4 ms·

Out of the box ZFS is a big selling point for me. Jails are just lovely. The rc system is very easy to reason with. I've had systems that were only stable on fr

Out of the box ZFS is a big selling point for me. Jails are just lovely. The rc system is very easy to reason with. I've had systems that were only stable on freebsd that would crash using windows or various Linux.

arthurfirst 11mo ago
ZFS is amazing and while there are many would be clones there is only one ZFS. I used (and pushed) it everywhere I could and first encountered on Solaris before FBSD. Even had it on my Mac workstation almost 18 years ago (unsupported) -- aside I will never forgive that asshole Larry Ellison for killing OpenSolaris. NEVER. Systemd is the worst PoS every written. RCs are effective and elegant. Systemd is reason enough to avoid Linux but I still hold my nose and use it because I have to.
- BrouteMinou 11mo ago
  But you are aware there are distros without systemd, right?
  - arthurfirst 11mo ago
    Yes. Over the years I've used just about every linux distro from Slackware and RH up to nix + arch, as well programming on Solaris, IRIX, SCO, OS/400 and even Tandem --look it up it's pretty obscure! But I just use FreeBSD mostly now. There's pretty much nothing I can't do on FreeBSD that I would get with one Linux or another. Not much of a gamer so maybe that factors in..
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- tombert 11mo ago
  Sorry, can you be specific about what's terrible about systemd? I really would like to know why it's the "worst piece of shit ever written".
  - MangoToupe 11mo ago
    I can't speak for others, but I find it poorly documented and only rarely improves on the systems it replaced, and it invalidates decades of high quality documentation that you can easily find on the internet. It's possible the transition will pay off one day with eg a usable graphic interfaces for system configuration that might compete with that of mac os, but as of yet, no such thing has materialized. This is especially true compared to how beautifully well and consistently the BSDs tend to document their init and configuration systems. Or Mac OS, again—launchd is still way easier to use and far more of a "fire and forget" system without adding complicated interfaces for unrelated stuff like network interfaces and logging. But that has always been true as well.
  - rootnod3 11mo ago
    It is unnecessarily complex to begin with. On top of that, the maintainers are historically not the most open to criticism and try to aggressively push the adoption. So much so that Gnome for example now has very strong dependecies on systemd which makes it very difficult to adopt Gnome on non-systemd systems unless you wanna throw a bunch of patches at it. This hard coupling alone is something that I wouldn't want to rely on, ever.
    - arthurfirst 11mo ago
      THIS. Also what problem does it solve that RC scripts can't accomplish? They are much more readable and less complex. What is the benefit of all that added complexity? Even more to the point the business case for it in a professional setting? I've been wondering that for a long time.
      - rootnod3 11mo ago
        It autodiscovers the dependency chain or shit like that? If you got 500+ services that need to be orchestrated you honestly have a very different problem. I love the simplicity of RC scripts. Easy to understand, easy to debug, it just fucking works. Simplicity is king, because it's understandable. A behemoth like systemd feels like it requires a PhD. Systemd also runs 100% against the Unix/Linux philosophy of composability and single purpose.
sbseitz 11mo ago
Debian and Ubuntu support it out of the box. DKMS works for other distros. Same core ZFS code BSD uses. Hope this helps educate you.
- sellmesoap 11mo ago
  I've played with most of them, I'm primarily a nixos user. I haven't yet had an experience as smooth as the FreeBSD installer for ZFS. looking at the debian wiki it still looks like dkms and manual partitioning are in order.
quotemstr 11mo ago
Eh? ZFS does double caching and doesn't have a way to consolidate extents except to rebuild the FS.

arthurfirst 11mo ago

ZFS is amazing and while there are many would be clones there is only one ZFS. I used (and pushed) it everywhere I could and first encountered on Solaris before FBSD. Even had it on my Mac workstation almost 18 years ago (unsupported) -- aside I will never forgive that asshole Larry Ellison for killing OpenSolaris. NEVER. Systemd is the worst PoS every written. RCs are effective and elegant. Systemd is reason enough to avoid Linux but I still hold my nose and use it because I have to.

BrouteMinou 11mo ago
But you are aware there are distros without systemd, right?
- arthurfirst 11mo ago
  Yes. Over the years I've used just about every linux distro from Slackware and RH up to nix + arch, as well programming on Solaris, IRIX, SCO, OS/400 and even Tandem --look it up it's pretty obscure! But I just use FreeBSD mostly now. There's pretty much nothing I can't do on FreeBSD that I would get with one Linux or another. Not much of a gamer so maybe that factors in..
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
tombert 11mo ago
Sorry, can you be specific about what's terrible about systemd? I really would like to know why it's the "worst piece of shit ever written".
- MangoToupe 11mo ago
  I can't speak for others, but I find it poorly documented and only rarely improves on the systems it replaced, and it invalidates decades of high quality documentation that you can easily find on the internet. It's possible the transition will pay off one day with eg a usable graphic interfaces for system configuration that might compete with that of mac os, but as of yet, no such thing has materialized. This is especially true compared to how beautifully well and consistently the BSDs tend to document their init and configuration systems. Or Mac OS, again—launchd is still way easier to use and far more of a "fire and forget" system without adding complicated interfaces for unrelated stuff like network interfaces and logging. But that has always been true as well.
- rootnod3 11mo ago
  It is unnecessarily complex to begin with. On top of that, the maintainers are historically not the most open to criticism and try to aggressively push the adoption. So much so that Gnome for example now has very strong dependecies on systemd which makes it very difficult to adopt Gnome on non-systemd systems unless you wanna throw a bunch of patches at it. This hard coupling alone is something that I wouldn't want to rely on, ever.
  - arthurfirst 11mo ago
    THIS. Also what problem does it solve that RC scripts can't accomplish? They are much more readable and less complex. What is the benefit of all that added complexity? Even more to the point the business case for it in a professional setting? I've been wondering that for a long time.
    - rootnod3 11mo ago
      It autodiscovers the dependency chain or shit like that? If you got 500+ services that need to be orchestrated you honestly have a very different problem. I love the simplicity of RC scripts. Easy to understand, easy to debug, it just fucking works. Simplicity is king, because it's understandable. A behemoth like systemd feels like it requires a PhD. Systemd also runs 100% against the Unix/Linux philosophy of composability and single purpose.

sbseitz 11mo ago

Debian and Ubuntu support it out of the box. DKMS works for other distros. Same core ZFS code BSD uses. Hope this helps educate you.

sellmesoap 11mo ago
I've played with most of them, I'm primarily a nixos user. I haven't yet had an experience as smooth as the FreeBSD installer for ZFS. looking at the debian wiki it still looks like dkms and manual partitioning are in order.

quotemstr 11mo ago

Eh? ZFS does double caching and doesn't have a way to consolidate extents except to rebuild the FS.