- cross-posted to:
- bsd@lemmy.sdf.org
- cross-posted to:
- bsd@lemmy.sdf.org
You must log in or register to comment.
Hey! This is a Linux community
That’s why I shared here. Because BSD community already running BSD :)
Thank you, i’ve never used a BSD variant myself but am a long time Linux user. Very curious to the next posts!
Sometimes we need to talk about grandpappy.
BSD will always be faster. That’s a given. It is not flexible, however. It has a very specific purpose. This is why Apple chose this as the origin for OS X, which has now been bastardized to an unrecognizable variation, but if you check the main kernel, will still read as DragonFlyBSD.
BSD might be faster but companies choose BSD because the BSD License is much more flexible than the Linux General Public License. Apple was even able to create their own license, the APSL. They would not be able to do that using Linux.
While that is true, the question is whether that’s a good thing, or not, and for whom.
It’s a good thing for the owners of the codebase, but often, a bad thing for the community (even if the community contributes to said codebase).
For example, FOSS maintainers sometimes will (want to) relicense to protect their income stream:
https://github.com/CaffeineMC/sodium-fabric/issues/2400
https://github.com/LizardByte/Sunshine/pull/150
While corporations might literally have maintainers sign away their rights so they can take the work from their own community:
https://lwn.net/Articles/937369/ (canonical requires a CLA, though this + the subsequent re-license might have happened anyway)
https://lwn.net/Articles/935592/ (RPM spec files are MIT licensed at the Fedora level. There are likely chnages to RPM files contributed by the community that are now source-restricted in RHEL)
https://networkbuilders.intel.com/docs/networkbuilders/accelerate-snort-performance-with-hyperscan-and-intel-xeon-processors-on-public-clouds-1680176363.pdf (See section 2.2. Previously, this work was BSD)
Mixed bag, really.
Faster in what sense? Would you kindly point me to the benchmarks used? It’s easy to find the opposite results so I’m curious.
FreeBSD doesn’t have desktop environment built in. So maybe running from command line or installation is a lot faster.
Desktop environments are optional if using a Linux distribution. Also as long as a desktop environment doesnt take all resources, there shoudlnt be much difference in benchmarks.
Smaller footprint in general, compiled as one (not multimodal kernel+extensions), simpler security models, and simpler init system. All of these will make it snappier out of the box than Linux, just not in the ways you’d want, say, a desktop to be faster.
Very excited to see the rest of this series. I still run some BSD box’s. I really really enjoy it. I really wish they would support Docker at this point but it’s complex and I get it with the developers they have. Jails still work so so well. I am on a box I think I installed end of FreeBSD 9 or 10 on and just keep upgrading. That’s probably get to the 10 year mark at this point. I will have to go and check. It’s such a smooth system to run really a dream. Wish more people tried it especially
Agreed and FreeBSD keeps getting better at each upgrade.
Also there is podmon (testing version), https://wiki.freebsd.org/bhyve & https://bastillebsd.org/
NetBSD prefers qemu as far as I know.
But bhyve is a hypervisor ( VMs ) and Bastille is jails. Neither of those is a solution for running OCI containers.
I have 3 *BSD vms on proxmox, OpnSense and TrueNAS as well as a GhostBSD desktop for ‘play’. The TrueNAS started as a bare metal install and is now in it’d
3rd4th serverI also have 2 Macs in the house…
So I guess *BSD is well represented here, looking forward to the read
