On 10/01/07, Freminlins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 10/01/07, Chris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I think freebsd needs.
> 1 - To fix stuff that works in linux but goes to crap in freebsd, one
> such example is NFS.

I don't actually have a problem with FreeBSD and NFS. This is using about
20+ clients and 2 NetApp filers. What problem are you having, rather than
just "goes to crap"?

> 2 - A better installer, this is probably the biggest single thing that
> puts people of freebsd, the less people using freebsd the less funds
> likely to be recieved.

 Do you really think this puts people off? How do you know this? I find that
FreeBSD has the fastest installer for a complete OS. It may not look very
pretty, but it's logical and I can use it over serial console.

> 3 - Better hardware compatability, freebsd has poor hardware support,
> worst then both linux and windows, one such example is realtek cards
> have no problems in windows and linux but do in freebsd, sata support
> is very poor as well.  Often when people say anything the response is
> go out and buy premium hardware.

Well, everything has worse hardware support than Windows, so that's a
pointless comparison. Linux has more hardware support, this is true. But
some of this "support" is very bad. I have only had one box out of about 100
over the years which I couldn't make work to my liking with FreeBSD. Then I
went to Linux. I use Linux on a couple of large storage systems deliberately
because of the lack of a journalling FS in FreeBSD.

Realtek network cards, I am afraid to say, are cheap and nasty. Some, at
least, do work in FreeBSD. But I wouldn't consider them professional cards
for use with any OS. They are OK for home users with low end network needs.
Nothing mor than that.

SATA support was definitely a bid dodgy the last time I looked (about a
year), but I nearly always use SCSI so it's not usually a problem.

> 4 - Better attitude to bug fixing, not always possible to provide
> backtraces as such from remote servers but can tell the devs how to
> repeat problem so they can do on their own local machines.

That's asking a tiny bit too much IMHO. To get the best help you have to
offer the best information yourself. You are expecting someone else to
repeat your problems on hardware which they not have.

> 5 - journaling filesystem.

Yes, definitely this is needed and long overdue.

> Ultimately I think freebsd is in real danger of losing its stable tag,
> more and more things are not stable on freebsd as they get ignored,
> some of the network drivers appear to be poorly maintained, and its
> lagging behind in the performance charts.  All this considering it
> used to be ahead in the game is a sad state of affairs.
> Would I pay for freebsd? yes but in the right circumstances I fully
> understand its voluntary work in many cases but the worst it gets the
> less inclined people will be to pay.

The simple truth is, of course, that Linux has a large number of fully paid
developers. RedHat, for example, employs numerous programmers who fix bugs,
and these fixes end up in free distros of Linux.

> Chris


A reason why you have less problems is I expect you using premium
hardware such as scsi, currently I am lucky enough to not be using
realtek lan cards although I am still having problems with intel nics.

the specific nfs issues are related to mounting linux filesystems, I
am not the only one there is dozens of posts on these mailing lists
from users with the same problems, usually livelocks or panics caused
by mounting nfs filesystems on freebsd most seem to have no

realtek isnt great hardware but is that a good reason for realtek
performing significantly worse then on linux, shouldnt it be on par?

issues of performance been worse, the biggest example is probably
mysql and uniprocessor performance, I understand with ule 2.0 mysql
performance is signficantly better so there is hope there, I would
like to see more performance from uniprocessor and the mp safe support
on nics set to disabled by default to put stability first.

The installer well that comes down to using a variety of datacentres,
quite often datacentre staff are not too well trained and mainly used
to redhat and windows gui installers, so when it comes to freebsd
there is many datacentres who dont even support freebsd when I ask is
because they say it wont install, the ones that do support freebsd the
feedback I get off them is often related to both the installer been a
pain for them and hardware compatibility.

How much testing goes into heavy workloads such as heavy apache loads
and DDOS attacks?  I expect my server to not livelock and come back to
responsiveness after such loads without having to reboot it.  Freebsd
4.x was incredibly stable under heavy ddos attacks, freebsd 5.x held
out but of course was very slow on UP, freebsd 6.x is faster but has
suffered stability problems.

On the performance side get the sata and raid problems sorted for
improved hd performance tagged ququeing etc.

Is there a sort of hire a dev button on the freebsd website?

freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to