4 ms·

A big part of the difference is that the BSDs are designed by a governing committee. They usually don't have 15 different solutions for the same problem, but in

A big part of the difference is that the BSDs are designed by a governing committee. They usually don't have 15 different solutions for the same problem, but instead 2-3 solutions that work well. Take filesystems, the official filesystems are UFS(1/2) and ZFS. They have GEOM as LVM and LUKS and more. That being said, the majority of money and development goes into Linux, which by itself may make it a better system (eventually). Edit: Of course UFS is not deprecated.

assimpleaspossi 1y ago
UFS is not deprecated on FreeBSD.
- hxorr 1y ago
  I believe it is the default on netBSD
graemep 1y ago
> A big part of the difference is that the BSDs are designed by a governing committee. They usually don't have 15 different solutions for the same problem, but instead 2-3 solutions that work well. The right comparison is not between a particular BSD and Linux, its between a particular BSD and a Linux distro.
- jeltz 1y ago
  I feel the BSDs are much more different from each other than the average Linux distros are.
  - graemep 1y ago
    Average/most popular distros, maybe. The full range of distros are very different from each other. Consider Void, Alpine, Gentoo, Chimera, NixOS..... Different C libraries, init systems, different default command line utilities....
    - anthk 1y ago
      That's nothing. Alpine can run Glibc binaries with compat libraries. Try running a FreeBSD binary under OpenBSD.
      - graemep 1y ago
        But only with compat libraries. Similarly FreeBSD can provide Linux compatility. Wine lets you run Windows binaries on multiple OSes.
        anthk 1y ago
        You can't run neither FreeBSD nor NetBSD binaries under OpenBSD.
gnfargbl 1y ago
I can't help but make the comparison with cryptographic network protocols, where the industry started with a kitchen-sink approach (e.g. pluggable cipher suites in TLS) and ended up moving towards fixed primitives (e.g. Wireguard mostly uses DJB-originated techniques, take them or leave them). The general lesson from that seems to be that a simpler, well-understood, well-tested and mostly static attack surface is better than a more complex, more fully-featured and more dynamic attack surface. I wonder whether we'll see a trend towards even more boring Linux distributions which focus on consistency over modernity. I wouldn't complain if we did.
- 8fingerlouie 1y ago
  The main strength of WireGuard is that it’s simple. It’s like 10% of the code size of IPSEC. Less code means less possibility for bugs, and is easier to audit. In my book, WireGuard perfectly follows the UNIX philosophy of making a simple tool that does exactly one thing and does it well.
uncircle 1y ago
> A big part of the difference is that the BSDs are designed by a governing committee While I cannot agree nor disagree on the quality of BSDs (haven't used one in 20 years), I find it funny that in this case a design by committee is proof of quality. I guess it's better than design by headless chicken which is how the Linux user-space is developed. Personally, I am a big fan of design by dictatorship, where one guy at the top either has a vision or can reject silly features and ideas with strong-enough words (Torvalds, Jobs, etc.) - this is the only way to create a cohesive experience, and honestly if it works for the kernel, there's no reason it shouldn't work in userspace.
- throw0101b 1y ago
  > While I cannot agree nor disagree on the quality of BSDs (haven't used one in 20 years), I find it funny that in this case a design by committee is proof of quality. I don't think "design" is correct word: organized, managed, or ran perhaps. > The FreeBSD Project is run by FreeBSD committers, or developers who have direct commit access to the master Git repository.[1] The FreeBSD Core Team exists to provide direction and is responsible for setting goals for the FreeBSD Project and to provide mediation in the event of disputes, and also takes the final decision in case of disagreement between individuals and teams involved in the project.[2] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD_Core_Team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD_Core_Team There is no BDFL, à la Linux or formerly Python: it's a 'board of directors'. Decisions are mostly dispute / policy-focused, and less technical for a particular bit of code.
  - 8fingerlouie 1y ago
    They fill the same position as a BDFL though. They decide what gets included in the default distribution, they set the goals and provider sponsorships for achieving them. So yes, board of directors is probably more fitting. And then of course you have the people with a commit bit. They can essentially work on whatever they like, but inclusion into the main branch is still up to the core team. There was a huge debate some years ago when Netgate sponsored development/porting of WireGuard to FreeBSD, and the code was of a poor quality, and was ultimately removed from FreeBSD 13.
  - 1y ago

assimpleaspossi 1y ago

UFS is not deprecated on FreeBSD.

hxorr 1y ago
I believe it is the default on netBSD

graemep 1y ago

> A big part of the difference is that the BSDs are designed by a governing committee. They usually don't have 15 different solutions for the same problem, but instead 2-3 solutions that work well. The right comparison is not between a particular BSD and Linux, its between a particular BSD and a Linux distro.

jeltz 1y ago
I feel the BSDs are much more different from each other than the average Linux distros are.
- graemep 1y ago
  Average/most popular distros, maybe. The full range of distros are very different from each other. Consider Void, Alpine, Gentoo, Chimera, NixOS..... Different C libraries, init systems, different default command line utilities....
  - anthk 1y ago
    That's nothing. Alpine can run Glibc binaries with compat libraries. Try running a FreeBSD binary under OpenBSD.
    - graemep 1y ago
      But only with compat libraries. Similarly FreeBSD can provide Linux compatility. Wine lets you run Windows binaries on multiple OSes.
      - anthk 1y ago
        You can't run neither FreeBSD nor NetBSD binaries under OpenBSD.

gnfargbl 1y ago

I can't help but make the comparison with cryptographic network protocols, where the industry started with a kitchen-sink approach (e.g. pluggable cipher suites in TLS) and ended up moving towards fixed primitives (e.g. Wireguard mostly uses DJB-originated techniques, take them or leave them). The general lesson from that seems to be that a simpler, well-understood, well-tested and mostly static attack surface is better than a more complex, more fully-featured and more dynamic attack surface. I wonder whether we'll see a trend towards even more boring Linux distributions which focus on consistency over modernity. I wouldn't complain if we did.

8fingerlouie 1y ago
The main strength of WireGuard is that it’s simple. It’s like 10% of the code size of IPSEC. Less code means less possibility for bugs, and is easier to audit. In my book, WireGuard perfectly follows the UNIX philosophy of making a simple tool that does exactly one thing and does it well.

uncircle 1y ago

> A big part of the difference is that the BSDs are designed by a governing committee While I cannot agree nor disagree on the quality of BSDs (haven't used one in 20 years), I find it funny that in this case a design by committee is proof of quality. I guess it's better than design by headless chicken which is how the Linux user-space is developed. Personally, I am a big fan of design by dictatorship, where one guy at the top either has a vision or can reject silly features and ideas with strong-enough words (Torvalds, Jobs, etc.) - this is the only way to create a cohesive experience, and honestly if it works for the kernel, there's no reason it shouldn't work in userspace.

throw0101b 1y ago
> While I cannot agree nor disagree on the quality of BSDs (haven't used one in 20 years), I find it funny that in this case a design by committee is proof of quality. I don't think "design" is correct word: organized, managed, or ran perhaps. > The FreeBSD Project is run by FreeBSD committers, or developers who have direct commit access to the master Git repository.[1] The FreeBSD Core Team exists to provide direction and is responsible for setting goals for the FreeBSD Project and to provide mediation in the event of disputes, and also takes the final decision in case of disagreement between individuals and teams involved in the project.[2] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD_Core_Team https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD_Core_Team There is no BDFL, à la Linux or formerly Python: it's a 'board of directors'. Decisions are mostly dispute / policy-focused, and less technical for a particular bit of code.
- 8fingerlouie 1y ago
  They fill the same position as a BDFL though. They decide what gets included in the default distribution, they set the goals and provider sponsorships for achieving them. So yes, board of directors is probably more fitting. And then of course you have the people with a commit bit. They can essentially work on whatever they like, but inclusion into the main branch is still up to the core team. There was a huge debate some years ago when Netgate sponsored development/porting of WireGuard to FreeBSD, and the code was of a poor quality, and was ultimately removed from FreeBSD 13.
- 1y ago