From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Fri Feb 14 18:02:31 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4A6D23C7BE for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 18:02:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from mout.kundenserver.de (mout.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.187]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mout.kundenserver.de", Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass Class 2 CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48K1S55Y35z3xf9 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 18:02:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from r56.edvax.de ([178.12.39.141]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue012 [212.227.15.167]) with ESMTPA (Nemesis) id 1Mc1hn-1jcZ8b262B-00dUo4; Fri, 14 Feb 2020 19:02:22 +0100 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 19:02:20 +0100 From: Polytropon To: Dale Scott Cc: Alejandro Imass , freebsd-questions , Victor Sudakov Subject: Re: Technological advantages over Linux Message-Id: <20200214190220.1560784d.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <2011372779.118117269.1581701700318.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca> References: <20200214121620.GA80657@admin.sibptus.ru> <2011372779.118117269.1581701700318.JavaMail.zimbra@shaw.ca> Reply-To: Polytropon Organization: EDVAX X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.1 (GTK+ 2.24.5; i386-portbld-freebsd8.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:1rsOXXeCD37MdAFRTjIQ/yHxjp3h7625z6/WHGGxn1Qd2ZGpXvD gYV81jZMAJy4UcKhuqDG4P3swism+/LHmSJQnMREedmeM+kLQJxEPvHtn+bbqhTDfJQ8meq PROqg8cPneyx/e3DvUtaPMzzPzKpx4dZ53mm3s3heu4rkltfUjkAEBXhLOlN1JjHMavCJL9 MxWHVWgEbp3/Dpjww0CNQ== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:CPKdLsxz8Nk=:iYNp4Dumi3PiudOVrKR0QG p5qvroADJ7RinaIaka7Niy0FZG1FJLwO29NUzFkTygO4ktD4uyoujfFBu244fN5TBHzMFqzaO jcqq7ku2UqJVHdK2bYc1eESICSxxG7GuyM3fVP4JfaoWHLiZdeYeU0f7BOM+M4tqTj8aFUCgj Pih4E3OfixrpS7MEQVUMrXGc58OosECDREsBqXrmTyj3EOtyNK2tjoNW7bWBduzCLandLdCo4 PwSajcetEpL2SpKsAN8yt3RdEcokIvGCyBrR1h/H8bqZVsYuU5HwsyiBOAiVI8tXYjvJQ5PzG /5UNoFe/Ne2vtrautvI4fnahN+nyW3xVQnpoBKih8PPCrWSi5T5YEjClcEHRtfx5LlYBPfBCd seHEKN9Ms6IvvW8/lrwNeTLzbGKXQQuSqISAfk7+NP2IIQN7PctNejGSea1JWlpGMC48Z+zeJ Bz0MRfEasuzswmn8hcPLdF/JHXRLBWdmcJPPSIQJ1HDDWo7q0YYrX8JTLNh/V2MTCxFZwllvT +auInVHH0G5w+VpaQc9pczPVBvAwfnkS5oeREv2xEpSQIn4lplsYXjsBDUO7JveM7PrN3DGwO fxvkeo51PaERhrhVAMD1JFRNGcD+ZUl1UWF6zFR2Ktp0I2K28lRSZN8GFkxHjfa4SD2jxsvnD 94awMbzlSPJesy5dtRhZ/pkcL1uj1UXx5ngaZQYR4yxNrmmpusNFmkcPCu6RpVEV8YX346jES Id2Gx9YsK8hvccKAFJu7E5jJ5ADd8PRwKKIGe1c7/tnGcIFOdb9GAwCrPV9ijjBCFE8IMkMD4 MMv05Yct8Z6zsS+BxVh7FkvrvVr0J0nontK+dWzd7+fqRMOt5ImiDU4eOV+AIihFxNvWvkP X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 48K1S55Y35z3xf9 X-Spamd-Bar: ++++ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of freebsd@edvax.de has no SPF policy when checking 212.227.126.187) smtp.mailfrom=freebsd@edvax.de X-Spamd-Result: default: False [4.65 / 15.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.00)[freebsd@edvax.de]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; HAS_ORG_HEADER(0.00)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_PBL(0.00)[141.39.12.178.khpj7ygk5idzvmvt5x4ziurxhy.zen.dq.spamhaus.net : 127.0.0.11]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:8560, ipnet:212.227.0.0/16, country:DE]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; REPLYTO_EQ_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[edvax.de]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.94)[0.936,0]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(1.00)[0.998,0]; MID_CONTAINS_FROM(1.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[187.126.227.212.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[187.126.227.212.rep.mailspike.net : 127.0.0.17]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; IP_SCORE(0.31)[ip: (0.49), ipnet: 212.227.0.0/16(-1.12), asn: 8560(2.21), country: DE(-0.02)] X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 18:02:32 -0000 On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 10:35:00 -0700 (MST), Dale Scott wrote: > +1. Linux is abstraction on top of abstraction, it is like SAP! No, SAP is inner platform. ;-) But basically, you are correct. According to my (limited and individual) experiences, people are used to put abstractions on top of abstractions, several layers, and they expect (!) things to always be like that. So for example, if you'd say for a specific task you'd build a FreeBSD system with the function of a mailserver, they'd tell you that you cannot do this, because you need this running on that controlled by something else scripted by something else controlled by again something different virtualized on blah blah blah. I find it hard to even remember this week's set of tools you "need" to use... > The pendulum has started to swing, abstraction that could be done without > only increases project duration and effort, and reduces future maintainability. With those piles of abstraction, you lose control, and you don't recognize it immediately, but when it _stops_ working and you are held liable for a problem. In such a case, costs will be significant (except you are in the lucky position where you can just have your customers pay for your failure). As always, you can shift costs around, but at a certain point, when your business depends too much on the good will of several (!) 3rd parties, and one of them closes shop, you are immediately affected and have "non-controllable" costs to modify your "stack" to get it working again. > A story I heard recently concerned a consultant, who wanted to use a > particular piece of technology because the consultant knew he could produce > a superior solution. However, the consultant realized that once he was gone, the > technology would be as if magic to the company, and the solution would over time > become less understood and maintainable, and so the consultant used more familiar > "old-school" technology because long-term it would be better for the client. > Food for thought.... ;-) Here is an important piece of information: Short term vs. long term. In my opinion, if costs don't matter, and you want a certain combination of things right away, a Linux solution will do. It will work short term, within a certain time window, and will probably do without significant problems. But if you need to provide something for a long term, reliably, and understandable (!) for those who have to maintain it, FreeBSD probably is the better solution. Again, "worse" and "better" significantly depends on what your actual use case is. I wouldn't generalize, even though my personal "list of superiority" contains, among others: - UFS - ZFS and BEs - clean and predictable (!) OS - OS separated from 3rd party software - documentation locally available - release approach - no "moving target" - good development tools - friendly, helpful and intelligent community - compliant to existing standards - well intended security barriers - general "UNIX mentality" - distribution as RELEASE / STABLE / HEAD, whatever you need - ports collection & pkg Sure, there is lots of potential for improvement. As it has been mentioned, OpenBSD shines at documentation, but FreeBSD isn't all that bad - compared to some Linusi (plural of Linux) where documentation is scattered across user web pages, wikis, discussion forums and "WhatsApp" groups, partially outdated or simply just wrong. For developers, this is a nightmare, but sysadmins also suffer from it. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...