[HN Gopher] FreeBSD from a NetBSD developer's perspective ___________________________________________________________________ FreeBSD from a NetBSD developer's perspective Author : jayp1418 Score : 99 points Date : 2021-06-06 18:21 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (washbear.neocities.org) (TXT) w3m dump (washbear.neocities.org) | cosmotic wrote: | Users perspective? This specific user is a developer; I'd say | this subject is quite misleading. | dang wrote: | Ok, we've promoted the user in the title above. | yjftsjthsd-h wrote: | > On the other hand, QEMU is this huge piece of software with | documentation scattered all over the web and no man pages. | | On every Linux distro I can recall it has manpages, and glancing | at the AUTHOR section on Ubuntu implies that it's upstream and | not a local distro-added thing. Anyone know what's going on | there? | motiejus wrote: | > On the other hand, QEMU is this huge piece of software with | documentation scattered all over the web and no man pages. | | My frequent resource: https://manpages.debian.org/jessie/qemu- | system-x86/qemu-syst... | | Not available for BSDs? Maybe that's a mishap by the distro? | toast0 wrote: | I've got several man pages for qemu (FreeBSD 13.0, qemu-5.0.1) | $ apropos qemu qemu(1) - QEMU User Documentation | qemu-img(1) - QEMU disk image utility vdeq, vdekvm, | vdeqemu(1) - Virtual Distributed Ethernet wrapper for QEMU/KVM | virtual machines qemu-block-drivers(7) - QEMU block | drivers reference qemu-cpu-models(7) - QEMU CPU Models | qemu-ga-ref(7) - QEMU Guest Agent Protocol Reference | qemu-qmp-ref(7) - QEMU QMP Reference Manual qemu-ga(8) - | QEMU Guest Agent qemu-nbd(8) - QEMU Disk Network Block | Device Server | | OTOH, there's no manpage for qemu-system-X, so maybe that's the | confusion. | | Also, >the pw man page is much scarier than NetBSD's useradd. | | FreeBSD has an adduser(8), which is a bit more friendly than | pw. | andix wrote: | I never understood why you would use BSD instead of Linux. It it | just a preference, or is there really a benefit? | selfhoster11 wrote: | Preventing software monoculture, for one. The same argument | could have been made about using Linux instead of Windows not | that long ago. | Koshkin wrote: | To be fair, when faced with a need to make a practical | decision on whether to use a Linux or a BSD preventing | software monoculture is the last thing on my mind. (In fact, | my decision would often be influenced by wanting to keep the | infrastructure as uniform as possible.) | nix23 wrote: | The terrible 1995-2000, where Dec and Solaris boxes where | thrown away and shiny windows servers run everywhere, not one | day without a hard reset. | rwaksmunski wrote: | FreeBSD has superior: | | - package management (pkg & ports) | | - file system (native ZFS) | | - instrumentation (systat & dtrace) | | - documentation (handbook & examples in most man pages) | | - event notification interface (kqueue vs broken by design | epoll & inotify) | | - license (BSD, no GPLv3 at all) | | - stability (POLA) | | - quality control (no shellshock, no dataloss on fsync) | | - network performance (200gbps TLS encrypted traffic on a | single socket at Netflix, millions of open connections per | server at WhatsApp) | | - scaling (there is no cliff when resources get saturated just | a bit of a "back pressure") | | It adds up to the point where I see some companies keep their | use of FreeBSD secret as a competitive advantage. | | On the other hand I really like what Alpine Linux is doing. | kiwijamo wrote: | Agree with all except the package management part. I switched | to Debian after 15 years using FreeBSD simply due to how much | better apt is. I don't have much time so unattended-upgrades | is a live saver for me. I do miss FreeBSD though, it is | really well designed and thought out but it is more suited to | people who are happy to maintain the packages regularly | especially when there are major upgrades. A recent example is | the change in the default version for Python which needed | some manual intervention to sort out the packages. Somethjng | that honestly apt does much better. | rwaksmunski wrote: | I agree, apt is a path well traveled and python2 -> python3 | migration had some opportunities for improvement. On the | other hand I can custom build nginx with a TUI and have | package registered as an actual package instead of just | being dumped into /usr/bin & /etc/ like with a manual build | on Linux. That feature alone makes me believe FreeBSD | packages are a tiny bit better as I use it all the time. | drewg123 wrote: | Whatever happened to debian built around FreeBSD? (debian | kFreeBSD?). Did systemd kill it? | drewg123 wrote: | As a FreeBSD user, the pkg/ports system is the biggest | frustration I have. I run -current and update every few weeks | (using zfs boot envs and beinstall and pkg upgrade). Every | few months, there is some breaking change. Something suddenly | wants to uninstall KDE, or cannot find a path forward, etc. I | ran ubuntu for years and updated as- or more-frequently and | never encountered these problems. Even updating from LTS to | LTS was smoother. | | I think part of the difference is that ubuntu is a fixed | release, while FreeBSD is a rolling release. I wish there was | a fixed release of FreeBSD. The best I've been able to do is | using -stable quarterly pkgs on FreeBSD-current. This way, I | only get security updates except for 4 times a year.. | nix23 wrote: | Yes it's a massive benefit (for me), but i don't tell you which | one, because would you believe me that linux is better for | server and development then windows without testing it out for | yourself? | pjmlp wrote: | BSDs actually descends from UNIX and had it not been for the | AT&T litigation, most likely Linux kernel wouldn't have had the | uptake it had. | | Additionally we don't need UNIX monoculture. | toast0 wrote: | Why do you use Linux instead of BSD? It's the same question. | | Some potential reasons for using FreeBSD: | | It's the same three firewalls forever, not a progression of | different firewalls. | | Old knowledge still works, for example, netstat is still the | way to list socket connections and ifconfig is still the way to | configure interfaces. I did some work with FreeBSD in 1999, and | then nothing until 2004, and all the knowledge transferred, | then in 2011 I changed jobs and skipped ahead several versions, | and again all the knowledge transferred. But I kind of stopped | using Linux heavily in 2013, and when I had to work on it at | work in 2016, all the tools had changed, so I had to relearn | (or just avoid the Linux part of my job, which I had the luxury | of doing). | | Official kernel support for ZFS. | | Receive side scaling support is nice, if you need it; although | I guess not a lot of people do. | | Different positions on philisophical arguments like an | integrated source repository with the kernel and the base | userland software, or init systems. | bombcar wrote: | The "old knowledge" thing is a huge one - I know there are | reasons why Linux keeps changing which firewall manager | you're supposed to use and now we do ip addr show instead of | ifconfig eth0 but it is annoying to keep up. | | I know Linus has a "don't break userland" theory which causes | some of the above, but it breaks MY userland memory when I | have to learn new tools. | | Of course if you stay with Ubuntu you'll find fifty thousand | posts on whatever question you have. | AshamedCaptain wrote: | > I know Linus has a "don't break userland" theory which | causes some of the above | | And the worst part, Linux actually breaks userland _way_ | more often than any of the *BSDs... | | "Moving what should have been dev nodes to sysfs since 2010 | (TM), then reorganizing sysfs every couple years..." | Koshkin wrote: | The way I see it, there's a bigger difference between some | Linux distributions than between, say, Slackware Linux and a | BSD, so one could also ask why someone would use Arch instead | of Ubuntu (or the other way around). | linguae wrote: | I use FreeBSD on my servers and for research for the following | reasons: | | 1. The documentation is excellent. The man pages are well- | written and have useful examples, and the FreeBSD Handbook and | Developer Guide are great resources. | | 2. First-class support for features such as ZFS and Dtrace. | | 3. This is a preference, but I like the BSDs' conservatism when | it comes to adding new features. It seems that new features in | the BSDs seem to be more in line with the Unix philosophy | (similar to the Solaris and Joyent communities' attitudes), | while the Linux community seems to be more willing to add | features that may solve problems, but not necessarily in the | way that some diehard Unix users would (e.g., PulseAudio, | systemd). | | With that being said, I use Linux for work and in the WSL | environment on my Microsoft Surface tablet. Linux is also a | great operating system, and sometimes I need to use Linux | instead of FreeBSD for hardware and software support reasons | (for example, I use CUDA for my job, which needs Linux). | linguae wrote: | I wonder how close NetBSD's design is to 4.4BSD, the last version | of BSD from UC Berkeley's CSRG? My understanding is that FreeBSD | has a lot of features that are exclusive to it, such as jails and | Capsicum, and FreeBSD also has some Solaris-derived components | such as ZFS and Dtrace. I'm under the impression that NetBSD's | specialty is in providing a BSD that is easily portable to a wide | range of architectures. Because BSD is not just a kernel, but an | entire operating system, NetBSD's portability makes it attractive | when choosing a Unix for "exotic" hardware. | Koshkin wrote: | > _Because BSD is not just a kernel, but an entire operating | system_ | | To my chagrin, I've never understood this. (A Linux | distribution is not just a kernel, either.) | nieve wrote: | It just means that the BSDs have both their kernel and their | full userland maintained by the same team whereas Linux to a | certain extent splits responsibilities between the kernel | devs and a bunch of other projects. | enriquto wrote: | the bsd kernel is made by the same team as the rest of the | system, and follows the same release schedule. Thus they can | add a new syscall (e.g., pledge in openbd), and update all | the programs at once to use it. That wouldn't really be | possible in a linux distribution. | livueta wrote: | > FreeBSD Ports sometimes shows me a text menu for configuring | package options, while pkgsrc just uses text configuration and | tries to make it so you don't need to reconfigure packages. I'm | the kind of person who prefers text configuration, but I can see | how others wouldn't. | | Posting because it took me way too long to run into this on my | own: make config-recursive lets you get all the ncurses per-port | menus out of the way at once. Not a full fix, but it does take a | rough edge off of the default port config/building experience. | | e: Real lovers of text config could also use Poudriere to build | their own packages since it takes per-port config options files. | I think you can do something similar with portmaster as well. | | ee: now I think about it, the choices from the ncurses menus just | get stored in /var/db/ports, so you could probably edit it | directly as text if you felt like it. | throw0101a wrote: | See _ports(7)_ which mentions "config-recursive" and other | targets that may be useful: | | * https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?ports(7) | LAC-Tech wrote: | I played around with freeBSD for a couple of days recently. I | quite liked it until it came time to updating the system (I | delibearely installed 12 to test this). Missing .so libraries | everywhere. I suppose if I was more of a unix pro I would have | figured out the problem, but trivial updates are a big deal for | me. | liveoneggs wrote: | jmmv and jmcneill (probably more) work on both NetBSD and FreeBSD ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-06-06 23:00 UTC)