Gosh, BSD has been around for how long and it took Linux to get them OTA's to do a proper scheduler. Then they claim they are better. What a joke. No wonder I won't use BSD.
The BSD scheduler was rock solid and damned reliable. Upgrading a scheduler is not something one jumps into head first. It is a lot like all the major differences between Linux and BSD. The Linux folks jump right in and code stuff. The BSD folks think about the problem, theorize and evaluate possible solutions, then code.
It is a lot like with the file systems. Linux has 3 journaled file systems while FreeBSD skipped them all and implemented softupdates.
How about which OS supports more mainstream hardware, offers better commercial support, and whose releases aren't EOLed after 12 months a la FreeBSD? Gimme Debian's two years (or RHEL's five years) any day. Maybe you have time to upgrade all your boxes every 12 months; personally I prefer to USE my systems rather than fiddle with them.
If you ever tracked -RELEASE or -STABLE you would know what a trivial joke it is to keep a FreeBSD box current. The system is so tightly integrated that I could set up automated upgrades and not even worry about them. Not that I would expect a Linux user to understand this.
What kills me about Linux users is you think that us BSD users don't run Linux. I run more Linux boxes than you can possibly imagine. Sadly most of them are RedHat. Even the Debian ones, however, aren't as clean to administer as my FreeBSD boxes.
I have DirecTV also. I got the service long before they started the lawsuit crap and just after they stopped requiring the receivers be connected to a phone line at all times (which made it seem like they were lightening up instead of becoming assholes). At this point I have so much money invested in hardware that just ditching it would be a shitty idea. (3 Receivers, my DirecTivo, Lifetime subscription, switch box, etc.)
You also have to look at the alternatives. His cable company is probably Cox or one of the other equally evil cable companies. Some of us enjoy BBC too much to do without it entirely which is the only other real solution.
Long term or short term? Linux is faster now but the BSD folks always seem to spend a lot more time actually researching the issue.
2. is the most algorithmically scalable
I don't even know what this means. Are you referring to the scheduler and other system processes? Linux has an O(1) scheduler - only it ran head first into a brick wall in certain instances. FreeBSD spent a _lot_ of time implenting a robust and stable scheduler and it shows. NetBSD looked at the Linux algorithmns and tied or beat them in every case.
3. has fastest single threaded performance
How about which OS is more stable? How about which OS didn't have an idiotic 2TB block device limit for years longer than the BSD's? How about which OS didn't have a 2GB file size limit?
4. runs on more architectures
Can you say NetBSD? Besides which, the only computers I own are DEC Alphas and x86 boxes. I could cares less which OS runs on the DreamCast.
5. supports the most hardware
How about which one supports the hardware you actually want to run on, and not the toaster in your basement.
6. has the fastest TCP/IP stack
For what application? You ask this question as if there is one TCP stack that is fastest in all applications. You also probably prefer a fast stack to a stable one.
Answers won't be accepted without evidence.
Questions won't be accepted from AC's. Besides, if you want answers, go look them up yourself.
I have always wanted the software incompatibilities of the FreeBSD kernel with the nightmare that is the Linux userland. This project has answered my prayers!
Seriously though, why on earth would you use this project? The biggest selling point of FreeBSD is that it is a tightly integrated system. Why would you want to break that up? More importantly, why would you want the more restrictive license included with Debian?
All I said was that the SS5 lacked an mbus slot and that the ss10 and ss20 used mbus modules. I never said the ss5 did not use mbus.
I still have an ss10 with 512 MB of RAM and dual SM81 processors, an SS20 with 384 MB of RAM, dual 2 MB NVSIMM's for disk write caching and dual SM82 processors, and I also have a 110MHz ss5 with god only knows what in it:)
SCO can not sue BSD over the AT&T derived code. That was settled in the AT&T-Berkley lawsuit in which the judge ruled that Berkley infringed on 3 Unix files while AT&T had blatantly stolen dozens. The result was that AT&T had to pay Berkley's legal fees, Berkley had to rewrite the three infringing files, AT&T had to restore the copyrights on the files it used and Berkley could not be sued again for said infringement.
I try to be as standards compliant with my mail servers as is humanly possible. Even with numerous spam filters, I get about 10 legitimate email messages a day and 100 spams. Something has got to change.
Whether it is this technology, or another, something has got to be done. I'll implement this and hope that other admins do the same.
Luckily, my ISP doesn't appear to care about my usage so I don't have a problem.
Most decent ISP's are cool about this sort of thing. Even though you transfer 100GB/month- if it is local to the area (short-hopping from one ISP to the other) then it won't be a big concern to them. If you are the only one using that much bandwidth, then the ISP can handle it and won't care. If everyone started transferring that much bandwidth, the connections would suck though.
ISP's have always been businesses based on averages. You had one modem for every 8 users. If a user stayed on all the time, it threw those averages out of whack. The same goes for DSL today. The difference is, old-school dialup users understood this and today's users don't.
Verizon is very hit or miss, it totally depends on where you are located.
I have several friends in NY who can't keep their connection up for more than a few hours. They can reconnect immediately, but getting dc'd several times a day sucks.
My thought it that if you sell me a 1.5mb/sec connection then I should be able to use all of it. Other wise sell something smaller.
Hey I agree totally on this. The thing is, you are by far the exception and not the rule.
transfering large source code trees from work to home and back
Neither uploading high res pictures nor transferring source trees will ever get you near a bandwidth cap.
Most of these "unlimited" contracts include exceptions for excessive usage or usage detrimental to other users. The point behind these contracts isn't that you should be able to transfer the Library of Congress to your house every day, but to distinguish them from the old x hours per month dial-up services.
Are you for real? 1+ GB of traffic per day EVERY DAY?!?!
First off, you are talking about hosting your own site and this is usually against the TOS for these types of connections. What does that leave us with? What could you _possibly_ be downloading that totals more than 10GB/month on a regular basis???
Even if we consider uploads, a maxed out 384k upload totals approximately 3 GB per day. This assumes near perfect transfer rates and a totally saturated line operating 24 hours a day that would basically be unusable for anything else. Are you going to sit there and tell me that this is a realistic scenario?
But it's different since you have SDSL, they're probably aiming towards businesses rather then home users. May I ask how much you pay? $250/month and worth every penny. I have a routed connection with 32 addresses and business class service.
Some of these SpeakEasy posts have me rolling on the floor:)
I've had SpeakEasy for 3 years now and other than a small problem with Covad a couple of years back, they have just plain rocked. Tech support is always available and not stupid. When I wanted to use a Cisco router to connect, they told me they don't support it but then told me how to do it anyway.
Ok I have managed to peg the line for a few hours when downloading.iso's. That doesn't come close to the kind of insane bandwidth some people are using however.
I don't want to start a war here but I would love to know how people are running into bandwidth limitations _without_ doing file sharing?
I've had 768 SDSL for three years, and before that I had ISDN. I host a number of sites, download.iso's and documentation, handle email for a number of people and do a variety of other things with my connection.
Despite this, I have never come close to maxing out my line for anything more than a few minutes. Traffic usage for me, according to MRTG, amounts to an average of about 100kb/sec during daytime hours and less at night.
What I am curious aout is what are these people doing that is getting them noticed by their ISP's?
Having said all this, if a company is going to offer unlimited service, they sure as hell better be prepared to deliver it.
It wasn't the 3.x series so much as 3.0 and 3.1. Everyone, the FreeBSD folks included, admitted that they just weren't FreeBSD quality.
The result of those releases is that they don't let a release out anymore without even more stringent testing. 4.x is a testament to the improved release scrutiny.
Pimp/Bitch is actually a bit of an improvement, since it implies that the controlling device is actually providing an interface to the services of the controlled device. (This is not implied by Master/Slave unfortunately)
In IDE, the master drive does not provide an interface to the controller, it simply controls the clock.
There are so many thin-skinned people out there that would rather get offended and raise a ruckus rather than spend ten seconds educating themselves as to the real meaning of something that it is rediculous.
It is ridiculous NOT rediculous!!!
I am personally offended by you butchery of the English langage!:)
Slashdot Mirror
Gosh, BSD has been around for how long and it took Linux to get them OTA's to do a proper scheduler. Then they claim they are better. What a joke. No wonder I won't use BSD.
The BSD scheduler was rock solid and damned reliable. Upgrading a scheduler is not something one jumps into head first. It is a lot like all the major differences between Linux and BSD. The Linux folks jump right in and code stuff. The BSD folks think about the problem, theorize and evaluate possible solutions, then code.
It is a lot like with the file systems. Linux has 3 journaled file systems while FreeBSD skipped them all and implemented softupdates.
-sirket
How about which OS supports more mainstream hardware, offers better commercial support, and whose releases aren't EOLed after 12 months a la FreeBSD? Gimme Debian's two years (or RHEL's five years) any day. Maybe you have time to upgrade all your boxes every 12 months; personally I prefer to USE my systems rather than fiddle with them.
If you ever tracked -RELEASE or -STABLE you would know what a trivial joke it is to keep a FreeBSD box current. The system is so tightly integrated that I could set up automated upgrades and not even worry about them. Not that I would expect a Linux user to understand this.
What kills me about Linux users is you think that us BSD users don't run Linux. I run more Linux boxes than you can possibly imagine. Sadly most of them are RedHat. Even the Debian ones, however, aren't as clean to administer as my FreeBSD boxes.
-sirket
They actually used Linux's scheduler. Then they go and claim Linux rips off heaps of their code. What a joke.
What are you talking about? Linux use to use the BSD TCP stack verbatim. Moreover, SCHED_ULE has nothing in common with any of the Linux schedulers.
-sirket
I have DirecTV also. I got the service long before they started the lawsuit crap and just after they stopped requiring the receivers be connected to a phone line at all times (which made it seem like they were lightening up instead of becoming assholes). At this point I have so much money invested in hardware that just ditching it would be a shitty idea. (3 Receivers, my DirecTivo, Lifetime subscription, switch box, etc.)
You also have to look at the alternatives. His cable company is probably Cox or one of the other equally evil cable companies. Some of us enjoy BBC too much to do without it entirely which is the only other real solution.
-sirket
1. is the most SMP scalable (parallel)
Long term or short term? Linux is faster now but the BSD folks always seem to spend a lot more time actually researching the issue.
2. is the most algorithmically scalable
I don't even know what this means. Are you referring to the scheduler and other system processes? Linux has an O(1) scheduler - only it ran head first into a brick wall in certain instances. FreeBSD spent a _lot_ of time implenting a robust and stable scheduler and it shows. NetBSD looked at the Linux algorithmns and tied or beat them in every case.
3. has fastest single threaded performance
How about which OS is more stable? How about which OS didn't have an idiotic 2TB block device limit for years longer than the BSD's? How about which OS didn't have a 2GB file size limit?
4. runs on more architectures
Can you say NetBSD? Besides which, the only computers I own are DEC Alphas and x86 boxes. I could cares less which OS runs on the DreamCast.
5. supports the most hardware
How about which one supports the hardware you actually want to run on, and not the toaster in your basement.
6. has the fastest TCP/IP stack
For what application? You ask this question as if there is one TCP stack that is fastest in all applications. You also probably prefer a fast stack to a stable one.
Answers won't be accepted without evidence.
Questions won't be accepted from AC's. Besides, if you want answers, go look them up yourself.
-sirket
I have always wanted the software incompatibilities of the FreeBSD kernel with the nightmare that is the Linux userland. This project has answered my prayers!
Seriously though, why on earth would you use this project? The biggest selling point of FreeBSD is that it is a tightly integrated system. Why would you want to break that up? More importantly, why would you want the more restrictive license included with Debian?
-sirket
All I said was that the SS5 lacked an mbus slot and that the ss10 and ss20 used mbus modules. I never said the ss5 did not use mbus.
:)
I still have an ss10 with 512 MB of RAM and dual SM81 processors, an SS20 with 384 MB of RAM, dual 2 MB NVSIMM's for disk write caching and dual SM82 processors, and I also have a 110MHz ss5 with god only knows what in it
-sirket
This line pissed me off:
Back then, 64-bits was more of a marketing tool, and in many respects, still is.
64 bit gave higher precision for use on CAD workstations. Anyone who every used a Sun workstation for it's intended purpose would know this.
-sirket
Since when did the SS5 have an mbus slot? The SS10 and SS20 both used mbus modules. The SS5 had a built in processor.
-sirket
I'm glad someone pointed this out. And as for nostalgic? WTF did an ultra 5 become nostalgic?
-sirket
SCO can not sue BSD over the AT&T derived code. That was settled in the AT&T-Berkley lawsuit in which the judge ruled that Berkley infringed on 3 Unix files while AT&T had blatantly stolen dozens. The result was that AT&T had to pay Berkley's legal fees, Berkley had to rewrite the three infringing files, AT&T had to restore the copyrights on the files it used and Berkley could not be sued again for said infringement.
-sirket
I try to be as standards compliant with my mail servers as is humanly possible. Even with numerous spam filters, I get about 10 legitimate email messages a day and 100 spams. Something has got to change.
Whether it is this technology, or another, something has got to be done. I'll implement this and hope that other admins do the same.
-sirket
Luckily, my ISP doesn't appear to care about my usage so I don't have a problem.
Most decent ISP's are cool about this sort of thing. Even though you transfer 100GB/month- if it is local to the area (short-hopping from one ISP to the other) then it won't be a big concern to them. If you are the only one using that much bandwidth, then the ISP can handle it and won't care. If everyone started transferring that much bandwidth, the connections would suck though.
ISP's have always been businesses based on averages. You had one modem for every 8 users. If a user stayed on all the time, it threw those averages out of whack. The same goes for DSL today. The difference is, old-school dialup users understood this and today's users don't.
-sirket
Verizon is very hit or miss, it totally depends on where you are located.
I have several friends in NY who can't keep their connection up for more than a few hours. They can reconnect immediately, but getting dc'd several times a day sucks.
-sirket
My thought it that if you sell me a 1.5mb/sec connection then I should be able to use all of it. Other wise sell something smaller.
Hey I agree totally on this. The thing is, you are by far the exception and not the rule.
transfering large source code trees from work to home and back
Neither uploading high res pictures nor transferring source trees will ever get you near a bandwidth cap.
Most of these "unlimited" contracts include exceptions for excessive usage or usage detrimental to other users. The point behind these contracts isn't that you should be able to transfer the Library of Congress to your house every day, but to distinguish them from the old x hours per month dial-up services.
-sirket
Are you for real? 1+ GB of traffic per day EVERY DAY?!?!
First off, you are talking about hosting your own site and this is usually against the TOS for these types of connections. What does that leave us with? What could you _possibly_ be downloading that totals more than 10GB/month on a regular basis???
Even if we consider uploads, a maxed out 384k upload totals approximately 3 GB per day. This assumes near perfect transfer rates and a totally saturated line operating 24 hours a day that would basically be unusable for anything else. Are you going to sit there and tell me that this is a realistic scenario?
-sirket
But it's different since you have SDSL, they're probably aiming towards businesses rather then home users. May I ask how much you pay?
$250/month and worth every penny. I have a routed connection with 32 addresses and business class service.
-sirket
Some of these SpeakEasy posts have me rolling on the floor :)
I've had SpeakEasy for 3 years now and other than a small problem with Covad a couple of years back, they have just plain rocked. Tech support is always available and not stupid. When I wanted to use a Cisco router to connect, they told me they don't support it but then told me how to do it anyway.
-sirket
Ok I have managed to peg the line for a few hours when downloading .iso's. That doesn't come close to the kind of insane bandwidth some people are using however.
-sirket
I don't want to start a war here but I would love to know how people are running into bandwidth limitations _without_ doing file sharing?
.iso's and documentation, handle email for a number of people and do a variety of other things with my connection.
I've had 768 SDSL for three years, and before that I had ISDN. I host a number of sites, download
Despite this, I have never come close to maxing out my line for anything more than a few minutes. Traffic usage for me, according to MRTG, amounts to an average of about 100kb/sec during daytime hours and less at night.
What I am curious aout is what are these people doing that is getting them noticed by their ISP's?
Having said all this, if a company is going to offer unlimited service, they sure as hell better be prepared to deliver it.
-sirket
It wasn't the 3.x series so much as 3.0 and 3.1. Everyone, the FreeBSD folks included, admitted that they just weren't FreeBSD quality.
The result of those releases is that they don't let a release out anymore without even more stringent testing. 4.x is a testament to the improved release scrutiny.
-sirket
Wow. Perhaps you should try speaking with a few Christians before jumping to a conclusion.
As a confirmed Catholic, I have met more than a few Christians. My entire family is either Protestant or Catholic.
I think it is fair to say I have enough experience with Christianity to be nauseated by it.
-sirket
Does anyone know why the PowerPC port is moving so slow?
:)
Because it is a new port for FreeBSD. Because it isn't x86. Because you aren't contributing code to the port
It really is a recent port. Give it a little time and the pace of the project should pick up.
-sirket
Pimp/Bitch is actually a bit of an improvement, since it implies that the controlling device is actually providing an interface to the services of the controlled device. (This is not implied by Master/Slave unfortunately)
In IDE, the master drive does not provide an interface to the controller, it simply controls the clock.
-sirket
There are so many thin-skinned people out there that would rather get offended and raise a ruckus rather than spend ten seconds educating themselves as to the real meaning of something that it is rediculous.
:)
It is ridiculous NOT rediculous!!!
I am personally offended by you butchery of the English langage!
-sirket