On Sat, February 10, 2007 11:32 am, Dean Michael Berris wrote: > Wait, so you're saying even the developers consider FreeBSD 5 unstable > -- but why was it released and given a "stable version release" number > if that was the case?
freebsd provides 3 trees for users to choose from. 1st is CURRENT w/c is the bleeding edge. 2nd is the branch to the 'next' release of a certain branch (e.g. RELENG_6) which is called -STABLE. 3rd is the RELEASE or should i say 'patch' version (e.g. FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE-p10). the handbook clearly states that users should not blindly follow the STABLE branch. btw what freebsd5 branch did you use? and reading freebsd6.0 release announcement it states that release 6 contains features that have been "under development" in the freebsd5 series for that last several years. reading several freebsd mailing can also give more ideas that 5.x series is a development series. freebsd4 is even better than freebsd5 when it comes to stability since the 5.x is a developmental series. > And the fundamental design flaw of UFS -- the latent syncing -- has > been a big problem for the longest time on UNIX systems. That's the > reason why SGI came out with their own filesystem and so did IBM and > other UNIX stakeholders. the ufs you're referring to is maybe the original 4.4bsd ufs. openbsd's ufs and disklabel is now different than freebsd. and 5.x freebsd series uses ffs2 w/c at that time was never considered stable since 5.x series is an 'experimental' branch. even the openbsd team did not adapt on that filesystem. every long time freebsd user will tell you that freebsd 5.x is an experimental branch. because of that experimentation, some developers forked freebsd4 w/c resulted to dragonflybsd. now why did they not fork the 5.x series? its because its highly experimental. in your case, if you want to deploy freebsd on that time, you should opted for the 4.x branch. > The conclusion here is UFS sucks because it by design is flawed. > Nothing more, nothing less. And since the BSD kernel still uses it by > default shows how much better Linux has become as far as being > technically superior is concerned. i don't think ufs sucks. you can also refer to sync() manpage of openbsd. and also remember that the linux native fs - ext2, incorporates many ideas from what you call sucked ufs. solaris and other unix vendor such as hp-ux and tru64 have adapted ufs. some of them added proprietary add-ons on it. > What are these and why would I need it? When in Linux, what I care > about is that I get the performance I bargained for and be assured > that the solutions are of the utmost quality. Old code does not mean > better code -- and I will always settle for better code than anything > else. you don't need this for now because your current situation does not opt you to need it. i've been administering both linux and bsd servers for years and i've seen both their strengths and weaknesses. i've never seen linux equivalent of carp+pf+pfsync w/c i use on my servers and firewalls. > If you actually care to check, Linux kernel development has been > better than ever. 2.6.20 is coming out soon, and packs more than any > other OS kernel can even pronounce. i always check that and i don't agree w/ you. linux sometimes suits my needs but sometime linux provides me half-baked of the feature i need. > If it's beginning to sound like I'm a Linux Fanboy, then yes I am one. yes you are. and i know even though what fact i'll present on this thread, you'll never listen. i also understand the weaknesses of bsd compared to linux and i understand also the strength of bsd over linux. my guess: you know linux but you don't really know bsd. > That being said, on technical merits Linux will always IMNSHO beat any > BSD kernel in aspects that matter: performance, stability, and > efficiency. have you tried administering large servers simultaneously? you can ask long-time bsd admins here on the list like jimmy or fooler. i also experienced fs and database corruptions in linux. > If you want to argue, show me code and let's see which technical > solution is better than the other. Then tell me again why BSD is > better than Linux. what code? openbsd's cvs web interface is always available. so as other bsds. go check. _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
