4 ms·

Try FreeBSD first, more functions more ports/pkg, i had OBSD for a long time, but decided against it because of ZFS and Wine-Proton....and much more, but it's r

by nix23 4y ago

Try FreeBSD first, more functions more ports/pkg, i had OBSD for a long time, but decided against it because of ZFS and Wine-Proton....and much more, but it's really about what you want and what you need.

newZWhoDis 4y ago
Can you elaborate? As an outsider I don’t know if you mean FreeBSD has ZFS or OBSD
- xcdzvyn 4y ago
  FreeBSD has very good ZFS support; and more software support in general (as OP alluded to with Wine-Proton)
UI_at_80x24 4y ago
It totally depends on what you want to do/how you want to use your PC. For a 'general use' PC I'd suggest FreeBSD. There are more ports for newer programs that will offer more choices. NetBSD and OpenBSD also have their strengths, and EACH ONE can be used as a daily-driver. It just depends what you need/use. IMHO: FreeBSD = general purpose (Open|Net)BSD = more specialized
- nix23 4y ago
  Well that's what i wrote no? > but it's really about what you want and what you need.
  - UI_at_80x24 4y ago
    Yes, I just the wrong reply link. So I'm agreeing with you!
irusensei 4y ago
Stopped using FreeBSD on my home servers (2 RockPro64s) because it lacks big.Little support, which results in an OS that doesn't distinct between the stronger and weaker cores. Among the BSDs only NetBSD supports it but that's too far from my comfort zone. Not only that but SSL and GNUTLS speeds were terrible at the time since it didn't knew how to use the cpu extensions (greatly impacts samba performance) I've stoped using. Meanwhile Linux is a breeze. Faster, more responsible pulling 650MB/s on AES cryptsetup benchmark. BTRFS is actually quite good and LXC replaces jails. Transfers can easily saturate my gigabit connection. Don't think I'm going back so soon.
- nix23 4y ago
  Yeah sorry i don't like the idea of weaker stronger cores, i think it's one of the most stupidest ideas.
  - Sirened 4y ago
    Do you like...not believe in the idea of power efficiency? Heterogeneous SoCs are one of the biggest reasons why we can have incredibly powerful smartphones that still last all day—you can't run the big cores at full throttle all the time because they just use too much power.
    - nix23 4y ago
      No i think having identical cores who can slow down and deactivate features on-demand or deactivate itself is a better use of space. >you can't run the big cores at full throttle all the time because they just use too much power. Yes you don't do that...not even on servers (sometimes).
      - Sirened 4y ago
        >having identical cores who can slow down and deactivate features on-demand or deactivate itself is a better use of space With a take like that you're either a CPU micro-arch engineer working at the bleeding edge of research in this area or you have no idea how this actually works. One of the major ways we power optimize a core is by just making all the variable size structures smaller. That is, fewer/narrower execution units, smaller ROBs, smaller caches, less deep predictors, etc. Less hardware running means less leakage, which is the knob we're talking about controlling with little cores. Now, in theory you can partially power gate a cache to turn, say, a 6-way cache into a 4-way cache, but doing so is extremely complicated from a correctness perspective and is really not something anyone is actually doing today. And, anyways, fwiw: area is not really the a concern for modern SoCs at this point, it really is an issue of power/thermals. The feature size has gotten so small that they can afford to pack in extra stuff like accelerators and get good value out of them on the basis that it allows them to expend less energy than if they were to just use the CPU. For example, one big reason you see a lot of mobile SoCs with dedicated hardware for inference is because they have space and doing it with dedicate hardware lets them avoid burning a ton of energy on the CPU/GPU.

by nix23 4y ago

newZWhoDis 4y ago

Can you elaborate? As an outsider I don’t know if you mean FreeBSD has ZFS or OBSD

xcdzvyn 4y ago
FreeBSD has very good ZFS support; and more software support in general (as OP alluded to with Wine-Proton)

UI_at_80x24 4y ago

It totally depends on what you want to do/how you want to use your PC. For a 'general use' PC I'd suggest FreeBSD. There are more ports for newer programs that will offer more choices. NetBSD and OpenBSD also have their strengths, and EACH ONE can be used as a daily-driver. It just depends what you need/use. IMHO: FreeBSD = general purpose (Open|Net)BSD = more specialized

nix23 4y ago
Well that's what i wrote no? > but it's really about what you want and what you need.
- UI_at_80x24 4y ago
  Yes, I just the wrong reply link. So I'm agreeing with you!

irusensei 4y ago

Stopped using FreeBSD on my home servers (2 RockPro64s) because it lacks big.Little support, which results in an OS that doesn't distinct between the stronger and weaker cores. Among the BSDs only NetBSD supports it but that's too far from my comfort zone. Not only that but SSL and GNUTLS speeds were terrible at the time since it didn't knew how to use the cpu extensions (greatly impacts samba performance) I've stoped using. Meanwhile Linux is a breeze. Faster, more responsible pulling 650MB/s on AES cryptsetup benchmark. BTRFS is actually quite good and LXC replaces jails. Transfers can easily saturate my gigabit connection. Don't think I'm going back so soon.

nix23 4y ago
Yeah sorry i don't like the idea of weaker stronger cores, i think it's one of the most stupidest ideas.
- Sirened 4y ago
  Do you like...not believe in the idea of power efficiency? Heterogeneous SoCs are one of the biggest reasons why we can have incredibly powerful smartphones that still last all day—you can't run the big cores at full throttle all the time because they just use too much power.
  - nix23 4y ago
    No i think having identical cores who can slow down and deactivate features on-demand or deactivate itself is a better use of space. >you can't run the big cores at full throttle all the time because they just use too much power. Yes you don't do that...not even on servers (sometimes).
    - Sirened 4y ago
      >having identical cores who can slow down and deactivate features on-demand or deactivate itself is a better use of space With a take like that you're either a CPU micro-arch engineer working at the bleeding edge of research in this area or you have no idea how this actually works. One of the major ways we power optimize a core is by just making all the variable size structures smaller. That is, fewer/narrower execution units, smaller ROBs, smaller caches, less deep predictors, etc. Less hardware running means less leakage, which is the knob we're talking about controlling with little cores. Now, in theory you can partially power gate a cache to turn, say, a 6-way cache into a 4-way cache, but doing so is extremely complicated from a correctness perspective and is really not something anyone is actually doing today. And, anyways, fwiw: area is not really the a concern for modern SoCs at this point, it really is an issue of power/thermals. The feature size has gotten so small that they can afford to pack in extra stuff like accelerators and get good value out of them on the basis that it allows them to expend less energy than if they were to just use the CPU. For example, one big reason you see a lot of mobile SoCs with dedicated hardware for inference is because they have space and doing it with dedicate hardware lets them avoid burning a ton of energy on the CPU/GPU.