_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
HTML Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
HTML Back to FreeBSD: Part 1
smitty1e wrote 22 hours 14 min ago:
Is this fair?
Linux is to *BSD as
VHS was to Betamax.
lizknope wrote 22 hours 20 min ago:
> Technical superiority doesn't win ecosystem wars. Linux won through a
combination of fast decisions, the viral GPL licence, and strong
enterprise backing from Red Hat and IBM. Then Google, Facebook, and
Amazon happened â hungry for datacenters, developing tools to manage
growing infrastructure at scale. They set the direction for the entire
industry.
In the mid 1990's the hardware driver support on Linux was much
broader.
Copy / paste of my comment from last year about FreeBSD
I installed Linux in fall 1994. I looked at Free/NetBSD but when I went
on some of the Usenet BSD forums they basically insulted me saying that
my brand new $3,500 PC wasn't good enough.
The main thing was this IDE interface that had a bug. Linux got a
workaround within days or weeks. [1] The BSD people told me that I
should buy a SCSI card, SCSI hard drive, SCSI CD-ROM. I was a sophomore
in college and I saved every penny to spend $2K on that PC and my
parents paid the rest. I didn't have any money for that.
The sound card was another issue.
I remember software based "WinModems" but Linux had drivers for some of
these. Same for software based "Win Printers"
When I finally did graduate and had money for SCSI stuff I tried
FreeBSD around 1998 and it just seemed like another Unix. I used
Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, Ultrix, IRIX. FreeBSD was perfectly fine but it
didn't do anything I needed that Linux didn't already do.
HTML [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMD640
mono442 wrote 1 day ago:
> FreeBSD reached that third stage in 2000. Linux wouldn't get there
until 2008 with LXC.
OpenVZ and Linux vserver are older than LXC and were commonly used,
though they required a patched kernel.
razighter777 wrote 1 day ago:
I frequently see freeBSD jails as a highlighted feature, lauding their
simplicity and ease of use. While I do admire them, there are benefits
to the container approach used commonly on linux. (and maybe soon
freebsd will better support OCI).
First it's important to clarify "containers" are not an abstraction in
the linux kernel. Containers are really an illusion achieved by use of
a combination of user/pid/networking namespaces, bind mounts, and
process isolation primitives through a userspace application(s)
(podman/docker + a container runtime).
OCI container tooling is much easier to use, and follows the "cattle
not pets" philosophy, and when you're deploying on multiple systems,
and want easy updates, reproducibility, and mature tooling, you use OCI
containers, not LXC or freebsd jails. FreeBSD jails can't hold a candle
to the ease of use and developer experience OCI tooling offers.
> To solve the distribution and isolation problem, Linux engineers
built a set of kernel primitives (namespaces, cgroups, seccomp) and
then, in a very Linux fashion, built an entire ecosystem of
abstractions on top to âsimplifyâ things.
This was an intentional design decision, and not a bad one! cgroups,
namespaces, and seccomp are used extensively outside of the container
abstraction. (See flatpak, systemd resource slices, firejail). By not
tieing process isolation to the container abstraction, we can let
non-container applications benefit from them. We also get a wide
breadth of container runtime choices.
znpy wrote 1 day ago:
> lauding their simplicity and ease of use
Spawning a linux container is much simpler and faster than spawning a
freebsd jail.
I donât know why i keep hearing about jails being better, they
clearly arenât.
Melatonic wrote 1 day ago:
Jails have been around a long time in comparison
I still see FreeBSD as being great for things like networking devices
and storage controllers. You can apply a lot of the "cattle vs pets"
design one level above that using VMs and orchestration tools.
shevy-java wrote 1 day ago:
> FreeBSD is worth a brief aside here, because it differs from Linux in
a fundamental way. Linux is a kernel. What most people call "Linux" is
actually that kernel combined with a GNU userland, a package ecosystem,
and a set of choices that vary from distro to distro â Ubuntu,
Fedora, and Arch are all running the same kernel but are meaningfully
different systems underneath.
It is not incorrect but ... do people really care about that
distinction?
Because in most situations I know of, when people refer to Linux, they
almost never refer to the linux kernel. They refer to the whole
operating system stack, which is typically put down via a distribution.
So, Fedora, Gentoo, Arch, and so forth, are all "kind of" Linux. Barely
anyone refers to the linux kernel if you look at all the discussions on
the world wide web.
> FreeBSD ships as a complete, coherent OS
The BSDs often promote that aka "Linux is chaos, we are coherent and
consistent operating system following intelligent design". Well ...
this is the rise of worse is better, repeated: [1] It is a great
analogy that works on so many levels. Broken down to Linux versus the
BSDs, I think 500 out of 500 top supercomputers running Linux kind of
show which philosophy is better. The one that works better. That does
not mean the BSDs are useless, but I am getting tired of the promo used
by the BSD as "we are order, Linux is chaos". I compare this more to
Lego building blocks. With Linux there is a stronger focus on having
building blocks available. You can build up things. You have projects
such as LFS/BLFS (Linux from scratch). The BSDs do not have something
comparable. Which operating system is the better tinker OS? Which
community created git? (Ok ok that was Linus so not really a community
per se, but it originated from Linux and perhaps that was not an
accident either.)
> FreeBSD pioneered the practical implementation of what we now call
containers.
Ok great. Many modern programming languages learned from older
languages; many of these older languages are dead now. You need to keep
on innovating. Why is BSD so dead set on the past?
> FreeBSD reached that third stage in 2000. Linux wouldn't get there
until 2008 with LXC.
Dumdedum ... it kind of sounds as if the FreeBSD guys are sad that
Linux went on to dominate. It reminds me of NetBSD aka "we work on
every toaster in the world". Then suddenly on a mailing list many years
ago "wait a moment ... Linux now works on more toasters than we do".
The BSDs don't seem to understand how momentum can be dominating.
> Technical superiority doesn't win ecosystem wars. Linux won through a
combination of fast decisions, the viral GPL licence, and strong
enterprise backing from Red Hat and IBM. Then Google, Facebook, and
Amazon happened â hungry for datacenters, developing tools to manage
growing infrastructure at scale. They set the direction for the entire
industry.
Ok that flat out is incorrect. First - GPL worked well for the linux
kernel, that is true. But the ecosystem includes many BSD-licences
programs too, on Linux. So that explanation fails already here. LLVM
has Apache License 2.0 which I kind of feel is a mix between GPL and
BSD (not quite true but this is how I remember it).
Then the claim is Linux won because of Red Hat. I actually find Red Hat
annoying and I am glad to not depend on it. Linux is way bigger than
Red Hat. IBM? I don't see what IBM did for Linux really. So that
explanation also does not work.
Google, Facebook, and Amazon - well, they profited from Linux. They
didn't really ENABLE Linux. They would not have used Linux if Linux
would have been useless. So that part came afterwards.
So none of those explanations really work well here.
> Linux rapidly went from "the free OS for people who can't afford
commercial licences" to "the only acceptable OS for servers".
That is true but not for the claims made, e. g. "because of Google".
The more important question is: why did the BSDs fail?
> To solve the distribution and isolation problem, Linux engineers
built a set of kernel primitives (namespaces, cgroups, seccomp) and
then, in a very Linux fashion, built an entire ecosystem of
abstractions on top to âsimplifyâ things
No, that is also incorrect. cgroups are also very different to seccomp
and the
latter is even maintained independently: [2] > Somehow we ended up with
an overengineered mess of leaky abstractions for cloud-based,
vendor-locked infrastructure.
Wait a moment - he cites Docker. That's owned by a private company.
What does this have to do with Linux? If company xyz does something
based on FreeBSD, we would then say company xyz is responsible for
FreeBSD failing or not failing? How does that work?
> And this complexity has quietly reshaped how the industry thinks
about deploying software. Today, if you want to run an application in a
larger system, the implicit assumption is that you containerise it with
Docker and orchestrate it with Kubernetes.
Personally I find all this abstraction crap. With all their failures,
though, things such as docker kind of present a "download this one
file, then it will work fine". And that is kind of true. I saw that in
in-campus use for life science faculty clusters and what not. It
simplifies things for the admin there. People give a similar rationale
for systemd. Personally I don't think systemd should exist, but there
are people who benefit from it - that simply is a factual statement.
All in all this is a very strange point of view from FreeBSD folks. At
the least the NetBSD folks back then on the mailing list acknowledged
the situation and then tried to find alternative strategies and in some
ways succeeded (although I am not sure whether NetBSD right now runs on
more toasters than Linux does - anyone has updated statistics for
that?).
HTML [1]: https://dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html
HTML [2]: https://github.com/seccomp/libseccomp/releases
assimpleaspossi wrote 23 hours 54 min ago:
>>I think 500 out of 500 top supercomputers running Linux kind of
show which philosophy is better.
Or is it because it's what they're used to. I saw this argument
elsewhere where the respondent went on to show that the users were
Linux specialists and that's why Linux was used.
efortis wrote 1 day ago:
A two-server networking setup with VNET Jails:
HTML [1]: https://ericfortis.com/blog/freebsd-jails-network-setup
jmclnx wrote 1 day ago:
>but they don't have a native answer to shipping
I am not quite sure what this means. I had a jail a few years ago and
I remember there was a utility to "back" the jail up so you could put
it on another system. Are there constraints with that utility. It
seemed to work, maybe I am forgetting something ?
In any case I still think Jails are much better than the things Linux
has. To me, it is creating a jail that is more difficult. There were
ports that made it easier, I used one of them, but that port was
abandoned at some point. I think it was "ezjail".
user3939382 wrote 1 day ago:
I switched my startupâs whole infra to FreeBSD a couple months ago.
Found a use after free bug that Linuxâs memory management was just
fine with in Gnome XSLT lib that FreeBSD properly refused. Other than
that smooth sailing, jails work great.
After IBM destroyed CentOS, all the Xorg politics nonsense, the list
goes on with Linux, not interested. I just want something quiet and
boring and stable and correctly designed. NetBSD would be my first
choice but they donât get the $ they need for drivers.
rednb wrote 1 day ago:
Done the same since 2018 circa, never looked back.
For a while even used it on the desktop, but was too much trouble due
to specific tools we need that weren't supported properly. so we're
using Linux on the desktop.
FreeBSD is stable, lightweight, gets out of the way, and without
drama.
ajross wrote 1 day ago:
> all the Xorg politics nonsense
Uh... Xorg is packaged by FreeBSD too...
Really the whole theme that (from the article) "FreeBSD ships as a
complete, coherent OS" is belied by this kind of nonsense. No, it's
not. Or, sure, it is, but in exactly the same way that Debian or
whatever is. It's a big soup of some local software and a huge ton
of upstream dependencies curated for shipment together. Just like a
Linux distro.
And, obviously, almost all those upstream dependences are exactly the
same. Yet somehow the BSD folks think there's some magic to the
ports stuff that the Linux folks don't understand. Well, there
isn't. And honestly to the extent there's a delta in packaging
sophistication, the Linux folks tend to be ahead (c.f. Nix, for
example).
user3939382 wrote 23 hours 41 min ago:
> a huge ton of upstream dependencies
I think you missed the point in my original comment. I explained I
moved my platform with all dependencies and had 1 bug which was
actually a silent bug in Linux.
In other words, it works. Your particular stack might have a
different snag profile but if I can move my giant complex app
there, yours is worth a shot.
FreeBSD is more complete than you make out. They also have hard
working ports maintainers.
rednb wrote 1 day ago:
The key thing is that on freebsd you do not risk bricking your
system by installing a port. Even though this guarantee has become
less true with PkgBase
ajross wrote 1 day ago:
> The key thing is that on freebsd you do not risk bricking your
system by installing a port
What specifically are you trying to cite here? Which package can
I install on Debian or Fedora or whatever that "bricks the
system"? Genuinely curious to know.
rednb wrote 23 hours 33 min ago:
I was referring to the need to be careful to not modify/update
packages also used by the base system. Since all packages are
treated the same on Linux, you often can't tell which package
can put you in trouble if you update it along with the
dependencies it drags with it.
This kind of problem happens frequently when users add
repositories such as Packman on Linux providing dependencies
versions different from the ones used by the base system of the
distro.
Experienced people know how to avoid these mistakes, but this
whole class of problem does not exist on FreeBSD.
manuelabeledo wrote 1 day ago:
You donât need to follow the news cycle to use an operating system.
user3939382 wrote 23 hours 36 min ago:
I do follow the news cycle and if Iâm hearing about a software
package in it, something is wrong with the people making the
software and I donât trust them. Software is an engineering
discussion or at least itâs supposed to be. Hereâs my community
guidelines: everyone be nice and respectful engage in good faith
and focus on the math. Being social is fine so long that it
doesnât become a diversion from the engineering discussion.
Weâre talking about code not a philosophical treatise. There are
civil ways to settle disagreements. Iâm so sick to death of the
politics.
manuelabeledo wrote 22 hours 27 min ago:
It sounds like software projects are built by humans. Nothing
wrong with that.
Unless weâre assuming here that the BSD community is free from
that.
flipped wrote 1 day ago:
Anyone looking to use jails might find BastileBSD helpful. It's a nice
and modern jail manager.
paul_h wrote 1 day ago:
I was looking at TrueNAS CORE to see if it was a viable way to
bsd-jail Linux containers. I'm really only doing this to get some
protection from supply chain attacks given I'm fairly promiscuous at
git-clone-and-run-a-build. Before that I was aiming for the same
with Bastille and had got to the give up stage because it felt too
fiddly to set up. This was a year ago. Maybe its better now
flipped wrote 1 day ago:
Is there any technical writeup which explains how the isolation exactly
works, on containers and VMs? I have always heard the high level
arguments of weak isolation, same kernel, etc but never the
implementation details.
NooneAtAll3 wrote 1 day ago:
"failed to verify your browser"
m132 wrote 1 day ago:
Getting the same thing, "Failed to verify your browser. Code 11".
Some noise about WebGL in the browser console, getExtension() invoked
on a null reference. LibreWolf on Linux + resist fingerprinting.
Maybe opting for a better-written WAF could boost the reach?
matheus-rr wrote 1 day ago:
The jails vs containers framing is interesting but I think it misses
why Docker actually won. It wasn't the isolation tech. It was the
ecosystem: Dockerfiles as executable documentation, a public registry,
and compose for local dev. You could pull an image and have something
running in 30 seconds without understanding anything about cgroups or
namespaces.
FreeBSD jails were technically solid years before Docker existed, but
the onboarding story was rough. You needed to understand the FreeBSD
base system first. Docker let you skip all of that.
That said, I've been seeing more people question the container stack
complexity recently. Especially for smaller deployments where a jail or
even a plain VM with good config management would be simpler and more
debuggable. The pendulum might be swinging back a bit for certain use
cases.
KronisLV wrote 1 day ago:
> the container stack complexity
I'm using either Docker Compose or Docker Swarm without Kubernetes,
and there's not that much of it, to be honest. My "ingress" is just
an Apache2 container that's bound to 80/443 and my storage is either
volumes or bind mounts, with no need for more complexity there.
> The jails vs containers framing is interesting but I think it
misses why Docker actually won. It wasn't the isolation tech. It was
the ecosystem: Dockerfiles as executable documentation, a public
registry, and compose for local dev. You could pull an image and have
something running in 30 seconds without understanding anything about
cgroups or namespaces.
So where's Jailsfiles? Where's Jail Hub (maybe naming needs a bit of
work)? Where's Jail Desktop or Jail Compose or Jail Swarm or
Jailbernetes?
It feels like either the people behind the various BSDs don't care
much for what allowed Docker to win, or they're unable to compete
with it, which is a shame, because it'd probably be somewhere between
a single and double digit percent userbase growth if they decided to
do it and got it right. They already have some of the foundational
tech, so why not the UX and the rest of it?
jacquesm wrote 23 hours 19 min ago:
> I'm using either Docker Compose or Docker Swarm without
Kubernetes, and there's not that much of it, to be honest.
On the outside. But that's a lot of complexity hidden from view
there, easily a couple of million lines of code on top of the code
that you wrote.
user3939382 wrote 1 day ago:
You can also run Linux containers on FreeBSD
HTML [1]: https://youtu.be/HV-wUUzRCMo
chuckadams wrote 1 day ago:
Docker's client/server design also allowed for things like Docker
Desktop, which made the integration seamless with non-linux systems.
Jails have nothing like that, so the only system that will ever run
jails is FreeBSD. Also, I'm not up to speed enough to know, but do
jails even have a concept of container images?
wolvoleo wrote 1 day ago:
Jails were never going to 'win' because they're only on an OS with
0.1% marketshare.
But it's not a competition. FreeBSD does its thing and Linux does
another. That's why I use FreeBSD.
aswanson wrote 1 day ago:
What is your use case for BSD?
steve1977 wrote 1 day ago:
Maybe FreeBSD doesn't want a jails "ecosystem"?
steve1977 wrote 1 day ago:
> You could pull an image and have something running in 30 seconds
without understanding anything
Fixed that for you ;)
torstenvl wrote 1 day ago:
> Jails solve the isolation problem beautifully, but they don't have
a native answer to shipping. That gap is real, and it's one of the
main reasons the ecosystem around jails feels underdeveloped compared
to Docker's world.
The link literally uses the term ecosystem. Several times actually.
sthuck wrote 1 day ago:
I don't think article misses it, it's exactly the point it makes
lifeisstillgood wrote 1 day ago:
I ran a whole company on top of FreeBSD back in the day (2005 ish). It
was great, and ran all my personal pcs the same way (hell, refusing to
install windows to try out this bitcoin idea is even now a good idea).
But somehow Linux still took over my personal and professional life.
Going back seems nice but there need to be a compelling reason -docker
is fine, the costs donât add up any more. I do t have a real logical
argument beyond that.
adrian_b wrote 23 hours 15 min ago:
In the early years after 2000, FreeBSD 4 had a much better
performance and reliability in any networking or storage applications
in comparison with the contemporaneous Linux and Windows XP/Windows
2000.
However, in 2003 Intel introduced CPUs with SMT and in 2005 AMD
introduced multi-core CPUs.
These multi-threaded and/or multi-core CPUs quickly replaced the
single-threaded CPUs, especially in servers, where the FreeBSD
stronghold was.
FreeBSD 4 could not handle multiple threads. In the following years
Linux and Windows have been developed immediately to take advantage
of multiple threads and cores, while FreeBSD has required many years
for this, a time during it has become much less used than before,
because new users were choosing Linux and some of the old users were
also switching to Linux for their new computers that were not
supported by FreeBSD.
Eventually FreeBSD has become decent again from the PoV of
performance, but it has never been again in a top position and it
lacks native device drivers for many of the hardware devices that are
supported by Linux, due to much fewer developers able to do the
necessary reverse engineering work or the porting work for the case
when some company provides Linux device drivers for their hardware.
For the last 3 decades, I have been using continuously both FreeBSD
and Linux. I use Linux on my desktop PCs and laptops, and in some
computational servers where I need software support not available for
FreeBSD, e.g. NVIDIA CUDA (NVIDIA provides FreeBSD device drivers for
graphic applications, but not CUDA). I continue to use FreeBSD for
many servers that implement various kinds of networking or storage
functions, due to exceptional reliability and simplicity of
management.
flipped wrote 1 day ago:
Never understood why satoshi was a prime windows user.
earthscienceman wrote 1 day ago:
I know this comment is effectively a side tangent on a side
tangent. but that was always the strangest thing to me as well. I
remember in 2012 when I was debating fiddling around with Bitcoin.
that was one of the things that turned me off. I was sure that
there was no way something as brilliant as this was supposed to be
was developed by windows user.
Which surely says something about all these ideological purity
tests
dijit wrote 1 day ago:
Windows developers (like sysadmins) are of two kinds in my
experience.
People who don't understand shit about how the system behaves and
are comfortable with that. "I install a package, I hit the
button, it works"
.. and
People who understand very deeply how computers work, and
genuinely enjoy features of the NT Kernel, like IOCP and the
performance counters they offer to userland.
What's weird to me is that the competence is bimodal; you're
either in the first camp or the second. With Linux (+BSD/Solaris
etc;) it's a lot more of a spectrum.
I've never understood exactly why this is, but it's consistent.
There's no "middle-good" Windows developer.
anthk wrote 22 hours 58 min ago:
Unix is easier to understand than the NT mess and everything
it's in the open and documented, so you can achieve a good
level of knowledge in the middle. OTOH in order to understand
NT deeply you must be a reverse engineer. Also, on the other
side, crazy experts under Wine (both ways, Unix and NT) OpenBSD
and 9front do exist on par of these NT wizards. It just happen
with Unix/9f you climb an almost flat slope (more in the
second) due to the crazy simple design, while with NT the
knowledge it's damn expensive to earn.
With 9front you OFC need expertise on par of NT but without far
less efforth. The books (9intro), the papers, CSP for
concurrency... it's all there, there's no magic, you don't need
ollyDBG or an NT object explorer to understand OLE and COM for
instance.
RE 9front? Maybe on issues while debugging, because the rest
it's at /sys/src, and if something happens you just point Acid
under Acme to go straight to the offending source line. The man
pages cover everything. Drivers are 200x smaller and more
understandable than both NT and Unix.
Meanwhile to do that under NT you must almost be able to design
an ISA by yourself and some trivial compiler/interpreter/OS for
it, because there's no open code for anything. And no, Wine is
not a reference, but a reimplementation.
salvesefu wrote 1 day ago:
Probably bc, Windows users live in walled knowledge domains
that tend to reinforce levels of competence (or lack of
competence).
Gamers tend to be somewhere in the middle though.
dijit wrote 1 day ago:
Yeah, I have a similar situation; FreeBSD is a great operating
system, but the sheer amount of investment in Linux makes all the
warts semi-tolerable.
I'm sure some people have a sunk-cost feeling with Linux and will get
defensive of this, but ironically this was exactly the argument I had
heard 20 years ago - and I was defensive about it myself then.. This
has only become more true though.
It's really hard to argue against Linux when even architecturally
poor decisions are papered over by sheer force of will and
investment; so in a day-to-day context Linux is often the happy path
even though the UX of FreeBSD is more consistent over time.
palata wrote 1 day ago:
Nice article!
> To solve the distribution and isolation problem, Linux engineers
built a set of kernel primitives (namespaces, cgroups, seccomp) and
then, in a very Linux fashion, built an entire ecosystem of
abstractions on top to âsimplifyâ things: [...] Somehow we ended up
with an overengineered mess of leaky abstractions
Not sure I like the value judgement here. I think it's more of a
consequence of Linux' success. I am convinced that if it was reversed
(Linux was niche and *BSD the norm), then a ton of abstractions would
come, and the average user would "use an overengineered mess" because
they don't know better (or don't care or don't have a need to care).
Not that I like it when people ship their binary in a 6G docker image.
But I don't think it's fair to put that on "those Linux engineers".
jacquesm wrote 23 hours 22 min ago:
I don't agree with that. FreeBSD has more of an engineering than a
hacking mentality and it shows in the various architectural choices.
And containers really are a VM-light, so you might as well use the
real thing, in fact, VMWare for a long time thought that their images
would be a container like thing and many larger installations used
them as such.
realusername wrote 1 day ago:
I don't think it's necessarily true, compare the BSD utils to the GNU
utils and the style difference is very visible.
On the other hand, I don't think the comparison between jails and
docker is fair. What made Docker popular is the reusability of the
containers, certainty not the sandboxing which in the early days was
very leaky.
shevy-java wrote 1 day ago:
> compare the BSD utils to the GNU utils and the style difference
is very visible.
Well, what style difference exactly? GNU utils tend to be more
verbose. Other than that, what is the difference in style?
adrian_b wrote 22 hours 28 min ago:
I do not know which is the difference, but you really feel a
difference.
It might be of homogeneity, i.e. the FreeBSD tools behave in a
consistent way, while there are significant differences between
the Linux tools, depending on which were the opinions of their
particular authors about how the traditional UNIX tools should be
changed.
For instance, at some point in time, long ago, in Linux the
traditional "ifconfig" and a few related commands have been
replaced by "ip", for managing networking.
The Linux "ifconfig" needed an upgrade, as it could do only a
small fraction of what the FreeBSD "ifconfig" could do.
Nevertheless, until today, decades later, I have been unable to
stop hating the Linux "ip".
I cannot say why, because in other cases when some command-line
or GUI utility that I had used for many years was replaced by an
alternative I instantly recognized that the new UI was better and
I never wanted to use the old UI again.
So while both FreeBSD and Linux have started with the same
traditional UNIX utilities, they have evolved divergently and now
they frequently feel quite differently, in the sense that the
various options in commands or in configuration files may match
your expectations only when taking into account the identity of
the OS. Overall FreeBSD has been more conservative, but there are
also cases when it has made bigger changes, but such changes seem
more carefully planned and less haphazard than in the Linux
world.
NooneAtAll3 wrote 1 day ago:
what do you mean by reusability?
maxloh wrote 1 day ago:
For example, you can build a Python image, and reuse it on every
Python apps you have.
fragmede wrote 1 day ago:
And for the whole world, too. I don't need to build my own
local stripped down version of Alpine Linux with python,
somebody's already dike that for me.
irusensei wrote 22 hours 16 min ago:
I don't like that aspect of OCI containers. You shouldn't be
running or building on top of random images made by unknowns.
nesarkvechnep wrote 1 day ago:
Iâm always going to like articles introducing people to FreeBSD.
DIR <- back to front page