Slashdot Mirror
FreeNAS Switching From FreeBSD To Debian Linux
dnaumov writes "FreeNAS, a popular, free NAS solution, is moving away from using FreeBSD as its underlying core OS and switching to Debian Linux. Version 0.8 of FreeNAS as well as all further releases are going to be based on Linux, while the FreeBSD-based 0.7 branch of FreeNAS is going into maintenance-only mode, according to main developer Volker Theile. A discussion about the switch, including comments from the developers, can be found on the FreeNAS SourceForge discussion forum. Some users applaud the change, which promises improved hardware compatibility, while others voice concerns regarding the future of their existing setups and lack of ZFS support in Linux."
Native support for ZFS is a good reason to choose FreeBSD over Linux. You can make even your root partition ZFS. The reason ZFS is not in the Linux kernel is due to licensing, though.
I hate the GPL ... so much. I don't mind recommending people use FreeNAS because of the licensing. From now on, I'll tell people to use FreeBSD (or OpenBSD if they are awesome).
It's possible for ZFS, but not really wanted. And it's also a HUGE job.
Btrfs (a work in progress for now) is better than ZFS: http://lwn.net/Articles/342892/
Hey, where are your citations, you filthy faggot?
Here's my citation: MY 10 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WITH BOTH LINUX AND FREEBSD (and Solaris and HP-UX, too).
Linux is a fucking joke compared to FreeBSD. Time and time again I've had to replace Linux systems because they'd spontaneously lock up under heavy load. FreeBSD doesn't do that. Solaris doesn't do that. Even godawful HP-UX doesn't do that!
And Btrfs? Seriously? That's currently the saddest piece of shit filesystem since ext2. Have you ever tried Btrfs and ZFS, you idiot? Have you? Clearly not, because if you had, you'd know that ZFS on Solaris and FreeBSD just works. It doesn't lose data like Btrfs and ext2/3/4 do.
ReiserFS, JFS and XFS are currently the only usable filesystems on Linux right now. And two of those came from other UNIX systems, for the love of sodomy!
If by Linux being "feature-rich" you mean it's "crash-prone" and "shitty", then you're absolutely right. Otherwise, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT and it would be best if you just SHUT THE FUCK UP.
(Pardon my anger. One can only deal with shitty Linux servers for so long before one feels an overriding urge to make it widely known the piece of fecal matter that Linux is.)
OpenSolaris depends on one vendor. And the future of this vendor right now is very uncertain.
0.7 is a milestone. 2.0.5 is a milestone. Any special significance 1.0 has TO YOU is just that, an invention of your own mind, irrelevant to the rest of the world,
Really? Let me get this straight, we're talking about revision numbering schemes, and you're saying that "1" has no special meaning? None at all? The rest of the world agrees?
Are you fucking nuts? Of course it has no technical meaning, it is a revision identifier. It is also the first number, genius. Meaning the first of something in most damned cultures. There may have been rough drafts, demos, tests, mock ups, etc with prerelease version tracking identifiers, but "1" is the one you put in front of your audience as the first release. How you can get up on /. of all places and say labeling a product "1" has no special meaning is insane. The next most meaningful identifier would be "2", arguably your first real version number.
You are free to throw any made up numbering system along with any unrefined piece of trash at your audience, but having the balls to stand up and tell them explicitly that THIS is my product, as-built, "one dot fucking oh" is extremely meaningful.
Well thats the theory, but GPL software tends to be more widely used then BSD.
You know why that is don't you? It is because most GPL code, including most of Linux, was simply taken from BSD sources and relicensed GPL. What you would do better to look at are clean GPL implementations i.e., those not based on non-GPL code. From that measure you will find BSD and BSD-like licenses (MPL, Apache, MIT, etc) are the source of far more code than GPL. It good code too.
So while it is true that "GPL software tends to be more widely used", if BSD code was restricted from GPL licensing it would be the other way around.
Netcraft confirms it: FreeBSD is dying. (Again!)
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.netcraft.com
Doh!!
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause