Before I reply I wanted to put something here about me. I'm not going to
top post, as I'll respond to each section I'd like to respond to,
underneath the text quoted. I started using FreeBSD what seems like
quite a while ago.
This post has brought back some Nostalgia for me, because I still
remember the very day I saw FreeBSD for the first time. I got my VERY
first Computer back in September of 1999. If you're wondering how the
heck I can tell you not only the year, but the Month, it's simple; My
Mom bought me a Computer from my Uncle, and I was going to use it for
school.
Well, after two weeks, I'd guessed my Uncle's Password to Prodigy
Internet, and got online for the first time. After a few days, I signed
up for an account on web site, and, well, to this day, I can log into
that, and see the date I joined if I wanted to. The last time I did, I
basically saw September of 1999, and remembered how I'd gotten that
account.
So yea, it was exactly September of 1999 that I got my very first
Computer. It came with Windows 95, and it sucked. It was slow, had very
little RAM, and, to this day, I have no clue what kind of Processor it
had. I didn't have a bunch of manuals to look at.
So anyway, within a few months, I'd started learning about this thing
called a "Hacker" because I was on IRC, and talking to lots of people,
and learned that someone was one of those. I looked it up, and I was
amazed to see there were people who could make machines do things they
weren't intended to do. Along the way, I learned he didn't use Windows
at all, but Linux. Well, I started looking up Linux, and saw how it was
made to be like Unix.
One day, while reading an article about the guy who did the DVD cracking
of deCSS or whatever it was, I learned he said something along the lines
of "I don't use Linux, I prefer FreeBSD" and I was like "WTF is
FreeBSD??" so I started looking THAT up.
I learned that BSD was more "hardcore" than Linux, and, technically, and
historically, more Unix than SysV. Well, one day, I was at Best Buy with
my Mom, and I'm looking at software, seeing all the Linux stuff they
have, and BeOS, and I see something that catches my attention; The BSD
PowerPak.
It was 59.99 and I grabbed it. It contained the BSD PowerPak, and "The
Complete FreeBSD. 3rd Edition" and I was looking at the box almost
drooling that I'd found it.
I bought it obviously. I was amazed. I'd never seen anything like it
before. I mean, I knew what Linux was, but this was like amazing to me.
It came with FreeBSD 4.0 on CD-ROM, and the Tool Kit. To this day, I
still have the Book, I still have all 6 CDs in the Tool Kit, and all 4
Installation CDs, and, I still have the box it came in with the price on
it. That's how I knew how much it was.
So I got home and started reading the book, and I'm like amazed by this
stuff. I mean I had Unix! My Best Friend was more purist and said it
wasn't Unix but BSD. I said BSD was Unix and so on, and now we both
basically know.
So anyway, I didn't even try to install it at first, as my machine was
now a brand new Computer running Windows 98 SE. Eventually, I got
another Computer, and installed Caldera OpenLinux 2.2 on it, and I
couldn't quite get BSD working. I of course was making a bunch of newbie
mistakes, but hey, I had it. So anyway, eventually, I tried installing
FreeBSD 4.0. I screwed up the install, lost everything on the drive, and
didn't touch it for a while. Then, one day, I tried again. I got it
installed. I've been using FreeBSD on and off ever since. Now, I'm
Married, have my own House, and we have a BUNCH of machines, and I
usually make sure at least one or two are running FreeBSD.
Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
(4.x nostalgia belongs to -chat, not to -arch)
I also have good memories of the 4.x era, but I tried
reinstalling not long ago and it didn't really look
all that great. Objectively I think part of the glory
of those days was the momentum building around the
platform (the BSDi code was merging, the performance
and stability was way above anything else).
If you look on Wikipedia, they say that the 4.x line was some of the
most stable stuff ever made. So I think there may very well be some
truth to that.
Nowadays I find 9.x extremely interesting and in
certain way it's also the end of an era: the GNU
stuff and ZFS is at the top of what will ever be in
base. This means that we will have to be focusing
on newer technologies from now on.
I'm not so sure about an Era, but, yea, as someone who hasn't used ZFS,
mostly because I just don't care about it, I don't keep track of it
really. I love BSD, but I only use FreeBSD and PC-BSD. I don't have
NetBSD installed on anything, and don't intend to, because so far, my
stove doesn't have a 16 bit processor yet. And OpenBSD... I just don't
like that guy. So I don't use it.
Oh and We are still doing quite well in performance
and stability, and Netcraft confirms it ;) :
"For the first time this year, FreeBSD has the
largest share of hosting providers in the top 10
with half of them running FreeBSD servers. Of the
other hosting providers in the top 10, 4 run Linux
and 1 uses Windows Server 2008."
If it were not for X.Org, that has become very
difficult to configure, I'd surely recommend FreeBSD
to everyone: instead now I recommend PC-BSD.
I don't configure it. I install FreeBSD, then install some packages with
pkg_add -r bunch of stuff
And then, I load up GDM or KDM, and log in. I don't think I've ever
configured X on BSD.... Or at least not since I last tried, with 4.0,
and 5, but it works fine.
cheers,
Pedro.
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 11:42:50 +0200, johan Hendriks wrote:
Hello all
First of all this is not a rant, just a write down of my feel about FreeBSD.
Secondly i want to thank all of the people involved in FreeBSD for this
fantastic OS that i use on a daily basis for most tasks like Mail
filtering, proxy/web services and file sharing.
Here i go.
In the time of FreeBSD 4.x, i would without hesitating recommend FreeBSD
for almost everything on the server side.
You know you could take FreeBSD 4.x and start throwing rocks at it no
matter how big the rocks where, and the FreeBSD people would probably
stand in front of the crowd with the biggest rocks.
But with the latest like 6, 7 and the 8 releases i have my doubts! I
would still be throwing rocks, but i will not stand in front, and would
be more picky about the rocks i pick to throw.
I have no data to prove this, it is just a feeling.
FreeBSD does not have the same robuust feel like it had in the 4.x days.
Is this because FreeBSD does not get ironed out anymore like the 4.x
release?
We stop at x.3 or x.4 as where the 4.x release did go to .11 , and it
proved to be a succes.
Also is FreeBSD not to conservative in its settings?
For example if there is a performance battle between linux, opensolaris
or whatever and FreeBSD and FreeBSD lacks in performance, there is
always the statement that you need to tune FreeBSD!
Why?
Could we not set defaults to more standard values that modern hardware
uses.
This has been asked several times before if i memeber correctly, and the
answer is mostly that there are still some users that have old hardware.
Well is it not time to let them tune the system down.
Maybe an installer option, like GENERIC kernel and T_GENERIC kernel for
Tuned Kernel, with has some settings that is always a good thing to have
on your modern hardware.
And with it comes a more suitable /etc/sysctl.conf file or default
sysctl values that fits latest hardware better.
This way if you have old hardware, you can select your good old known
FreeBSD.
If you are on modern hardware you can select the tuned version.
Samba performance is in my opinion not good at FreeBSD.
Windows and Linux get higher performance without any tuning.
But i do not want to start using a mix of operating systems.
Linux for Samba, FreeBSD fo web/mail filtering and Windows for exchange
and so on.
I know you can not suspect to be a high performance webserver and a
samba server with the same tunings, but there must be a way to find a
good balance.
So if you install FreeBSD, Linux and Windows there are some differences,
but not that huge as there are now.
In my opinion we now starting to enter the storage era.
FreeBSD with ZFS could play a major role in this.
But here i get a little reluctent to use FreeBSD.
If i read the maillings lists and some performance and trouble issues
people have with ZFS, i starting to get doubts.
I also know that succes stories are not on these lists, and only the bad
things are.
I work for a small company with three people.
We do not have budgets to buy SAN and or NAS machines and do endless
testing.
Vmware is getting bigger and bigger, even for the smaller company's we
work for.
So again FreeBSD and ZFS could really be a good solution for a SAN/NAS.
But we can not have kernel panics on the SAN/NAS!
But here again reluctend to do so.
Maybe it is because the problems on the mailling list, or the whole feel
of it, i do not know.
Now we need to make a choice.
HP SANS or FreeBSD with ZFS for the SAN.
Again not a rant, just my writing down the feeling i have with FreeBSD
right now.
And again thanks to all for making FreeBSD to what it is today.
A wonderful clean sytem that still does the job for me.
regards
Johan Hendrik
_______________________________________________
freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-chat-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
