Hartmann, O. ohartman at
Wed Aug 31 14:15:36 UTC 2011

On 08/31/11 14:07, Martin Sugioarto wrote:
> Am Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:34:54 -0400
> schrieb Chris Brennan<xaero at>:
>> the object is to show people *WHY* FreeBSD is a sound (and valid)
>> choice against the competition, we can't just claim we're better
>> because we know we are, we have to provide a convincing argument that
>> is true and honest fact.
> Hi Chris and all the others,
> I want to suggest that you shouldn't compare every single feature about
> FreeBSD kernel. You should not also try to lie to people about vendor
> support, because it's not worth mentioning, when you compare it to many
> Linux distributions. Don't tell people there are games and don't tell
> them that FreeBSD can replace Microsoft Windows, please.
> I like to advertise FreeBSD, but I try to do it honestly, because it
> will send the wrong signals.
> You should compare what you can *DO* better with FreeBSD. And one thing
> that comes instantly into my mind is the FreeBSD port collection (for
> my part). I've tried various Linux distributions for years and there is
> no such thing as FreeBSD ports in Linux world (portage comes close, but
> it lacks integrity sometimes). And that's why after using other OSes, I
> always arrived back on FreeBSD. The effort which is going into ports is
> amazing and (for me) the most important part of the OS. FreeBSD is one
> of few systems where you can have configurable up-to-date applications
> and this is what I need. And this is mostly the reason why I use
> FreeBSD.
"Better" is relative. People who are supposed to compile or were 
supposed to compile their
software in the past are better with freeBSD. Those people looking for a 
Windows alternative
used to get binaries do not care about configuring. They'd like to have 
running software,
getting it with the ease of a mouse click. I was never able to convince 
people about the
control they have since they won't have to have it!

But you made a striking point! With the BSD ports system, a niche has 
been covered
up which may be very important for people like you and me. And this is a 
point were is no "better" or "worse', since it is a complete different 
And I would like to see a mixture of some comparisons, even if they are 
slightly worse
for FreeBSD, but supported by reasonable numbers and those basic paradigms.
Thinking is: if an OS is approximately 10% slower in a certain benchmark 
I favor for future
mission-usage of the OS, say file I/O or network, I wouldn't care if I 
have the uncompensated
advantage to control software settings and others.

> I suggest that you look at the applications of FreeBSD in the world.
> How people use it and why the decided to use it. I heard many people
> prefer FreeBSD on web servers (yeah, Netcraft also says so). But why?
> You tell me that FreeBSD has the best IPv6 implementation? So what?!
> Please tell me what you do with it, when it's "so great".

There was a time, I recall it was the end-nineties of the last century,
when there were many network-performance benchmarks floating
around, comparing FreeBSD's incedible network stack to others.
There were many benchmarks, not even one.
Since Linux and Windows gained up, it became quiet around FreeBSD.

The last "field" benchmark I saw was presented by Kris Kenneway,
as far as I remember and he presented some benchmarks comparing
MySQL running on FreeBSD 6/7 and Linux. I'm not completely sure
about that.
> Jails are nice, yes! There are surely scenarios where jails are needed
> above every other concept. Instead of telling people about "lightweight
> virtualisation"... tell them what others do with it.
> Many people are too dumb to understand technical or abstract concepts.
> They need examples to understand the features.
> --
> Martin
Or they need some hints already written by others like this:

I'm not sure whether this is linked on the project's webpage, I
didn't find it when I searched it.


More information about the freebsd-current mailing list