You'll be surprised at how much computing power it takes to solve the Traveling Salesman problem... in places like Atlanta, GA or Shanghai or Rio de Janeiro...
You'll be surprised at how much computing power it takes to solve the Traveling Salesman problem... in places like Atlanta, GA or Shanghai or Rio de Janeiro...
As a computer scientist I can ensure you to be able to solve a middle class TSP-Problem faster with an Amiga 500 by using optimized version of Kuhn-Munkres-Algorithm than by using other methods on a HPC-Cluster.
Right?! 
is: 1, 2, 3 ... (n-1)-times. Micro$oft products' quality is equivalent to the joke about standards:. Stealing ideas, selling as own. And so on .... and so on ... by time.There are companies, who would run vanilla FreeBSD, but there seem to be too less companies offering payed support for FreeBSD.
lloyd was referring to the FUD surrounding FreeBSD that can be found on the internet. Of course there are companies that use FreeBSD, even a couple of really big ones (Netflix is a prime example). It's just not that visible to the "untrained" eye.
on the internet... Yeah, I know about netflix. I read it last year. As far as I know lots of ISPs also use FreeBSD. FreeBSD rules some embedded hardware, some devices for science labs, and so on ... But as I said: Some companies do not go FreeBSD, because they are scared without professional support. I know one of that companies ... No more comments...
It may come as uncomfortable news, but one area where Microsoft and Apple has Linux and BSD's completely beat is frankly upgradeability of software. Right now, I'm in the process of figuring out how to use Poudriere (ports-mgmt/poudriere) to be able to ugrade just KDE, as in download just the up-to-date tarballs, compile them with settings I like, and not break anything in the process. It takes a LOT of reading, trial-and-error, and I'm nowhere close to replicating the upgradeability and convenience provided by Windows (And I never bothered to learn how it's done on Apple). So far, I discovered that on FreeBSD, it takes having your own build environment, a LOT of fiddling around with config files, and even recovering from mistakes takes having a handle on ZFS and boot environments. For me, it's a fun process (that I do on my machines at home), but at some point you do need a way to apply a security patch without having to know how to recompile the kernel (which can be a very long process, as we all know). Sure, any sysadmin worth his/her salt should have a good handle on all that, and be able to apply industry's best practices, but they shouldn't be tying up the users' machines for hours on end just to do stuff in line with their personal philosophies. Users have their own stuff to do, too.Yes, you can read a lot
Possibly but if you do a like for like comparison I can guarantee it will be even harder to upgrade Microsoft's UI shell between Windows releases. Or if you wanted to downgrade / upgrade Win32 API, MFC and other native inbuilt Windows frameworks you won't be able to (mostly because they are closed-source). The fact that on FreeBSD we can upgrade such a large component is impressive in its own right.
You could pay someone else to do this. For example on Windows, you would be paying Microsoft or other proprietary vendor. Unfortunately you will need to pay more on FreeBSD because due to popularity of Windows, many people will be paying so due to "bulk buying" the vendor can do it cheaper than a single company can.
My personal experience was that Linux was never good. As I have written here before, I started using FreeBSD back in 1995. Just one week before starting using FreeBSD, I had installed Linux on this machine (server) to find out it was a complete crap. There is a saying here that you cannot make a bread out of s***.
A good English proverb would be "you can't polish a turd". Although I do remember a Mythbusters episode where Adam Savage did manage to polish an actual turd.
Windows Vista was so bad that there was truckloads of freeware on SourceForge that offered UI enhancements for it, and yes, that stuff was upgradeable. Every component offered a way to check for updates. FWIW, Java and Firefox do that. That's impossible to to do properly on Linux/BSD. As for downgrading Windows frameworks, all you need is an older version of .NET to be available. It's possible on Windows.
I think that's kind of missing the point. If you want to do stuff 'Just Right' on your personal machines, that's your call. But it's a different matter at work. At work, a user should have access to working equipment in short order. Doing professional quality work on that is a priority. If FreeBSD is the standard stuff to use, do FreeBSD, and have a handle on it. If Windows is the standard stuff to use, do Windows, and have a handle on it. Automotive industry equivalent would be this: FreeBSD is the motorcycle that you tinker with at home, and ride to work. At work, you apply the same skills to make sure the car fleet works reliably, and is quick to fix. Nobody at work wants to switch to motorcycles that you customize - they'd rather use cars, and get the job done. When cars are not enough to do the job, that's when your motorcycle modding skills (FreeBSD admin skills) are called on.
As desktop OS Linux was fine between 1998 and approx. 2016. yast1 was ok, yast2 was big pain. apt is okay, gentoo (with merge?) was pain: download source an compile everything ... good night. yum is same as apt.
Samba is semi broken on FreeBSD, but working well on Linux..Arguably FreeBSD has way more UI enhancements (Window Managers). They are also much easier to install. If I recall, the guys behind these Windows themes (Stardock?) had to reverse engineer and hack at (patch) the theme engine to allow third party customizations.
I did explicitly mention "native" frameworks (Things that the OS and Microsoft actually use internally) to discount Microsoft's Java clone. For example on FreeBSD it is very easy to install different versions of Java / Python / Mono, etc. Likewise the .NET framework isn't actually a core OS framework (It isn't even really a framework any more than Python is).
Well kinda. If Microsoft owned FreeBSD, they would make sure that it would always be the "standard" stuff to use. Even if it isn't. So you can't trust that. There is no such thing as a standard thing. Usually that just translates to "the thing with highest marketing budget".
I absolutely get satisfaction that knowing under all the layers of shite that Microsoft piles on-top of its OS, the good old classic Win32 API that I learned as a kid (Beep() and Sleep()!) on Windows 3.1 (Win32s) is powering it all almost unchanged.
Unlike under FreeBSD, under Windows, t's very easy to ask Java / Firefox / etc. to monitor for updates, and have them properly installed without breaking anything. Try recompiling www/firefox, it will want to update truckloads of other stuff. I tried to ask Firefox to monitor for updates under PC-BSD - and that failed. Using PC-PSD's PBI manager was OK, but the internal updater did not have the proper permissions. And maybe it shouldn't have them, after all - that's a famous security hole on Windows.
I'd like to clarify: By "standard stuff" I mean "whatever the workplace uses". An auto industry equivalent (I know I'm overusing that crutch, but still) would be that Hertz rents Fords, Avis rents Chevys. Nobody cares if they both use Goodyear tires.
Honestly, I don't have the problem. For me, FreeBSD has the easiest upgrade mechanism of all OSes. That's because I don't try to compile things that don't need compiling. All I do is freebsd-update {fetch,install} and pkg {update,upgrade} every few days. For a while I had a small number of things (three or four?) that were installed from ports, and then I had to go to /usr/src and issue some make command that I've already forgotten. But these days, I find that pre-compiled packages do everything I need.
yeah, for me, I prefer ports, because pre-compiled packages are generated using defaults that don't quite work for me. I think FreeBSD does have the potential to be a usable desktop if I put in the effort it takes. I don't see that as 'being out of comfort zone' for FreeBSD.
For a single-node single-disk file system without RAID and without checksums, ext4 is very good. I personally don't run SMR disks myself, but AFAIK ext4 is de-facto the only commonly available choice for SMR.
Btrfs started out as a smart idea. Like many smart ideas, it died on the hill of correct and supported implementation. While Ohad's idea of a modifiable B-tree with snapshots was great, the actual implementation was de-facto a machine to create data loss. And then, due to some corporate interest and people's ego conflicts, Btrfs got shipped to the masses as the default file system WAY too early, which ruined its reputation. So today, I think 99% of all Linux installations are back to running ext4, usually on top of various interesting storage layers.
But note that Linux has a gigantic market share among servers, in particular in the cloud.
Cluster file systems are typically used on supercomputers. If you look at the Top500 list of supercomputers, you will find that Linux has 100% market share there: No single supercomputer among the 500 largest in the world runs anything other than Linux. Now, some of the largest compute clusters in the world are not on that list, because they are hidden inside companies from the FAANG list. But for those, nearly all also run Linux, with two smallish exceptions: A small fraction of Microsoft's cloud machines run Windows, and a small fraction of Netflix' machines run FreeBSD (but those are not clustered AFAIK).
(I added the bold and underline). You may be correct on that. But FreeBSD is a great server OS, and it requires very little effort. (I put the bold underline in the corresponding places.)
What about Isilon?
