SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
System administrator and former ski instructor, Albert Valbuena, has posted a table with accompanying analysis comparing several of the BSDs against Illumos and Linux. Among the topics in the analysis are licensing, how licensing is abused by companies, benchmarking, and of course a comparison of how various features are or aren't implemented across the spectrum.
The writing of this piece comes from the annoyance I get from reading about the prominence of Linux (the kernel) in almost all the computing spaces. And since electronic devices are gaining relevance in our daily lives and society in general this question of prominence of not just Linux but 'X' gains importance too.
More specifically this writing comes after reading someone who has participated in relevant software which is in a gazillion people's pocket. In a very unfortunate reply to the question: 'What are the advantages Linux has over BSD now?' the individual in question (which I'd like to preserve his identity) replied something close to (I do paraphrase): Linux receives much more investment from companies and therefore more paid developers are in it, plus BSD's feature parity with that of Linux doesn't hold.
This is mainstream opinion. Linux is better than anything else and money is poured in constantly, more than in other platforms. And aside this is not true, this is not based in facts but on feelings. Most GNU/Linux distributions are very average on many aspects. The fact they run on many servers on this planet and many developers work on them, doesn't make them better than 'X'. They are popular but that's it.
The individual in question did not, because he could not, point to relevant feature differences bettween the two operating systems.
Now go back to the top of this article and start checking features in a specific OS and start comparing, from that fastly written, from the top of my head, chart. Have fun doing that.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Wednesday November 06 2019, @08:59AM (2 children)
"He discusses Linux as the kernel, and BSDes as the kernel. To me though if you use BSDes, you get the whole distribution (guess where the D stands for). A kernel might have superior features, but if the rest of the software doesn't run my workflow I won't use it (I've tried various BSDes in the past)."
I'll break that down for you a little. The poster I was referring to said that he didn't find the kernel to kernel comparison as useful *because he deals with distributions.*
Which is a fair point. Chromebooks and android phones run linux, doesn't save them from being trash.
But then he goes on to say that if the software included in the distribution doesn't work for him he'll just rule out that distribution.
And THAT is what I was criticising. That's dumb.
Selecting a distro based on the application programs included is dumb. That's the least important part of the distro.
make configure
make
make install
If it's a good distro, and a good app, that'll work. You don't need the distro to provide everything, just to make sure the essentials work so you can get started.
"Or did you forget the reason for the portage tree and compatibility layers is to try and smooth over those differences?"
You're conflating. The portage tree is for convenience. Compatibility layers are workarounds for broken code, in this context. Very different things.
"But not everything is in the portage tree"
make configure
make
make install
"some will make a call not in the compatibility layer and some libraries will use the standard name but have unexpected behavior compared to another distribution"
Sounds like crap code. File a bug report then find another way to do the job.
"some kernel calls will be different or missing"
And very few programs have any business using them whatsoever.
"some system paths and system hierarchies will be different"
Not just between *BSD and linux distros, but amongst them as well. Nonetheless;
make configure
solves that problem.
"Porting across platforms is not as simple"
Porting across platforms can be incredibly complicated, actually.
But porting between two POSIX compliant systems is the easiest case. Normally trivial.
A few utilities that need to access kernel calls directly? Yeah those can be a pain to port, but if the systems weren't so closely related it wouldn't even be a question. It just wouldn't be possible at all.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @04:57AM (1 child)
You've obviously never ported anything.
Besides not having the proper commands to do so in your oft-repeated example or that some self-written software is some of the most fly-by-night crap you'll ever see, you don't seem to care about very real differences. Say you want the latest version of Python on there, well there are six patches that FreeBSD has to install to get it to work on their system; Rust has 13; bash has 6; libreoffice has 24. Or your home-grown GUI program uses selectors for IO, well AIX and some Solaris uses IOCP, FreeBSD uses kqueue, Linux uses epoll or *notify, others use select or /dev/poll; sure the libc will wrap some of those but you still have to pick the right one and they aren't completely interchangeable. This goes for other system calls as well. In addition, calls across different systems have different semantics and behaviors as well. In addition, autotools and other build systems can only iron over so many differences and once you go too far, you end up having to just compile your own everything or patching dependencies; might as well just go back to one that works. As for POSIX, which POSIX is that, as there are 5 versions (not counting TCs) and 8 of the SUS, of which none of the BSDs and most of the Linuxes don't pass the conformance suite.
But now you aren't using your required software. Now you have to evaluate the alternative distro and software, a much larger headache. Might as well go with a distro that does what you want, AKA the most common way to "find another way to do the job."
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday November 07 2019, @06:34AM
You need to work on your jab.
"some self-written software is some of the most fly-by-night crap you'll ever see"
Well, if *you* wrote it yourself, then yeah. Obviously.
I'm not sure exactly what 'self-written' means even. Isn't all software written by some self? What?
If you're saying that the products of big corporate teams whipped in line by bosses is inherently superior to code written in love, then put down the crack pipe. Please.
"Say you want the latest version of Python"
I'm talking about *applications* and you come back at me with Python. Like you think I won't know what that is.
I haven't used it in years so I don't know how big it's grown, but I know it's not an application. It's a programming language, a big flexi-interpreter more comparable to a compiler really, in a lot of ways. That means it's one of those utility programs I already mentioned as an exception. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find I needed to track down some patches, and possibly forward-port them, to get it working. That shouldn't scare anyone that's capable of using Python!
"Rust"
Another programming language.
"bash"
A /Shell./ A bloody Shell. That's the *app* that you think you can't possibly live without, and can't possibly compile yourself?
FreeBSD comes with the Bourne Shell as default iirc. Which is a fine shell, basically the standard shell anyway. If it had been BSD licensed from the start no one would have bothered to write bash. I've compiled sh, and ash, and at least one of the "c" shells as well just to play with them when they didn't come on the distro I was using at the time.
Just to play with them though, not to solve a problem. What problem would this solve? An incompatible script. Usually that's quicker to fix by fixing the script. Usually.
Either way it's no big deal.
"libreoffice"
Finally, out of your whole list, one application program.
A giant bloated overly complicated application, not surprised you need to patch that, I'd be more impressed if they mainlined the patches but meh. Really, who cares? Why are you so afraid of applying patches?
"Or your home-grown GUI program uses selectors for IO"
It doesn't.
"But now you aren't using your required software."
What does that mean?
Are you trying to do work or get a checkmark?
"Might as well go with a distro that does what you want"
FINALLY. Something intelligible and true.
Choose the distro that does what you want. It needs to install the fundamentals - bootloader, kernel, init, shell, and the compiler and related tools.
Having a vast assortment of software in addition to that isn't necessarily a bad thing - it can be quite convenient. But what I'm saying is it's icing on the cake. Ideally, everyone wants a good cake with icing in a single stop, sure. But you don't go buy a rotten nasty-ass cake just because it's got icing, and the good cake doesn't. You buy the good cake, then you add the icing, in that situation.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?