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: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?e3ec9076-7f71-f549-323b-073e1aca3cbb>