Almost everything works. I don't even think about or notice the OS anymore. And that's a good thing! Ubuntu Server, of course. So I think the server story paradoxically often starts on the Desktop. Maybe, but Ubuntu Server has serious downsides when it comes to security updates. Or as Canonical puts it: Canonical does not provide a guarantee of regular security updates for software in the universe component, but will provide these where they are made available by the community. Fair point, thanks for mentioning it.
Nobody is knocking Debian. Ubuntu picked Debian, for apt-get and stability, after all. But apt-get has undergone many improvements because of the swell in Ubuntu users. And that user-base has brought more documentation and energy to linux than any other distro.
Ubuntu contributes very little to Debian. Honest question: In what ways is the security story on debian better than the security on ubuntu? It's not. All that said, I've used Ubuntu on and off since it launched, and they've been a great benefit to both Debian and Linux in general. There were some issues in the start, with not handling cooperating and resource sharing very well, there were a few sore people as a result of that -- but as far as I can tell most of those growing pains are well behind us now.
I personally sneer a bit reflexively when people mention Ubuntu on the server, but frankly that's an issue with me, and not with Ubuntu. My impression is that since Ubuntu As for the security bit, I think Ubuntu still comes with more out of the box, both on the server and on the desktop than Debian does.
Like eg. In that sense, Debian might possibly be considered "more secure" -- but I don't have the impression that there's a big difference in patch rates etc between the two.
I still prefer Debian, but I also accept that it's a matter of preference not some strict criteria of superiority or the like. Apologies for the long post - hopefully it has a few interesting nuggets. I'd add that Ubuntu encourages the use of PPAs, which are a security nightmare.
Ports for building customized binary packages was a really nice solution to building a customized operating environment years ago. It's still a good solution, but not so much better than what I get on Fedora or Ubuntu provide these days to justify letting devs and admins retrain themselves on FreeBSD during onboarding. My experience with FreeBSD seems to mirror yours exactly.
Community support. More like community derision from the FreeBSD world. In the early 's, I had to set up a dedicated CVS server for my person startup. We were small, but had good desktop machines with good SCSI disks in them top of the line Seagate, if I remember right. We were all happy to try one server for a day, copy the repo to the other one for a day, and try things out.
Like, "cvs up" would take 5 seconds from the Linux server compared to a minute on FreeBSD yes, same repo Hopping on to the FreeBSD box locally showed that every kind of disk activity was way slower than Linux. I went to the FreeBSD newsgroups and got laughed at. Not a single piece of helpful info.
I did get several large words thrown at me about how I didn't understand the benchmarks and the performance shouldn't be noticeable to the end users. FreeBSD forces one to understand the standard unix tools that come with it. That means one has to spend some time reading the docs or at least skimming over them so one knows where to look when the need arises. If one does not understand the tools, even simple init scripts are black magic.
Some of my datacenter clients use freeBSD for various bits, and I have been that guy. In the end they're migrating away because it's incredibly hard to find experienced engineers.
What you describe as "reading docs is hard" can be equated to "my team will be slower for negleglible gain. TL;DR: You are absolutely right - but that is very, very sad. I cannot count the "devops"-meetings I had to attend as a consultant during which I hacked a command line that solved the problem the meeting was supposed to make a plan for and estimate costs I dare to argue that letting the ops learn the ropes on company time would have been much cheaper than my fees plus costs for working time employees spent on that meeting.
But I understand this is very hard to quantify and that in a startup culture people don't want to think beyond the point where the financing is used up. My fav. You have 90 seconds. PS: Thanks for being "that guy" who allowed me to use a mature OS. People like you allowed me to have a day uptime as the lower limit. Most of my machines have more than a thousand days of uptime :. This is a attitude classic case of engineers optimizing for the wrong damn thing. Sure, we've all sat in on 18 month projects that should have been a five line shell script.
One hopes that whatever expert is teaching ops "the ropes" knows this already. But at least you get a consultant paycheck for their ignorance. Because in , we have more than one machine. You can have all the shell experts, I need people who can write Chef code that passes peer review. So you willingly admit you haven't upgraded your kernels in years?
You are missing my point, it's about being able to filter and transform textual output. Every good sysop I've met can write your Chef code. Understanding system basics and managing with high level tools is not mutually exclusive. Tools like Chef are the result of exactly those sysops automating what they could.
You know that saying? Less favorably, even 15 years ago, FreeBSD was mainly xbased and looked down upon better architectures. That latter problem has played out in the microsofters running Netflix choosing FreeBSD for their infrastructure for, at the time, few other reasons.
Last edited by Turbocapitalist; at AM. Originally Posted by Turbocapitalist. I'm predominantly a terminal user, and if the tool did exist it was somewhere else in the file tree, or it hadn't been ported at all. And grub didn't work, and slices didn't play well with already dual-booted disks, and No doubt things are better these days, but the inertia mentioned above gets stronger with age, and I'm not getting any younger. Originally Posted by syg Originally Posted by rng. It is easy enough to verify that they are different operating systems.
There are a number of authoritative timelines around, and the project history pages each have a little about the origins. Then in , NetBSD locked the accounts of one of their most talented but obnoxious developers, who responded by forking the code and starting OpenBSD. He made OpenBSD the first to publicly publish the whole code base for anonymous, read-only checkout.
Originally Posted by Gad. A lot of what holds people back from running BSD is lack of drivers for modern peripherals, it took a long time to have most wifi working. Anyone who has configured Linux kernel from scratch and FreeBSD kernel can tell Linux has much more fine tuning in it. No wonder Wall Street is running on Linux, they count microseconds there.
The result was opposite to their expectations, Gentoo Linux was able to serve twice as many requests. BTW, hotmail. Find More Posts by Emerson.
Originally Posted by Emerson. Build everything in kernel if you wish, or specify what modules you want to be built default is all. Status Not open for further replies. It is a great project. I mean these are very smart and tech-savvy people.
Why aren't they choosing FreeBSD although it even has the same major advantages like no license costs and source code availability? Geezer Aspiring Daemon Reaction score: Messages: Click to expand Go ask Netflix. Major companies do in the OS field what they do in others: they let others sow, water, fertilize, weed, and when harvest time comes, they reap the benefit.
And what is really cool is that the GPL protects major companies by making it harder for small companies to earn money, though the GPL was absolutely not intended for that, of course. In Google's case, either Sergey or Larry stated, in an interview, that they used Linux cause it was what they were used to from using it at school and no other reason. I may be mis-remembering. In any case, people will often use what they are used to or what other people are using and do no investigation on their own.
When I wanted to start a webdev company, my brother-in-law was a high level project manager at a large Windows shop and gave me a lot of free software. But when Microsoft made changes to. NET that caused us millions of dollars and hundreds of lives, even he suggested we switch to Linux. I honestly don't recall the reasons I dumped Linux for FreeBSD beyond the unprintable words I used to describe it in my attempt to use it.
I just remember grabbing the floppies I had and installing it on an old computer and realizing how easily everything came together and made sense.
Pummelchen New Member Messages: 5. So in my company there was no other choice than to use Linux for Desktops. Phishfry Beastie's Twin Reaction score: 2, Messages: 5, Pummelchen said:. Crivens Moderator Staff member. If Linux really has some serious technical flaws, don't you think that companies like Google, FB, etc. You assume rational thinking there. When there is more than one possible supplier and one supplier have good relations with someone of that group that supplier is the most likely to be choosen, either because they like it more, or because they trust the guy behind it or want to help him, or etc.
It was very performant and extremely stable. Every single customer that hosted at the ISP, and that was a lot of customers, was being served by FreeBSD, and it was running on everything from old PCs to the latest Pentium 4 machines.
The only time FreeBSD needed to be rebooted was when it had been upgraded in the base system. It was used only by some of the support staff for their private setups. What I failed to realize back then was that FreeBSD was and it still is designed as a complete multi-purpose operating system meant to be setup and tuned according to specific use cases. Debian on the other hand performed without any "hick-ups".
Update : People have been asking about what the specific problem with FreeBSD was, but I cannot remember the details exactly. Also this was a very long time ago. Update : Someone commented on Hacker News with the following statement: " IMO, if it needs to be manually tuned, that's a bug, not a feature. There are many options which you cannot simply auto tune because the use cases are so different and you need to be able to set the specific options you need manually.
There is a big difference between running a busy static fileserver with something like NGINX on top of FreeBSD, and then running a busy database server on FreeBSD, each setup may require specific tuning for your use case, whether this is in the filesystem or the kernel or something else.
Hardware was very expensive back then and I didn't have the option to purchase hardware that I knew would work on FreeBSD. The FreeBSD wiki provides some relevant information. As mentioned previously, because FreeBSD is a real multi-purpose operating system with many different use cases, FreeBSD is very flexible and tuneable.
0コメント