[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: NetBSD vs FreeBSD
,--- You/Dustin (Tue, 2 Aug 2011 14:14:19 -0700) ----*
| On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Alex Goncharov
| <alex-goncharov%comcast.net@localhost> wrote:
| > VirtualBox works well on FreeBSD, and was significantly easier to
| > configure than Xen on NetBSD when I used that. Also, that Xen (about
| > three years ago) used only one processor of a dual processor machine
| > -- I didn't like that at all and my Xen was quickly gone.
| This seems like a common misconception. Under NetBSD/Xen, NetBSD
| itself can only use a single CPU, but the Xen hypervisor itself can
| use all of them. So your VMs can have multiple CPUs and the
| hypervisor will schedule them correctly.
Without trying it then, I realized it, but it was not good for my
purposes: I wanted one VM guest at a time, using the whole processing
power of the system. Wouldn't work.
| I agree with one of the other commenters about NetBSD doing the right
| thing. Part of the reason I love NetBSD is because it seems clean and
| well designed. FreeBSD just doesn't have that same feeling to me. In
| fact, the only reason I ever use FreeBSD anymore is if I need ZFS, and
| I can't use a Solaris derivative. While it's a fine OS, it just
| doesn't have the same feeling of "done right", although it's miles
| ahead in that area compared to Linux :).
(FreeBSD 8 and 9 (beta) seem very clean to me).
Depends on the needs: sometimes I wonder why I am not using Fedora 14
or Debian on more of my systems. FUSE support, working with iPod --
something I haven't been able to do on FreeBSD. And nothing
offensive, once you set up your desktop environment.
-- Alex -- alex-goncharov%comcast.net@localhost --
Main Index |
Thread Index |