3 ms·

I agree that ZFS is a killer feature. But nowadays you can get a native Linux Kernel Module for ZFS (http://zfsonlinux.org/ http://zfsonlinux.org/). I disagree

I agree that ZFS is a killer feature. But nowadays you can get a native Linux Kernel Module for ZFS (http://zfsonlinux.org/ http://zfsonlinux.org/). I disagree about ports being as reliable as package management on Ubuntu. For me, it was always super hairy, even with years of Portage/emerge experience on Gentoo. Apt is just buttery smooth. Also, part of the reason I switched was performance. Our LAMP-ish stack on the same hardware was able to serve like 25-30% more requests per second on Ubuntu vs. FreeBSD. But this is a non-issue for a homeserver.

Freaky 14y ago
> nowadays you can get a native Linux Kernel Module for ZFS Is it considered production ready yet? > I disagree about ports being as reliable as package management on Ubuntu. For me, it was always super hairy, even with years of Portage/emerge experience on Gentoo. Ports have always been pretty crap for upgrades. There simply isn't enough metadata to do it reliably, so we're stuck with reading /usr/ports/UPDATING and being careful with whatever third party tool we're using to manage it all. This is compounded by there being no "stable" branches - everything in ports happens on trunk, and everyone's expected to follow that. If you're looking for Debian-stable-style backporting of security fixes and sticking with the same version of Apache for half a decade, FreeBSD probably isn't for you. > Apt is just buttery smooth. pkgng is buttery smoother (http://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng/ http://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng/).