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: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200215050607.GC82559>