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/
It is now official. Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying
*BSD has been dying for years. The death progressed slowly at first, but of late, it has taken a turn for the worse and is nearly complete. The death of *BSD has followed several stages.
In 2000, chief *BSD developer Matt Damon left the project after penning a long, meandering suicide note, loosely based on a novel by renowned playwright Buzz Aldrin.
FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.
It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.
Netcraft Weighs In
Not long after Matt's suicide, the United Nations Commission for Wresting Control of the DNS Root Servers from the Imperialist United States ("UN-USA")'s Netcraft project weighed in with its final judgement. In typical Netcraft fashion, the writer kept to the facts and looked to the numbers:
It is now official. Netcraft has confirmed: *BSD is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
That crippling bombshell sent *BSD fans into a tailspin of mourning and denial. However, bad news poured in like a river of water.
Commission for Technology Management
In 2003, the widely r
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.)
Elegy For *BSD
I am a *BSD user
and I try hard to be brave
That is a tall order
*BSD's foot is in the grave.
I tap at my toy keyboard
and whistle a happy tune
but keeping happy's so hard,
*BSD died so soon.
Each day I wake and softly sob
Nightfall finds me crying
Not only am I a zit faced slob
but *BSD is dying.
OpenSolaris depends on one vendor. And the future of this vendor right now is very uncertain.
The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.
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