Hacker News Reader

Comment by yayforfreebsd | Hacker News Reader

FreeBSD never ceases to amaze. You can run Linux binaries with the emulation layer, you can of course run many Linux applications through the ports system, they also have a Linux compatibility layer for the graphics stack so they can use Linux drivers, their ZFS implementation is now tracking ZFS on Linux, and now this!

This is something other BSD systems don't get. OpenBSD developers pretend Linux doesn't even exist, while FreeBSD is doing a great job catching up with Linux and doing all the Linux stuff so you can Linuxy Linux your Linux stuff in your Linux FreeBSD Linux. Linux.

View on HN

> their ZFS implementation is now tracking ZFS on Linux

I don't think that's quite right. OpenZFS is a thing that is consumed (and pushed forward) by both FreeBSD and Linux; FreeBSD isn't following Linux, they just both use the same thing. (Which is why it isn't named ZoL anymore; it isn't supposed to be Linux-centric)

Correct! It was created out of the ZoL project (because most people worked there instead of the illumos base) and now it transformed into OpenZFS with the Goal:

>brings together developers from the Linux, FreeBSD, illumos, MacOS, and Windows platforms. OpenZFS is supported by a wide range of companies.

https://openzfs.org/wiki/Main_Page

FreeBSD is doing a great job catching up to Linux, yes, (not in the ZFS case though where they were the pioneers) but once you start catching up you have to, well, continue catching up in perpetuity.

Na, FreeBSD is not catching up/down to Linux..absolutely no interest..with one exception..drivers.

But if you work with Illumos or *BSD's for a extended time, Linux feels dirty and bloated..just not right anymore, if you like linux good...i am happy for you but i try to avoid linux if i can (obviously not always the case...OracleDB, DB2, k8s and so on).

>ZFS case though where they were the pioneers

No that was OpenSolaris...and i am still sad about it.

But Jails? I would say that was a real pioneering, whereas Solaris came a bit later with Zones and then a decade later Linux, you probably call that containers "a pure linux invention" today ;)

> But Jails? I would say that was a real pioneering, whereas Solaris came a bit later with Zones and then a decade later Linux, you probably call that containers "a pure linux invention" today ;)

Containers are a pure Linux invention: BSD jails/Solaris zones are a different creature to Linux namespaces and cgroups - the lack of isolation is what enables composibility of containers

Containers are marketing slang for operating-system virtualization.

>the lack of isolation is what enables composibility of containers

Oh really? So containers are not isolated to each other...that's some news...bad ones ;)

BTW are you from a marketing department? ....composibility....stop with that stinking shit please.

> Containers are marketing slang for operating-system virtualization.

Containers are considerably more than virtualization[1], which is why jails/zones/kvm never took off, but Docker did.

> Oh really? So containers are not isolated to each other...that's some news...bad ones

Indeed, containers make for very poor security boundaries. But there are upsides to sharing the same kernel.

> composibility....stop with that stinking shit please.

Are you unfamiliar with "composition" as a software design/architecture term? One can create and bundle (Docker) containers that work together and have a shared network interface in a way that jails can't. As an example, a reverse proxy + service backend + db working in concert.

1. Disk storage format, standardized packaging descriptor, repository.

It's like you don't even understand what a container is, let alone comparing kvm with jails.

Then giving a example that is a piece of cake for jails/zones...even in a concert.

Please educate yourself about zones, brandedzones and lxzones (for the solaris/illumos) or jails (for the bsd side) it's really interesting i can tell you, and additionally you don't sound like marketing blabla after that.

> This is something other BSD systems don't get.

NetBSD has linux emulation, it is just OpenBSD that ignores Linux.

> OpenBSD developers pretend Linux doesn't even exist

What is the point of this statement? OpenBSD devs are focused on OpenBSD. Importing Linux is not their goal. That is their choice. If you don't like it, then don't use it. People are allowed to do as they please.

Edit: If you need Linux use Linux. Stop demanding other OS's bloat their code base so you can run foreign code.

>Edit: If you need Linux use Linux. Stop demanding other OS's bloat their code base so you can run foreign code.

So Wine is bad for Linux? Just asking....

OpenBSD devs don't want to maintain any binary compat layers. They were all removed. Linux binary compat layer is now vmm/vmd.

>Linux binary compat layer is now vmm/vmd.

That's a virtual machine and not a compat layer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com