5 ms·

BSDs are mundane and also stable, not like some rolling linux distros

by type0 6y ago

dijit 6y ago
The bsds are actually less stable than Linux. Stable meaning changes, in this context, right? freeBSD changes ABI compatibility with every version. If you mean that they have old software (and old==stable if you think Debian) then that’s because of BSD licensing vs GPL. GPL can take from BSD but the other way around is not possible. Stability of uptime? Yeah, they’re rock solid.
- snazz 6y ago
  For me, stability means uptime and infrequency of application crashes. Unfortunately, OpenBSD didn't meet that requirement on my (standard desktop) machine--it would frequently kernel panic on resume. On the other hand, I found that OpenBSD has absolutely outstanding reliability and stability on hardware like my ThinkPad X220.
- justin66 6y ago
  > The bsds are actually less stable than Linux. > Stable meaning changes, in this context, right? freeBSD changes ABI compatibility with every version. Every major version, right? From becoming -Stable to ending its support lifecycle, I'd think a FreeBSD version and its ABIs are supported as long as many Linux distro LTS releases.
  - dijit 6y ago
    The major difference being that if you have a statically compiled binary from linux 2.4 it will work on linux 5.5 The only difference will be any shared libraries and potentially the libc. But if we're speaking from a pure technical perspective, the libc is not linux.
    - floatboth 6y ago
      Binaries from all the way back from FreeBSD 4.0 work on -CURRENT just fine.
      - jeffdavis 6y ago
        And I seem to remember that FreeBSD can support linux binaries, too.
- int_19h 6y ago
  I know that they change (well, reserve the right to change) syscalls with every major version. But that's not a big deal, since only the base system is supposed to be using syscalls directly; everything else goes through libc. So, are you saying that they break libc ABI?
- rjsw 6y ago
  NetBSD preserves backwards compatibility for its ABI.
- hedora 6y ago
  How about stability of user interface? More of what I learned using Linux 0.99 applies to present-day OpenBSD than present-day Linux, and I can’t think of any breaking changes specific to the Linux side that weren’t clear regressions (except apt and dpkg. Those rock.)
- mapgrep 6y ago
  Apples and oranges. FreeBSD is providing the userland too so it’s not like the ABI change is going to break all the things it might in a Linux distro if the kernel broke ABI.

BSDs are mundane and also stable, not like some rolling linux distros

by type0 6y ago

BSDs are mundane and also stable, not like some rolling linux distros

The bsds are actually less stable than Linux. Stable meaning changes, in this context, right? freeBSD changes ABI compatibility with every version. If you mean that they have old software (and old==stable if you think Debian) then that’s because of BSD licensing vs GPL. GPL can take from BSD but the other way around is not possible. Stability of uptime? Yeah, they’re rock solid.

snazz 6y ago
For me, stability means uptime and infrequency of application crashes. Unfortunately, OpenBSD didn't meet that requirement on my (standard desktop) machine--it would frequently kernel panic on resume. On the other hand, I found that OpenBSD has absolutely outstanding reliability and stability on hardware like my ThinkPad X220.
justin66 6y ago
> The bsds are actually less stable than Linux. > Stable meaning changes, in this context, right? freeBSD changes ABI compatibility with every version. Every major version, right? From becoming -Stable to ending its support lifecycle, I'd think a FreeBSD version and its ABIs are supported as long as many Linux distro LTS releases.
- dijit 6y ago
  The major difference being that if you have a statically compiled binary from linux 2.4 it will work on linux 5.5 The only difference will be any shared libraries and potentially the libc. But if we're speaking from a pure technical perspective, the libc is not linux.
  - floatboth 6y ago
    Binaries from all the way back from FreeBSD 4.0 work on -CURRENT just fine.
    - jeffdavis 6y ago
      And I seem to remember that FreeBSD can support linux binaries, too.
int_19h 6y ago
I know that they change (well, reserve the right to change) syscalls with every major version. But that's not a big deal, since only the base system is supposed to be using syscalls directly; everything else goes through libc. So, are you saying that they break libc ABI?
rjsw 6y ago
NetBSD preserves backwards compatibility for its ABI.
hedora 6y ago
How about stability of user interface? More of what I learned using Linux 0.99 applies to present-day OpenBSD than present-day Linux, and I can’t think of any breaking changes specific to the Linux side that weren’t clear regressions (except apt and dpkg. Those rock.)
mapgrep 6y ago
Apples and oranges. FreeBSD is providing the userland too so it’s not like the ABI change is going to break all the things it might in a Linux distro if the kernel broke ABI.