2 ms·

> That means the normal way to install is "<package_manager> install <package_name>". This excludes a lot of non-free software, which is included in ports. >

> That means the normal way to install is "<package_manager> install <package_name>". This excludes a lot of non-free software, which is included in ports. > Ok. Linux has iptables and now nftables/bpfilter. It's also got queuing, stateless and stateful features, protocol tracking, etc. CARP can be done in userland, or via other solutions like linux-ha/stonith. What are the reasons to choose FreeBSD here? Documentation, in my experience. > They haven't listed what's actually technically better about it than in systemd. (not subjectively) From experience, documentation and bugs (mostly due to age, but still absolutely relevant). I have about a billion questions about why systemd is built the way it is but I suppose that's a matter of taste and who paid to build it. > Jails as described in the article, have the same features as lxc. Documentation as always with the linux/bsd comparison. In addition, LXC—in particular cgroups—is still quite young and unproven. The major benefit here is the docker interface enabling easier deploys and an image specification format, which freebsd still lacks. Honestly, the documentation alone is enough to move me over to BSD—linux is basically the wild west, and you often discover undocumented behavior (is it a bug? is it intended? ask developer xxx on the mailing list.)

viraptor 7y ago
> This excludes a lot of non-free software, which is included in ports. This depends completely on your choice of a distribution. There's nothing about package managers that makes a difference in this case. For example Arch, especially with AUR will include all non-free software you want. Ubuntu offers them. Debian/RH have them one config edit away. Recently snap/flatpak also provide those to all distros - whether they're using free-only repos by default or not. > In addition, LXC—in particular cgroups—is still quite young and unproven. LXC was introduced over a decade ago. Cgroups even before that. Cgroups themselves are enabled per-session and per-service in pretty much every modern linux deployment for years now. There's less time between jails and cgroups than between cgroups and current day. Cgroups were added to linux in the same year as zfs was added to freebsd. (2007) I'm not sure what you see as young or unproven about them.
- monadic2 7y ago
  LXC was only introduced in 2007. I wouldn't call ZFS a good comparison as I would also still consider it rather young in terms of basic unix technologies—depending on your needs, you could easily use some other simpler but older (and likely less buggier) software. With respect to cgroups versus lxc specifically, I don't think the approach is well suited for security reasons—the surface area for bugs and vulnerabilities is much larger than with the jails approach.
  - viraptor 7y ago
    > the surface area for bugs and vulnerabilities is much larger than with the jails approach It would be great if someone wrote an article with technical details about it. I see this repeated very often, but if you actually go looking for details... it's hard to find any justification.
    - monadic2 7y ago
      I can’t say I have a decent justification off hand myself—this was the impression I had when digging through a comparison of the two softwares about a year back. Cgroups appears to have a much more detail laden implementation, but this could be explained away with my lack of Linux internals.
TylerE 7y ago
The thing that always impressed me with FreeBSD was how it was a complete integrated system, and not a group of miscellaneous parts in loose formation.

viraptor 7y ago

> This excludes a lot of non-free software, which is included in ports. This depends completely on your choice of a distribution. There's nothing about package managers that makes a difference in this case. For example Arch, especially with AUR will include all non-free software you want. Ubuntu offers them. Debian/RH have them one config edit away. Recently snap/flatpak also provide those to all distros - whether they're using free-only repos by default or not. > In addition, LXC—in particular cgroups—is still quite young and unproven. LXC was introduced over a decade ago. Cgroups even before that. Cgroups themselves are enabled per-session and per-service in pretty much every modern linux deployment for years now. There's less time between jails and cgroups than between cgroups and current day. Cgroups were added to linux in the same year as zfs was added to freebsd. (2007) I'm not sure what you see as young or unproven about them.

monadic2 7y ago
LXC was only introduced in 2007. I wouldn't call ZFS a good comparison as I would also still consider it rather young in terms of basic unix technologies—depending on your needs, you could easily use some other simpler but older (and likely less buggier) software. With respect to cgroups versus lxc specifically, I don't think the approach is well suited for security reasons—the surface area for bugs and vulnerabilities is much larger than with the jails approach.
- viraptor 7y ago
  > the surface area for bugs and vulnerabilities is much larger than with the jails approach It would be great if someone wrote an article with technical details about it. I see this repeated very often, but if you actually go looking for details... it's hard to find any justification.
  - monadic2 7y ago
    I can’t say I have a decent justification off hand myself—this was the impression I had when digging through a comparison of the two softwares about a year back. Cgroups appears to have a much more detail laden implementation, but this could be explained away with my lack of Linux internals.

TylerE 7y ago

The thing that always impressed me with FreeBSD was how it was a complete integrated system, and not a group of miscellaneous parts in loose formation.