5 ms·
I’d say BSD (esp Net and Open, as mentioned above), just don’t run as many processes, by design. BSDs are *nix, like Linux, but with their own traditions. If yo
by bch 7y ago
I’d say BSD (esp Net and Open, as mentioned above), just don’t run as many processes, by design. BSDs are *nix, like Linux, but with their own traditions. If you, familiar with Linux, sat down at a NetBSD box, you’d be able to easily get around like a little girl[0]. You wouldn’t find systemd, though, you’d see a “wheel” group, your login shell might not be bash. The BSDs just decorate their houses differently than Linux[1].
[0] https://youtu.be/URVS4H7vrdU https://youtu.be/URVS4H7vrdU
[1] https://youtu.be/B19a2i3HnJM https://youtu.be/B19a2i3HnJM
- labawi 7y agoI'd say it depends on the Linux distribution. Things like Ubuntu would be much like mentioned [1], packing just about everything¹, while on something like openwrt you would probably recognize or easily find out the function of all userspace processes - I counted 13 on my router. It doesn't help that linux (kernel and userspaces) tends to resemble chaotic patchwork more¹ than a reasonably designed system. ¹ exaggeration
- bch 7y agoOf course you are correct; “Linux” is a big landscape, and descriptions of instances run the gamut (eg: OpenWRT vs Ubuntu). When I was writing above I had (eg) Red Hat or Ubuntu in mind.
- agumonkey 7y agoyeah, distros like archlinux have pretty thin base install and I always rejoy watching htop process list fit onto a third of the screen