Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 15 Feb 2020 11:50:50 -0600
From:      Valeri Galtsev <galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu>
To:        Victor Sudakov <vas@sibptus.ru>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Technological advantages over Linux
Message-ID:  <e3ec9076-7f71-f549-323b-073e1aca3cbb@kicp.uchicago.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20200215050607.GC82559@admin.sibptus.ru>
References:  <20200214121620.GA80657@admin.sibptus.ru> <89a55b95-f8cb-caef-44ef-7c8f6a4f36b2@malikania.fr> <20200215050607.GC82559@admin.sibptus.ru>

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


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
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?e3ec9076-7f71-f549-323b-073e1aca3cbb>