What are the benifits of FreeBSD over Linux?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sol33t303 said:
I'm fine with a bit of a challenge when setting up my system (as I said, I'm currently running Gentoo),
Click to expand...
I have to say I experimented with gentoo back in the day. I liken it to pulling out your toe-nails then trying to put them back in so you can pull them out again. It's a facetious analog but I don't have the patience to read hundreds of lines of instructions to get the stages installed.
Sol33t303 said:
however, your argument about tailering to your own needs I would say is also applicable to Linux (I'd say thats bassically the reason why Distros like Arch and Gentoo exist). Also your comment about how Linux distros are all different I think is true to a degree, but they all are effectivelly the same base (Linux with GNU userspace), the only REAL difference between them I would argue is probably the package manager, everything else can be completely stripped out of a distro and with enough work you could make it almost identical to any other.
Click to expand...

While the libs etc might be GNU for MOST it's not for all, the various OS combinations are so varied they might as well not have a common library and utilities from GNU. You're free to locate them anywhere (eg Busybox). You can use different device managers etc.
The key, and major, difference is the init system. Apart from that abomination known as systemd, there's upstart, sysvinit etc. Then there's package managers as you state, which can vary in command structure, ie, pacman or apt-get or the myriad of others.

I think that's what makes *BSDs attractive, as it's the entire OS, not just the kernel with blobs of junk attached to make it an OS. Don't get me wrong I use MX Linux on my laptop exclusively and run Devuan on Arm and iMX devices BUT if you want to swap from Mint to MX the learning curve is quite steep in some ways especially for a novice.

If you're unconcerned about how the system is configured and just want an OS to install and use, then the variants of GNU-Linux like Ubuntu (et al), MX, Mint etc would do just as well as GhostBSD etc.
 
max21 said:
Linux and windows will always be faster because they use the processor registers while FreeBSD use the stack.
Click to expand...
This comment is just too absurd not to comment on. Sorry but it makes no sense what. so. ever.

Process registers are used as "parameters" for specific calls. By setting value to a register and then using a specific call you basically tell the system what to do. Although they can be used for extra storage this is not often done; there are much easier ways.

The stack is a different beast entirely because you basically use this to temporarily store a value. You push something onto the stack to store it, only to pop it out at a later time.

Fun fact: This methodology mostly originates from the x86 family of processors and even back then it was a pure myth that one method was faster (or slower) than the other. Even more funnier: the stack was actually considered to be the faster of the two methods.

Thing is: if you wanted your program to actually 'do' something you'd be depending on both methods anyway because although one was a good way to store values (stack), you still needed the other to actually make the system 'do' something (registers).

As mentioned: this is focusing on x86, 64 bit seriously changed the rules of the game, including timing.

And then there's the issue that most of FreeBSD is programmed using C, the assembly parts are pretty small.
 
ShelLuser said:
This comment is just too absurd not to comment on. Sorry but it makes no sense what. so. ever.

Process registers are used as "parameters" for specific calls. By setting value to a register and then using a specific call you basically tell the system what to do. Although they can be used for extra storage this is not often done; there are much easier ways.

The stack is a different beast entirely because you basically use this to temporarily store a value. You push something onto the stack to store it, only to pop it out at a later time. . . .
. . .
Click to expand...

Code: 
Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2450M CPU @ 2.50GHz
71 ms for push 8, pop eax
35 ms for mov eax, 8

74 ms for push 8, pop eax
33 ms for mov eax, 8

79 ms for push 8, pop eax
33 ms for mov eax, 8

79 ms for push 8, pop eax
33 ms for mov eax, 8

77 ms for push 8, pop eax
33 ms for mov eax, 8

79 ms for push 8, pop eax
34 ms for mov eax, 8

79 ms for push 8, pop eax
33 ms for mov eax, 8

79 ms for push 8, pop eax
33 ms for mov eax, 8

79 ms for push 8, pop eax
33 ms for mov eax, 8

77 ms for push 8, pop eax
33 ms for mov eax, 8

Results are for 100 Million iterations
Newer hardware is faster but push/pop will forever remain slower no matter what.

IIRC push and pop is like for example LEA:

Code: 
 lea  esi, [ebp-30],

It has to do a heck of a lot more under the hood. But using push/pop for FreeBSD is the best way to go. If you use the registers (if you know what I mean) it does not increase preformance because the kernel itself has to make special perperation that cost time and branded code has to go thru something also, so you back to less than C speed anyway. Might as well stick to C. I think the handbook tell you all about it, if not you have to get lucky, just google. I not good at tech talk I just code it.


hutch - - at masm32
The push/pop is slower, its useful for memory to memory copy in non critical operations but direct register write is faster for a couple of reasons, its a single opcode and one memory operation is faster than two.
Click to expand...

All the testing I done back in the day, hutch -- was right again, there is nothing faster then mov.


btw, there is no such thing as stack being faster than use of registers. I read that story in the old FreeBSD manual. It might be true for FreeBSD which is why it is slow and buckey in certain areas, but the way its written one would think it apply to all OS's which it don't. Just because FreeBSD is my number-1 OS don’t mean I believe every thing that they want to add in the game of who’s the best and why.. Sometimes you have to think ouside the box or be fooled for life.
 
max21 maybe you should spend some time with a reassembler, a good book on cpu design (hennesy&patterson comes to mind) and learn from other people.
Also, things like MIPS have no stack build in, it's only a convention there.
 
There are none. I'm using WindowsTM. :what:

That the base system of FreeBSD is not bloated, is professional, and the ports is far less bloated than Linux distributions' packages or builds.
 
There is no place I been since 1997 that said that pushing the stack is faster then directly using registers the way Windows and Linux does. That is what I was speaking on and nothing more. As far as opcode, I once benchmarked all of them just to learn what to use and not to use. Maybe what I am saying is the opposite of what you guys are talking about. I use FreeBSD all day long for over 10 years; but I’m not going to lie for FreeBSD. I use Windows-XP to surf the nets and I use FreeBSD for everthing else.

However, your idea sounds interesting. I check it out today. In the mean time could you guys prove what you say … Show the benchmarks!

Now that I think about it. Why do I have to explain what I say, wasting all this space. Anywhere else, my comment would have been token to mean responsiveness. Nothing more, nothing less. Back-to-back ... What's up with all of this guys? You want to bring up stuff that I know nothing about. or not really related. Why is that?
 
Well, you blow a horn sounding awfully similar to a user who had been complimented out, repeatedly. You make claims with no base (FreeBSD using the stack more, which is false btw).
You were not attacked for that.
But if you continue with XP on the internet, I see one royal spanking coming your way ;)
 
Well, you blow a horn sounding awfully similar to a user who had been complimented out, repeatedly. You make claims with no base (FreeBSD using the stack more, which is false btw).
Click to expand...
I thought I read many years ago that BSD4 stack based. So it was about Stack-oriented programming and Network Stack was what they were talking about. However it could not have been that difficult to know I was refering to responsiveness of each OS itself, such as how quick it does something. I'm not going to back-down from what I said about speed-responsiveness. Who care if I got twisted up with my comment about ASM.

You were not attacked for that.
Click to expand...
I know! It was either for telling the OP to keep Gentoo on the side or because I don’t believe everything the Manual say about ASM? Other then that, what?

But if you continue with XP on the internet, I see one royal spanking coming your way
Click to expand...
Since 2003 I only installed XP twice … It took me 15 years to find and remove ALL the build-in crap. It's now more secure than Linux and Win-10. It’s not what you use it’s how you use it. I reserve my FreeBSD for better side of the INTERNET world. My XP can’t be hacked. I welcome anyone to try. Hint: I stay connected 24/7. come-one-come-all.

Anyway this is OP thread, not my..

bye
 
Last time I checked, the one doing the claim had to bring the evidence. And as I said, you are not attacked for your opinion here (or should be) - but you will be attacked with XP facing the internet.
 
How am I’m going to get attacked for using XP which I basically NEVER had the problem of get hacked for at least the past 10 years. I have no worries.
 
max21 As I said earlier, I knew I had read something about this fairly recently. FreeBSD does it the Unix way. Linux does not. However:

It seems to me that it’s six and half-a-dozen: in the FreeBSD convention, you push to the stack in all cases, in the Linux convention, you push to the stack (or elsewhere) depending on what you’re doing around the call site. You could argue that the Linux convention enables faster code since you can perform all your calculations in registers... As Rob points out however, on Linux the registers still end up being pushed (to build the struct pt_regs instance which is used to provide the arguments to the C functions which deal with the system calls), so the overall cost is greater on the Linux side than on the FreeBSD side.
Click to expand...

Note that this answer is from a Debian developer and former RedHat employee.
 
Crivens, I made a joke about Windows, then XP was brought up soon after. I haven't used that in years, so I thought it was funny to say I was using it, and the joke implying regularly, for having basic knowledge of FreeBSD and being on a FreeBSD forum. I didn't want the discussion to go in that direction.
 
Switched to FreeBSD 3 months ago and now observed following Benifits:
1) My remote terminal wont hang after couple of weeks in FreeBSD.
2) Can install any package without apt-get update each time.
3) Even in not supported older version can easily install applications without any dependency problem, this is not same if you try to install any application in ubuntu 10
 
I don’t even know why I included Linux other than I know Gentoo and Arch are the coolest, however, I never used them other then Arch for GRUB - - so I meant to say:

WINDOWS may FOREVER be faster (more responsive) OS because it is design to directly or indirectly use the processor registers. With FreeBSD you must push the arguments onto the stack which cost more no matter what you want to believe.
Click to expand...

As far as windows XP POS hack, it’s like the Y2K scare. I can’t wait for 2019. Bring-it oN! I need something strong to put my XP to the test.

Since XP have somehow got so much attention … I can tell you, the only thing that is going to kill off XP is when Opera and Firefox stop working for it. But WTH, you all know my setup. If not, FreeBSD is the hosts with many FreeBSD versions from 8.2 – 12 Beta and a single Windows XP; all in Virtualbox. So evidently, to me, FreeBSD must be better than Linux, and XP is surely faster then both… If there is a con, I’m going to let you know anyway and this one is no big deal. Today’s processors are getting so fast some things just don’t matter anymore.

drhowarddrfine, I summit your link as Exhibit-1.

FreeBSD is better mmkay?
Click to expand...
It may depend on which Linux you pull out the closet today :)

By right I should have never posted anyway, I now realize threw in Linux so to comment about comparison with XP. The OP did not ask anything about XP.

Sorry Sol33t303

Good luck with your shinny new FreeBSD-12_Beta

It seems that DriverBuilder got good reasons from an overnight experence.
 
max21 said:
Sorry Sol33t303
Click to expand...

All good :)

Also, I am still watching over the thread and getting email notifications from it, it's just that it got way bigger than I was expecting. (Just incase people thought I had disappeared)

Also gonna setup FreeBSD in QEMU/KVM today, wish me luck guys, I'll then have a play around and decide where things go from there :)
 
Sol33t303 said:
I'm currently using Gentoo. I feel like trying something new and have always wanted to try one of the BSDs out.
Click to expand...

Ha, awesome, given that Gentoo was a "new" version of FreeBSD's ports system over the Linux kernel initially.

I am currently using Gentoo (and enough other systems) as well and I find that it makes no sense to ask why x is better than y, as this could change any day and nobody can make your own experiences for you. :) If you want something new, NetBSD might be a more experimental place for you though.
 
FreeBSD without any customizations is faster than any Windows, unless you use a VESA driver to handle your graphics for full screen, possibly KDE desktop or possibly GNOME desktop. There have been other few conditions of ports bloat that can make FreeBSD perform slower when some programs were running, the dependencies of GCC was once one of them. I hear on these forums that there are very few Linux distributions that are fast and efficient.

max21, can you drop it. The topic is not of interest to many of us.
 
sidetone said:
FreeBSD without any customizations is faster than any Windows, unless you use a VESA driver to handle your graphics for full screen, possibly KDE desktop or possibly GNOME desktop. There have been other few conditions of ports bloat that can make FreeBSD perform slower when some programs were running, the dependencies of GCC was once one of them. I hear on these forums that there are very few Linux distributions that are fast and efficient.

max21, can you drop it. The topic is not of interest to many of us.
Click to expand...

I told the OP good luck and I already left... Why are you keeping it up, my friend?

New people can ask any thing they wish if FreeBSD related. We all were newbee in the past somewhere before. Now we want to impose rules +++ --- and change the forum, forgeting where we all came from.

It's not their fault if a member say something another old member don't like. I did not go to war ... u,u or u did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top