From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sat Feb 15 17:50:51 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 F1AA4241AEF for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 17:50:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu) Received: from kicp.uchicago.edu (kicp.uchicago.edu [128.135.20.70]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48Kd8C05bzz4VK5 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 17:50:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu) Received: from point.uchicago.edu (point.uchicago.edu [128.135.52.6]) (Authenticated sender: galtsev) by kicp.uchicago.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 52ABA4E691; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 11:50:50 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Technological advantages over Linux To: Victor Sudakov , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <20200214121620.GA80657@admin.sibptus.ru> <89a55b95-f8cb-caef-44ef-7c8f6a4f36b2@malikania.fr> <20200215050607.GC82559@admin.sibptus.ru> From: Valeri Galtsev Message-ID: Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 11:50:50 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200215050607.GC82559@admin.sibptus.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 48Kd8C05bzz4VK5 X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF, No valid DKIM" header.from=uchicago.edu (policy=none); spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu has no SPF policy when checking 128.135.20.70) smtp.mailfrom=galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.67 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; DMARC_POLICY_SOFTFAIL(0.10)[uchicago.edu : No valid SPF, No valid DKIM,none]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.91)[-0.912,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.99)[-0.994,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; IP_SCORE(0.14)[ip: (0.39), ipnet: 128.135.0.0/16(0.19), asn: 160(0.15), country: US(-0.05)]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[70.20.135.128.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.10.0]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_NO_TLS_LAST(0.10)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:160, ipnet:128.135.0.0/16, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] 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: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 17:50:52 -0000 On 2020-02-14 23:06, Victor Sudakov wrote: > David Demelier wrote: >>> Not to start a flame war. A purely technical question: what >>> technological advantages does the modern FreeBSD have over modern Linux? >> >> In short: >> >> - Jails ; > > Linux has several implementations of what we call Jails (OpenVZ, Linux > Containers, whatever). It also has Docker which beats jails. -1 In my book FreeBSD jail beats Docker. Just for statistics of humble opinions. Valeri > >> - ZFS ; > > Linux has too (but see later). > >> - Simplicity (not always the case though). Type mount on a fresh FreeBSD and >> a fresh Linux and admire that. Also applies to initial processes ; > > That's true (aesthetically too) but these are the admin's personal > problems. The admin is a subordinate person and must support whatever > system is deemed better for production, performance, features etc. > > >> - Documentation (not the best though, OpenBSD has the best doc out there) >> but all BSD have the most well documented stuff ; > > RedHat's documentation was pretty good AFAIR (when I worked with RedHat > 6). But this is a valid point, thank you. FreeBSD's handbook and other > docs are very good (if dated in some places). > >> - pf ; > > I cannot compare pf with iptables for the lack of experience in the > latter, but as a stateful firewall, pf kind of sucks because it a) > cannot keep state above the transport layer and b) its very notion of > state is kind of perverse. > >> - poudriere ; > > poudriere is part of the binary software packaging system. For the > present I think Linux's binary packaging system (apt or yum) is still > more advanced than ours. > > However, the separation of the "base system" and "packages" as seen in > FreeBSD seems to me a great, unique advantage. Another point in > FreeBSD's favour. > >> - src.conf, make.conf and easy world rebuild ; > > Very few need this nowadays at the time of cattle servers (as opposed to > pet servers). > >> - LLVM instead of GCC. > > If it gives measurable advantages in productivity, performance or > security, I'd be happy to learn more about that. > > [dd] >> >>> Several yeas ago I would say ZFS was a killer feature, but now Linux has >>> ZFS too, and AFAIK FreeBSD is going to migrate to Linux's ZFS >>> implementation. >> >> Linux has unofficial ZFS support, it's not in the kernel and it's a real >> mess. > > If this is really so, why is FreeBSD planning to migrate to Linux's ZFS > implementation? > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++