>How is this comparable? One is inherently selfish. The
>other is inherently protective. They're opposite.
_Forced_ freedom is not freedom at all - it is labor camp regime. And using embrace-and-extend tactics to force people into that "protective" camp is no better than what Microsoft is doing.
What? PAO code has been merged into FreeBSD 4.0 for quite some time now.
NEWCARD code is under active development in FreeBSD-CURRENT and will provide support for native cardbus mode cards (as opposed to using then in 16 bit compatibility mode). If you need working cardbus, I'd suggest NetBSD over OpenBSD any time.
BSD now is where Linux was couple years ago in reagard of commercial software vendors acceptance. And the use if BSD is growing steadily. There is no reason why BSDs can not repeat the Linux progress. After all, they do have significant strong points compared with Linux. All they lack is a hype.
> Can you play QIII accelerated under
> OpenBSD? UT?
Utah-GLX works under BSDs with minimal tweaks. So I guess one can play QIII under BSDs as well as under Linux.
> Does BSDs come with a graphics capable web browser?
Is Netscape not good enough for you? What other super browser is available for Linux which does not also worl on xBSD?
Sound is usually supported rather well under BSDs. The only exception are soundcards for which drivers are available on binary-only form for Linux. You would do yourself favor avoiding these cards anyway:)
I work for a company which is using RS/6000 and AIX servers exclusively. AIX servers have _never_ crashed on us, even though they run under serious load all the time.
AIX has an unmatched volume management facilities, it integrates well with other vendor Unixes and it is sufficiently BSDish for me to feel at home while working on it. Very close to the perfect OS, indeed:)
Re:Running FreeBSD is not a pure technical decisio
on
The Roots Of BSD
·
· Score: 1
Bull. There was discussions about that on FreeBSD mailing lists and someone pointed out that majority of their systems are running 3.x version and they are in process of upgrading to 4.0 since 4.0 is so surprisingly stable. Jordan Hubbard even wrote that 4.0 is the most stable.0 release FreeBSD had ever. Besides, what "sixty" machines are you talking about? Last time I checked, Yahoo was running at least 2000 FreeBSD boxes.
I bet you didn't change default mount options for FreeBSD filesystems. By default FreeBSD mounts disks with synchronous metadata updates option set, which obviously slower than Linux's default asynchronous mount. It is great deal safer though.
Also, it also should be noted that softupdates technology is available on FreeBSD for quite some time now. Softupdates eliminate synchronous metadata updates while providing the same level of fault-tolerance. You really should have tried turning softupdates while doing your benchmarking because without them you are comparing apples and oranges and your claim about Linux having better performance is totally unfounded.
Actually, what you say is not the whole truth. 4.4BSD, the OS from which all other Free- Net- and Open- BSDs are derived, was using Mach VM code. So Mach kernel could easily be considered to be uncle for all modern BSD variants. Unfortunately, none of nephews liked uncle too much. All of them removed poorly integrated Mach code from theis sources in favor of their own implementations (UVM for NetBSD and OpenBSD, no-name VM for FreeBSD)
Slashdot Mirror
>How is this comparable? One is inherently selfish. The >other is inherently protective. They're opposite. _Forced_ freedom is not freedom at all - it is labor camp regime. And using embrace-and-extend tactics to force people into that "protective" camp is no better than what Microsoft is doing.
NetBSD and OpenBSD were not affected since they use different partition ID's, so FreeBSD was the only victim of this particular IBM screwup.
What? PAO code has been merged into FreeBSD 4.0 for quite some time now. NEWCARD code is under active development in FreeBSD-CURRENT and will provide support for native cardbus mode cards (as opposed to using then in 16 bit compatibility mode). If you need working cardbus, I'd suggest NetBSD over OpenBSD any time.
BSD now is where Linux was couple years ago in reagard of commercial software vendors acceptance. And the use if BSD is growing steadily. There is no reason why BSDs can not repeat the Linux progress. After all, they do have significant strong points compared with Linux. All they lack is a hype.
> Can you play QIII accelerated under :)
> OpenBSD? UT?
Utah-GLX works under BSDs with minimal tweaks. So I guess one can play QIII under BSDs as well as under Linux.
> Does BSDs come with a graphics capable web browser?
Is Netscape not good enough for you? What other super browser is available for Linux which does not also worl on xBSD?
Sound is usually supported rather well under BSDs. The only exception are soundcards for which drivers are available on binary-only form for Linux. You would do yourself favor avoiding these cards anyway
This issue has been beaten to death already, but here it goes: FreeBSD in distributed under two-clause 'new' BSD license
I work for a company which is using RS/6000 and AIX servers exclusively. AIX servers have _never_ crashed on us, even though they run under serious load all the time.
:)
AIX has an unmatched volume management facilities, it integrates well with other vendor Unixes and it is sufficiently BSDish for me to feel at home while working on it. Very close to the perfect OS, indeed
Bull. There was discussions about that on FreeBSD mailing lists and someone pointed out that majority of their systems are running 3.x version and they are in process of upgrading to 4.0 since 4.0 is so surprisingly stable. Jordan Hubbard even wrote that 4.0 is the most stable .0 release FreeBSD had ever. Besides, what "sixty" machines are you talking about? Last time I checked, Yahoo was running at least 2000 FreeBSD boxes.
I bet you didn't change default mount options for FreeBSD filesystems. By default FreeBSD mounts disks with synchronous metadata updates option set, which obviously slower than Linux's default asynchronous mount. It is great deal safer though.
Also, it also should be noted that softupdates technology is available on FreeBSD for quite some time now. Softupdates eliminate synchronous metadata updates while providing the same level of fault-tolerance. You really should have tried turning softupdates while doing your benchmarking because without them you are comparing apples and oranges and your claim about Linux having better performance is totally unfounded.
Actually, what you say is not the whole truth. 4.4BSD, the OS from which all other Free- Net- and Open- BSDs are derived, was using Mach VM code. So Mach kernel could easily be considered to be uncle for all modern BSD variants. Unfortunately, none of nephews liked uncle too much. All of them removed poorly integrated Mach code from theis sources in favor of their own implementations (UVM for NetBSD and OpenBSD, no-name VM for FreeBSD)