4 ms·

Never used any BSD, but probably used in some form through various entertainment devices (playstation, maybe others). So can anyone point what is are the most

by malkia 13y ago

Never used any BSD, but probably used in some form through various entertainment devices (playstation, maybe others). So can anyone point what is are the most negative things about BSD, and DragonFlyBSD in compared to Linux, OSX and Windows. I'm really curious, and I would like to try it out - possibly on my Chromebook C7100 if it allows it so, or maybe my very old MBP (6 years), it's time to get rid of the dual booted Windows XP there.

Moto7451 13y ago
OS X uses portions of FreeBSD including the userland so if you're used to that you probably won't find too many gotchas when using FreeBSD in that regard. I've never touched a straight *BSD install to know the practical differences in configuration and maintenance vs OS X and Linux. I occasionally get caught by a difference between the BSD and GNU userlands so I've often contemplated giving one of the BSDs a go rather than my typical OS X/Debian/Ubuntu Dev/prod web server preference.
- rjzzleep 13y ago
  if you look through their drivers, they use a sort of c++ without exceptions, but last i remember from debugging network drivers on osx, they looked like they were forked from freebsd a fairly long time ago, but were for a long time close enough to be able to see the roots(i don't know if it's still like that)
- cpeterso 13y ago
  I think OS X uses NetBSD's userland.
gaius 13y ago
Dragonfly is basically a glorious parallel universe in which the Amiga never died http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DragonFly_BSD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DragonFly_BSD
- rodgerd 13y ago
  Pretty much. When I saw the early releases I was wondering iis that the Matt Dillon? And sure enough, it was.
- csmuk 13y ago
  All is clear now. Thanks for pointing this out :)
csmuk 13y ago
Main negatives about BSDs: more fiddly, not necessarily as well performing as a stable well optimised Linux release (read RHEL/CentOS), some compatibility problems (usually due to crappy programming by Linux-heads), you might have to compile a load of stuff yourself. The big wins are however: rock solid, wonderful documentation, entirely cohesive base system, small, big enterprise features (ZFS, mandatory access control, tracing frameworks, awesome network stack, security, ACL support and better hardware support. When I say better hardware support, I mean the drivers all work rather better than their Linux counterparts rather than being plentiful and the supported platforms are plentiful and reliable. I can drag a 17 year old SPARC64 machine out of the cupboard and just use it.
- jmspring 13y ago
  Not better performing? Whatsapp had an interesting presentation @ Erlang Factory worth considering -- http://www.erlang-factory.com/upload/presentations/558/efsf2012-whatsapp-scaling.pdf http://www.erlang-factory.com/upload/presentations/558/efsf2...
  - csmuk 13y ago
    It depends on the workload. Linux seems to scale to higher workloads slightly smoother without masses of tuning.
    - profquail 13y ago
      Both DragonFlyBSD and FreeBSD have improved their scalability on SMP systems over the past year or so. FreeBSD's improvements started in 9.1 and continued in 10; DragonFlyBSD claims to have eliminated nearly all lock contention within the kernel as of it's recent 3.6 release, and initial results look very promising.
      - csmuk 13y ago
        Yeah I noticed that on 9.1. I tried it on one of our "monster" 48 core boxes and it was pretty good with some sysctl poking. Waiting for 10 before serious evaluation starts when pkgng is default. That and freebsd-update pretty much nail it then for me.
billsix 13y ago
http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/01 http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/01
- UNIXgod 13y ago
  It's a classic. I posted Chaos vs Order
UNIXgod 13y ago
This is a classic piece we generally give hackers new to FreeBSD: http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/08 http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/08 Something to consider, which I should point out because your new, is that without BSD you wouldn't have OSX. There's a little BSD in everything (even windows). Another worthy article you should definitely read which explains that BSD is the The single Greatest Piece of Software Ever, with the broadest impact on the world, was BSD http://www.informationweek.com/whats-the-greatest-software-ever-written/d/d-id/1046033 http://www.informationweek.com/whats-the-greatest-software-e...?
- ygra 13y ago
  The only piece of BSD in Windows I know of was the network stack up until Vista (when MS rewrote it completely). There's nothing left by now.
  - justin66 13y ago
    Not true: http://www.silug.org/lists/silug-discuss/200403/msg00165.html http://www.silug.org/lists/silug-discuss/200403/msg00165.htm... I'm pretty sure the ftp.exe client program had some BSD bits at one time. There might have been some small things like that. Nothing big.
    - gtirloni 13y ago
      An intern could rewrite that over the weekend. What's your point?
      - justin66 13y ago
        I don't quite understand your question. ygra asserted that the Windows network stack was taken from BSD. This was never true and was kind of a pernicious rumor for a long time. I just assume Greg Lehey's word on it is enough for most people. There were a few little odds and ends that popped up with BSD license notifications over the years, like the ftp client IIRC. As you say, little utilities that don't amount to much. What is YOUR point?

by malkia 13y ago

Moto7451 13y ago

OS X uses portions of FreeBSD including the userland so if you're used to that you probably won't find too many gotchas when using FreeBSD in that regard. I've never touched a straight *BSD install to know the practical differences in configuration and maintenance vs OS X and Linux. I occasionally get caught by a difference between the BSD and GNU userlands so I've often contemplated giving one of the BSDs a go rather than my typical OS X/Debian/Ubuntu Dev/prod web server preference.

rjzzleep 13y ago
if you look through their drivers, they use a sort of c++ without exceptions, but last i remember from debugging network drivers on osx, they looked like they were forked from freebsd a fairly long time ago, but were for a long time close enough to be able to see the roots(i don't know if it's still like that)
cpeterso 13y ago
I think OS X uses NetBSD's userland.

gaius 13y ago

Dragonfly is basically a glorious parallel universe in which the Amiga never died http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DragonFly_BSD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DragonFly_BSD

rodgerd 13y ago
Pretty much. When I saw the early releases I was wondering iis that the Matt Dillon? And sure enough, it was.
csmuk 13y ago
All is clear now. Thanks for pointing this out :)

csmuk 13y ago

Main negatives about BSDs: more fiddly, not necessarily as well performing as a stable well optimised Linux release (read RHEL/CentOS), some compatibility problems (usually due to crappy programming by Linux-heads), you might have to compile a load of stuff yourself. The big wins are however: rock solid, wonderful documentation, entirely cohesive base system, small, big enterprise features (ZFS, mandatory access control, tracing frameworks, awesome network stack, security, ACL support and better hardware support. When I say better hardware support, I mean the drivers all work rather better than their Linux counterparts rather than being plentiful and the supported platforms are plentiful and reliable. I can drag a 17 year old SPARC64 machine out of the cupboard and just use it.

jmspring 13y ago
Not better performing? Whatsapp had an interesting presentation @ Erlang Factory worth considering -- http://www.erlang-factory.com/upload/presentations/558/efsf2012-whatsapp-scaling.pdf http://www.erlang-factory.com/upload/presentations/558/efsf2...
- csmuk 13y ago
  It depends on the workload. Linux seems to scale to higher workloads slightly smoother without masses of tuning.
  - profquail 13y ago
    Both DragonFlyBSD and FreeBSD have improved their scalability on SMP systems over the past year or so. FreeBSD's improvements started in 9.1 and continued in 10; DragonFlyBSD claims to have eliminated nearly all lock contention within the kernel as of it's recent 3.6 release, and initial results look very promising.
    - csmuk 13y ago
      Yeah I noticed that on 9.1. I tried it on one of our "monster" 48 core boxes and it was pretty good with some sysctl poking. Waiting for 10 before serious evaluation starts when pkgng is default. That and freebsd-update pretty much nail it then for me.

billsix 13y ago

http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/01 http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/01

UNIXgod 13y ago
It's a classic. I posted Chaos vs Order

UNIXgod 13y ago

This is a classic piece we generally give hackers new to FreeBSD: http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/08 http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/08 Something to consider, which I should point out because your new, is that without BSD you wouldn't have OSX. There's a little BSD in everything (even windows). Another worthy article you should definitely read which explains that BSD is the The single Greatest Piece of Software Ever, with the broadest impact on the world, was BSD http://www.informationweek.com/whats-the-greatest-software-ever-written/d/d-id/1046033 http://www.informationweek.com/whats-the-greatest-software-e...?

ygra 13y ago
The only piece of BSD in Windows I know of was the network stack up until Vista (when MS rewrote it completely). There's nothing left by now.
- justin66 13y ago
  Not true: http://www.silug.org/lists/silug-discuss/200403/msg00165.html http://www.silug.org/lists/silug-discuss/200403/msg00165.htm... I'm pretty sure the ftp.exe client program had some BSD bits at one time. There might have been some small things like that. Nothing big.
  - gtirloni 13y ago
    An intern could rewrite that over the weekend. What's your point?
    - justin66 13y ago
      I don't quite understand your question. ygra asserted that the Windows network stack was taken from BSD. This was never true and was kind of a pernicious rumor for a long time. I just assume Greg Lehey's word on it is enough for most people. There were a few little odds and ends that popped up with BSD license notifications over the years, like the ftp client IIRC. As you say, little utilities that don't amount to much. What is YOUR point?