4 ms·

On the contrary the FreeBSD project offers stable 'LTS' release for 5 years each. What I mean by that is each 'major' version with stable API/ABI has a life sp

On the contrary the FreeBSD project offers stable 'LTS' release for 5 years each. What I mean by that is each 'major' version with stable API/ABI has a life span of about 5 years - like 5 years of 12.x version, 5 years of 13.x version, etc. ... and all that with having about only 1/10 of the Linux people count (rough estimate).

pengaru 3y ago
> ... and all that with having about only 1/10 of the Linux people count (rough estimate). It's easy to offer a long LTS release cadence when your project is stagnant.
- ktaylora 3y ago
  It's pretty active, actually. Look at the release notes for FreeBSD major versions. Some folks think the release engineering team is too active and that major versions should be supported for more than ~5 years.
- vermaden 3y ago
  If this [1] is stagnant then I do not know what is not ... [1] https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/log/ https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/log/
  - pengaru 3y ago
    That's all of FreeBSD including userspace, not just the kernel. In Linux land you see more than that level of activity in just the kernel: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/log/ https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin... I didn't say FreeBSD was abandonware, its kernel development has just been relatively stagnant for decades vs. Linux. Which shouldn't come as particularly surprising considering how much more adoption and investment there's been surrounding Linux over that time period.
ladyanita22 3y ago
Yeah FreeBSD is not happening, sorry.
- Gud 3y ago
  What do you mean? I've witnessed many exoduses in technology, the most obvious ones being MySQL > PostgreSQL. And from PHP to JS & Python. I don't think it's too far fetched for people clinging to their favorite GNU/Linux distro to switch to FreeBSD, especially on the server side where in my opinion, FreeBSD is the superior choice. I think the world is better off when there are choices and the Linux near mono culture is not good for the FOSS movement, in my opinion.
- PedroBatista 3y ago
  Good thing it already happened and keeps going.
phicoh 3y ago
A difference is that the FreeBSD has to maintain two versions most of the time and sometimes three versions. At the moment there are 12.x and 13.x. 14.x is in beta, so soon there will be three. But 12.x is expected to be dropped at the end of this year, so in 2024 it will be back to two versions. As far as I can tell there are a lot more Linux kernels in LTS at the moment.
- throw0101b 3y ago
  > But 12.x is expected to be dropped […] Not "expected", rather than that being the policy: five years is ending. * https://www.freebsd.org/security/#sup https://www.freebsd.org/security/#sup December 2018: * https://www.freebsd.org/releases/12.0R/ https://www.freebsd.org/releases/12.0R/ * https://www.freebsd.org/releases/ https://www.freebsd.org/releases/
kelnos 3y ago
FreeBSD's major release cycle is much longer than that of the Linux kernel (which makes sense, since FBSD has to maintain the entire OS, not just the kernel). Right now they have two active major release series, and there's a new one every 2.5 years or so. The Linux kernel has a new major release every two months, and it looks like LTS kernels are one out of every five or six major versions, so that's a new LTS kernel every 10-12 months; right now they have six LTS kernels to maintain. Also I expect that the Linux kernel develops at a much more rapid pace than the FreeBSD kernel. That's not a knock on FreeBSD; that's just the likely reality. Is that development pace sufficient to support thousands of different embedded chips? Does the FreeBSD project even want to see the kind of change in their development process that an influx of new embedded developers would likely entail?

pengaru 3y ago

> ... and all that with having about only 1/10 of the Linux people count (rough estimate). It's easy to offer a long LTS release cadence when your project is stagnant.

ktaylora 3y ago
It's pretty active, actually. Look at the release notes for FreeBSD major versions. Some folks think the release engineering team is too active and that major versions should be supported for more than ~5 years.
vermaden 3y ago
If this [1] is stagnant then I do not know what is not ... [1] https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/log/ https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/log/
- pengaru 3y ago
  That's all of FreeBSD including userspace, not just the kernel. In Linux land you see more than that level of activity in just the kernel: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/log/ https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin... I didn't say FreeBSD was abandonware, its kernel development has just been relatively stagnant for decades vs. Linux. Which shouldn't come as particularly surprising considering how much more adoption and investment there's been surrounding Linux over that time period.

ladyanita22 3y ago

Yeah FreeBSD is not happening, sorry.

Gud 3y ago
What do you mean? I've witnessed many exoduses in technology, the most obvious ones being MySQL > PostgreSQL. And from PHP to JS & Python. I don't think it's too far fetched for people clinging to their favorite GNU/Linux distro to switch to FreeBSD, especially on the server side where in my opinion, FreeBSD is the superior choice. I think the world is better off when there are choices and the Linux near mono culture is not good for the FOSS movement, in my opinion.
PedroBatista 3y ago
Good thing it already happened and keeps going.

phicoh 3y ago

A difference is that the FreeBSD has to maintain two versions most of the time and sometimes three versions. At the moment there are 12.x and 13.x. 14.x is in beta, so soon there will be three. But 12.x is expected to be dropped at the end of this year, so in 2024 it will be back to two versions. As far as I can tell there are a lot more Linux kernels in LTS at the moment.

throw0101b 3y ago
> But 12.x is expected to be dropped […] Not "expected", rather than that being the policy: five years is ending. * https://www.freebsd.org/security/#sup https://www.freebsd.org/security/#sup December 2018: * https://www.freebsd.org/releases/12.0R/ https://www.freebsd.org/releases/12.0R/ * https://www.freebsd.org/releases/ https://www.freebsd.org/releases/

kelnos 3y ago

FreeBSD's major release cycle is much longer than that of the Linux kernel (which makes sense, since FBSD has to maintain the entire OS, not just the kernel). Right now they have two active major release series, and there's a new one every 2.5 years or so. The Linux kernel has a new major release every two months, and it looks like LTS kernels are one out of every five or six major versions, so that's a new LTS kernel every 10-12 months; right now they have six LTS kernels to maintain. Also I expect that the Linux kernel develops at a much more rapid pace than the FreeBSD kernel. That's not a knock on FreeBSD; that's just the likely reality. Is that development pace sufficient to support thousands of different embedded chips? Does the FreeBSD project even want to see the kind of change in their development process that an influx of new embedded developers would likely entail?