Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 15 Feb 2020 12:06:07 +0700
From:      Victor Sudakov <vas@sibptus.ru>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Technological advantages over Linux
Message-ID:  <20200215050607.GC82559@admin.sibptus.ru>
In-Reply-To: <89a55b95-f8cb-caef-44ef-7c8f6a4f36b2@malikania.fr>
References:  <20200214121620.GA80657@admin.sibptus.ru> <89a55b95-f8cb-caef-44ef-7c8f6a4f36b2@malikania.fr>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help

--oJ71EGRlYNjSvfq7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

David Demelier wrote:
> > Not to start a flame war. A purely technical question: what
> > technological advantages does the modern FreeBSD have over modern Linux?
>=20
> In short:
>=20
> - Jails ;

Linux has several implementations of what we call Jails (OpenVZ, Linux
Containers, whatever). It also has Docker which beats jails.

> - 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]
>=20
> > 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.
>=20
> 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?

--=20
Victor Sudakov,  VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
2:5005/49@fidonet http://vas.tomsk.ru/

--oJ71EGRlYNjSvfq7
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJeR3w/AAoJEA2k8lmbXsY0QCUH/1TU4y/rt28ViAHWgHGmnNu6
A5As5iqeUqq+v9TYjXjef/IydqF8vN5L6fP2xmelrKL1XckJG+l2BxSwUWe6u8dL
hIaIjdklfIvi1nJu60E3RFk4ksyL6mUlHoayuirQYXpYJskoqpTjgisO29ITqjrX
Ity40QdxZC8RWoigpoENraG3g1uSZ7Zs6WDZRkShaLR+68aKOLjV6r6dRGCsDcYh
yE0mQUqpjHpbwUsmZFWK2Dn8PmG8tqGetYT2/ceeiIXKbDsGwAgcqXud4wrLvN/f
7bWAzhMDO4NdvO/NHtidJBpQXlTWiMYFPBzkxf+jw4oq70ydJyKrzlghgdGRXoM=
=tyt3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--oJ71EGRlYNjSvfq7--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200215050607.GC82559>