Open Vs Free BSD
timo.schoeler at riscworks.net
Fri Jun 19 12:21:46 UTC 2009
thus demuel at thephinix.org spake:
> Oh why can't this versus this versus that never dies? There had been
> raging debate about which OSes is much better compared to the others since
> time immemorial. Sure, each one has its own merits over the others and
> vice versa.
> So why feeding this issue up since up to this very moment,
> there is no winner.
The solution is very easy, IMHO... I have been quite 'radical' WRT the
OS I chose to use in the past. I ran/run all, i.e. Net/Open/FreeBSD and
DragonFly, among others. I took part in the BSD vs. GNU discussion in
the past. But what I learnt during the years is this:
* There's always a 'best choice' for the job. On the load balancer I
choose OpenBSD, and on my GFs computer I install Ubuntu. Vice versa
would not work.
* Life's to short for those narrow-headed discussions.
>> and the security is in netbsd:
>> On 6/19/09, Ivan Voras <ivoras at freebsd.org> wrote:
>>> Kim Attree wrote:
>>>> NetBSD runs on just about anything. That's it's primary goal. Since I
>>>> have any weird hardware, I've never had a use for NetBSD.
>>> I don't use NetBSD either but some recent development that come from
>>> that camp are very interesting:
>>> * Journalling UFS ("smart" journalling, not gjournal)
>>> * PUFFS (BSD implementation of FUSE-like system [file system in
>>> * They had Xen dom0 and domU for years
>>> * They are starting to show decent results in SMP support, including a
>>> new scheduler (a bit similar to ULE); their GENERIC has SMP included
>>> * Possibly superpages, I'm not sure how to parse "Merged amd64 and i386
>>> pmap. Large pages are always used if available"
>>> * I think they are working on their own ZFS port
>>> * They have ported or reimplemented Linux LVM (read+write+admin)
>>> There are of course other things; see for example
>>> I have a feeling the project has been revitalized in the last few years.
More information about the freebsd-stable