Some thoughts...

[Deleted member 63539]

After evaluated both FreeBSD and many Illumos systems, I have the final conclusion: FreeBSD is now superior to Illumos. Both in ease of use, stability and performance. And in the long term future too. No one could know if Illumos would still relevant in the foreseeable future, but we all know FreeBSD is. FreeBSD now is the best solution for people wanted to use ZFS, not Illumos, and not even Linux. Given the way the mainstream Linux kernel devs treated ZOL, I think they will never surpass the way FreeBSD and ZFS integrated with each other. The move to ZOF of course could cause more Linuxism to be ported to FreeBSD. But we need to implement these Linuxism anyway for our Linuxulator and for the ease of porting drivers from Linux.

FreeBSD comprised the best of Illumos + the easy of use of Linux compared to Illumos. IMHO, Illumos is not easy to use and not user friendly. As mjollnir said, people will prefer the OS they used personally as the solution at work. FreeBSD now is the most reasonable free non-Linux desktop system. As I know, there is not much people using desktop Illumos. And by desktop Illumos, I mean OpenIndiana. There is not much people using Illumos, either. Except some of the old Sun employees wanted to make money from it. The Illumos all heavily enterprise oriented. None of them really oriented towards desktop user (OpenIndiana could be considered as the only exception, though). FreeBSD is a better general purpose OS.

The mindset that everything Solaris/Illumos is superior and FreeBSD always inferior to them is of the past and already obsolete. Solaris/Illumos is also no longer the golden standard for FreeBSD to follow. So don't look on Illumos as your competitor but the real competitor of yours is Linux.

 

[anonymous9]

OpenIndiana/OmniOSce/SmartOS use Solaris zones which have more functionality than FreeBSD jails (VNET or standard). OmniOSce and SmartOS also allow the use of LX-barnd zones which allow Linux to run bare metal. Pluribus Networks initially ported bhyve which was picked up by SmartOS who finished it, and has been adopted by OmniOSce.

SmartOS and OmniOSce have native zones, lx-brand zones, KVM, and bhyve.
OpenIndiana has native zones and KVM.

I find it unfortunate that people need to make opinion-based assumptions about another operating system, whether it is NetBSD, SmartOS, OpenIndiana, Linux, OS/2, or one of the many others that are available. To each their own. There is no compelling argument to say illumos is inferior and FreeBSD is superior.

Some prefer Minix3 because they like the microkernel and the safety and are satisfied using NetBSDs userland. Some prefer Plan 9 because they adhere to the UNIX philosophy of "everything is a file, and the use vmx with OpenBSD to use the internet, while others use Mothra because they hate JavaScript. Some prefer ArcaOS (OS/2). Some prefer MacOS. Some prefer Mezzano, an OS written entirely in Common Lisp. Each have their reasons and it doesn't make that choice right or wrong.

Saying FreeBSD is superior to <insert OS> is juvenile and merely an opinion.

 

[Deleted member 63539]

OpenIndiana/OmniOSce/SmartOS use Solaris zones which have more functionality than FreeBSD jails (VNET or standard). OmniOSce and SmartOS also allow the use of LX-barnd zones which allow Linux to run bare metal. Pluribus Networks initially ported bhyve which was picked up by SmartOS who finished it, and has been adopted by OmniOSce.

SmartOS and OmniOSce have native zones, lx-brand zones, KVM, and bhyve.
OpenIndiana has native zones and KVM.

I find it unfortunate that people need to make opinion-based assumptions about another operating system, whether it is NetBSD, SmartOS, OpenIndiana, Linux, OS/2, or one of the many others that are available. To each their own. There is no compelling argument to say illumos is inferior and FreeBSD is superior.

Some prefer Minix3 because they like the microkernel and the safety and are satisfied using NetBSDs userland. Some prefer Plan 9 because they adhere to the UNIX philosophy of "everything is a file, and the use vmx with OpenBSD to use the internet, while others use Mothra because they hate JavaScript. Some prefer ArcaOS (OS/2). Some prefer MacOS. Some prefer Mezzano, an OS written entirely in Common Lisp. Each have their reasons and it doesn't make that choice right or wrong.

Saying FreeBSD is superior to <insert OS> is juvenile and merely an opinion.

Do you actually used any Illumos systems or do you just read the specs? If you just compare the specs, Illumos beats FreeBSD in all of the regards. But the practical usage is not. Illumos is not user friendly and easy to use. Yes, FreeBSD's jails is not have that much features as Solaris/Illumos' zones. But at least, it's easier to use and to configure. You should spend days to deal with zonecfg, on FreeBSD, even the standard tools are already easy to use, we have a bunch of wrappers like ezjail, iocage, cbsd,... On Illumos, you have none. Peter Tribble's ZAP tried to be an all in one tool to manage the Illumos system, or at least, Tribblix, including zones management, but it's not as sophisticated as FreeBSD's ones. The Linux case is the best example for people choosing the tool not because it's the best (in specs) out there but because it's easy to use and it done the job. And practical usage beats all of the theoretical specs.

Illumos hardware support is also poor. They are always proud of something called the Crossbow network stack? This is a slap into their face:

Bug #13070: mtu option too large MTU 1728 - 1500 - illumos gate - illumos

Redmine

www.illumos.org

As I have repeated over and over again, people tends to prefer the solution they used personally at work. And I can't run Illumos on my PC. So do you expect I would prefer it at work? Nope. And without suggestion from the employees, the employers, of course, choose Linux, which is the golden standard for corporate systems.

People used to ridicule Linux deprecated their ifconfig in favor of the newer ip. It's BS! Do you remember dladm and friends (ipadm,...)? Linux is only following Solaris/Illumos, and it's indeed the successor of Solaris/Illumos, that SystemD replaces SMF, BtrFS replaces ZFS and eBPF replaces DTrace. Modern Linux is in the same transition as Solaris when they transited from Solaris 9 to Solaris 10! But, people praised Solaris, and bash Linux!

From the top innovation, now the Illumos have to port solutions from many other places just to stay relevant (KVM, Bhyve,...). And you think this could be considered as their selling point? How ridiculous! lx-zones is just a resurrection of an old Sun project. But, you praised lx-zones like it's an breakthrough innovation! The Illumos have no vision and no new ideas! Their age is over, now it's the age of Linux, and possibly, FreeBSD, if we could abandon the old mindset that Solaris/Illumos is the golden standard and compete with Linux seriously!

People prefer MINIX3 is have mental problem. No one that sane prefer such a thing over the modern L4 kernel. And these awkward alternatives OSes are not worth to mention!

Yeah, this is titled as "Some thoughts...", so it's my own opinion from the beginning and I shared it with you. What the heck is the point of your comment? To protect your belief that Solaris/Illumos is still superior? Abandon that mindset. It's obsolete!

 

[SirDice]

Stop flame baiting.

Thread closed.