1y ago

FreeBSD can now boot in 25 milliseconds

www.theregister.com FreeBSD can now boot in 25 milliseconds

On AWS Firecracker – but there are other new micro-VM engines around, too

TechNews @radiation.party

irradiated @radiation.party

BOT

1y ago

FreeBSD can now boot in 25 milliseconds

www.theregister.com /2023/08/29/freebsd_boots_in_25ms/

2 0

You're viewing a single thread.

85 comments

Still dont get the point of freebsd.
- Unbreakably stable, cohesive (no need to fit and manage tens of different pieces to get a get a functionning OS), performant, bhyve, BSD licensed (can be a pro or con tho). It has quite a lot of stuff that makes it worthy of Linux or other BSDs.
  EDIT: Almost forgot ZFS.
  
  Not to mention that generations of Playstation and Nintendo consoles run on top of their work, and Apple's macOS also has deep roots into the BSD history
- There's an old saying: "Linux users use Linux because they hate Windows. BSD users use BSD because they love Unix." Obviously this is not true for every individual user, but I think it describes a trend or pattern.
  
  I've heard "Linux is a PC operating system that's like Unix; BSD is a Unix operating system that runs on PCs."
- Much smaller footprint than Linux. If you’re running a server, it’s much less vulnerable to malicious exploits.
  
  Yeah, BSD is now in the situation that Linux was in the early 00s. Smaller, faster, and more reliable than the "other guy".
  Faster and more reliable are far closer for BSD and Linux than Linux and Windows, but now it seems that BSD is possibly there.
- FreeBSD is the tool you don't know you need, and then suddenly there's the perfect use case, because those BSD alchemists never get tired of tinkering on it and suddenly BSD overtake Linux or Windows in some areas. You think Linux is everywhere, same with BSD its just better at hiding.
  
  and then suddenly there’s the perfect use case
  Yeah but like WHAT?
  
  Like when you want to have a fully-fledged OS that you can rebrand, close the source and sell as your invention.
  
  The NAS community seems to have standardized on BSD for reasons outside of my understanding. If you're looking to roll your own NAS you might end up with BSD rather than Linux.
  
  ZFS is baked in by default and the os is rock solid stable. It follows the same philosophy as Debian really, only the most tried and tested code makes it into the os.
  
  Similarly there is pfSense for firewall/router/vpn/etc. It's just rocksolid and stable.
  
  The BSDs are very popular for wifi routers and modems
  
  How can I know? it's something people need to research when they choose OS for their projects.
  
  BSD overtake Linux or Windows in some areas
  Any examples? besides the well known security, lower footprint and simplicity. genuinely curious.
  
  ZFS? pf?
  The tooling is just superior in some cases.
  
  zfs is available on Linux just fine
  
  Yes, finally . But only after being available in FreeBSD for years.
  
  Sure, but as a reason for why BSD is better, the present is what's important.
  I'm not downplaying it tho
  
  25ms boot time?
  
  I know the points you mentioned but I don't really follow much about BSD, but I have respect for it and knows it's there the day I need it.
- I've ran a freebsd based version of TrueNas on consumer hardware for well over 400 days straight. It's the most stable system I've ever run.
- How do you mean? Like, how is this different than someone saying "I don't get the point of Linux"?
  
  Haha yeah actually I wonder whether people actually did ask this when Linux started making the rounds. If I read the history right BSD was already almost 15 years old at the time!
  
  It was, but there wasn't an i386 BSD yet (which is where OpenBSD and NetBSD enter the picture). Linus Torvalds has said if OpenBSD had been available when he started the linux kernal, he would have just used that instead
  
  Yes. Yes they did.
- BSD that's easier to run in places than OpenBSD or NetBSD

85 comments