linux the platform of choice for so many people in so "little" time?
These are not flames. These are questions I'd really like answers for. And maybe the *BSD communities should have them, to take advantage of that knowledge!
Nothing gained from 20 somewhat posts of the style "I like the ports tree", "Me, too!".
Start asking: "Why isn't *BSD dominating the *nix world now?" Don't answer: "It doesn't want to." Because that's not true. Hear yourselves talk. You want to! But you don't.
So why? Don't give me the USL/Novell case. In the time from 1991-1993 Linux had not become a comparable kernel, it became after.
Is it the license? The more chaotic collaboration? Linus' personality? The anti-Windows stance? The urge for people to develop something new (that lured more developers)? Why is (almost virtually etc.) nobody talking of a FreeBSD desktop?
As long as a lot of people talk about history, or past successes, or think along "I always have done it that way / have used it" nothing is won for *BSD in terms of "innovation" (it hurts to write it). *BSD needs some new answers to the Linux question, not some self-content same ol', same ol'.
If *BSD asked these questions, found the answers for them, and used them, it actually again become the most-used *nix system.
I love the BSDs, first played with them when Linux was a toy. When we were evaluating OSes for our Web Servers, we installed an OpenBSD machine and a Redhat machine and went to lunch. When I got back from lunch, before we could go to work, I was fielding calls that my new Redhat machines was launching attacks in Germany. We decided not to use Redhat at that point.
We recently started playing with FreeBSD 5 and RHEL 3 for comparisons... Quite frankly, I MUCH prefer the BSD ports to up2date, they are terrific. Both OSes are pretty good in the performance departments (OpenBSD while a rock, just couldn't perform).
Why did I switch to Redhat?
Redhat is simply moving in a direction that I like. Getting the machines to talk to our LDAP Server and Kerberos KDC (an OS X Server that does our central directory system) is a joke, as was straight LDAP before we started playing with Kerberos.
Adding software is a bit easier in BSD-land, because if I need to switch compile-time options, the ports are MUCH easier to work with than SRPMS. Granted that compiling source on Linux is easier, because most developers target Linux first, however, source tarballs are great for testing, not so great to roll out and keep track of across my networks.
Redhat support, while pretty mediocre at the low-end (RHEL 3.0 ES, $350/machine or so), I can put support requests in and get a response over time and get things escalated to engineering. With Apple Support, it's even worse, I can fill something out on Apple's bug report/feature request site, but I can't find out if they are doing anything on it.
It's a dilemma for a small company, you don't have the money to get the GOOD support from a top company, but dealing with a small company may get you personal service, but not the capabilities of the big boys.
FreeBSD is a GREAT system, and the ports/packages are a DREAM to work with.
The greatest thing about a BSD is how streamlined/stripped down the core is, then it is off to ports to configure.
The worst thing about a BSD is how streamlined/stripped down the core is, as making network configuration changes is just harder/more time-consuming, with multiple files to change.
FreeBSD, great OS, just not offering the easy-to-use Enterprise features that Redhat provides. Without the easy integration, it just isn't as easy for my little business to take advantage of everything that I can with Redhat.
Also if you notice the The socket benchmark, FreeBSD was optimized for when a process allocates in excess of 3500 sockets. Also in Measuring HTTP request latency you can see that there is optimization for when there have been in excess of 4000 requests. These types of clever optimizations are what sets FreeBSD apart.
Also keep in mind that absolute magnitude is not what is really important in these test results. The idea is that if your software scales well, you just get enough hardware to handle what you expect as worst case. The nice thing is that FreeBSD has some optimizations that are directed for scaling even better under some particular high load cases.
I would not say from these tests that FreeBSD performed much worse than Linux. In fact mmap syscalls are not actually used much except for mapping in dynamic libraries on many server type loads.