Skip Navigation

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

FreeBSD can now boot in 25 milliseconds
81

You're viewing a single thread.

81 comments
  • Still , as with Linux, you spend hours in configuring something that in windows just installs and runs … not saying windows is the best OS , but as all companies … it is less time consuming and everything just runs on it.

    • When was the last time you ran a distro and how awful was the hardware to have this experience? In the past 10 years all of them have been fairly "hit the ground running" for me unless it had something weird like Nvidia Optimus

    • Kind of hard to believe people still say stuff like this...

      There is plenty of stuff that Linux does much better than Windows, for example containerized service and applications, which is why Windows needs a Linux subsystem at all. It's possible that the main reason you think Linux is bad is that you aren't as familiar with it.

      The biggest downside to Linux remains official hardware and software support, though that's a business economics issue and not a technical limitation.

      I honestly could not imagine a circumstance in which I go back to using Windows or switch over to Mac, because Linux does basically everything I want and then some.

    • I don't know what sort of bubble people live in, or if people convinced themselves that a computer getting slower over time because of OS clutter is normal, but every Windows PC I ever had had shit ton of problems, getting slow to the point of feeling like I have a $100 laptop instead of a $2000 one being the most common.

      And can't say MacOS is much better, at least judging by my gf getting freezes all the time and having to reboot by holding the power button.

    • It always funny to me to hear this sentence.

      Just look how it is to install software on Windows.

      You need to open the menu and type the browser name(/click on a shortcut), open the browser, search for your software, check you're clicking on the right site and not some scam website, [sometimes you need to go few pages until you end up in the downloading page], clicking on the download button, and.. *if* the download completed successfully.. there's still more..!

      Now installing..

      On Unix-like systems-

      <package-mangager> <install-command> <software-name>.

      Ex: apt install i3. That's it!

    • More context please. There are a ton of things that "just work" on Linux, just like Windows. I have spent hours troubleshooting and configuring things on Windows as well.

      With either OS, time spent configuring and installing things is heavily dependent on the experience of the user and their ability to interpret logs and error messages. With most OS's, configuration and troubleshooting is just a matter of "knowing where to look" combined with understanding how the OS itself works.

      Server services are much easier to configure on Linux, IMHO. Additionally, I find configuration to be much more flexible and (generally) more intuitive than Windows but that is my opinion. However, I have worked with both Linux and Windows since they were created, so I have a good number of years of experience.

      My point is that it really depends on what you are wanting to do.

      (Rant: Deep troubleshooting in Windows has always sucked and the methods to do so have changed a thousand times over the years. It's a royal pain to keep up, TBH. Very rarely have I needed "reinstall Linux" because something was broken beyond fixing.)

      • The guy before isn't exactly wrong.

        Many things that "just work" on Linux are things you just don't do on Windows. E.g. swapping the DE or theming/customizing the whole thing usually works great out of the box. But on Windows you just don't do that.

        On the other hand, getting e.g. legacy Nvidia drivers working correctly and setup so that it automatically switches between the power-consuming dGPU and the power-saving iGPU is a major pain in the rear. On Windows that just works. Mostly Nvidias fault, but to the user who has to deal with the situation it doesn't matter who is at fault.

        And in general, if you come from Windows with a lot of Windows experience and then have to dive into Linux, you mainly notice the things that don't just work on Linux.

        Also, fixing problems in Windows might take you through the registry or arcane wizards. But you hardly ever get into CLI and never into config files. So if you swap over to Linux, where almost any help you find online will go straight into CLI and config files (even if a GUI solution would be available), that can be pretty jarring.

        I've been using Linux professionally for ~15 years and privately for ~5. But I still remeber getting into it very vivdly.

        • Very good points. I remember the drama of trying to get simple things like USB, Bluetooth and even WiFi working on Linux quite a few years ago. However, even though those could be problematic, I did learn a ton about how drivers interacted with various chipsets. That, in turn, led me down the path of how to apply specific patches and build my own kernel modules. It was absolutely a double edged sword.

          It really is a shame that most GPU vendors haven't spent more time developing better drivers for Linux, but in some ways, I feel their pain. (I am leaving out the open vs closed source debate on that.) Windows does provide consistency, through all of its shortcomings. Linux can be very .. eh.. interesting between different distros, for sure.

          But yeah, I didn't rush to downvote the above commenter as they were speaking from their own perspective and experience. No shame in that.

81 comments