
Yahoo and FreeBSD (1997) - marcopolis
http://zer0.org/daemons/yahoobsd.html
======
janvdberg
This story reminds me of Jan Koum (of Whatsapp) when he donated a million
dollars to FreeBSD: "one of the main reasons I got a job at Yahoo! is because
they were using FreeBSD, and it was my operating system of choice. Years
later, when Brian and I set out to build WhatsApp, we used FreeBSD to keep our
servers running. We still do."
([https://www.facebook.com/jan.koum/posts/10152852986375011](https://www.facebook.com/jan.koum/posts/10152852986375011))

------
krylon
It would be interesting to read about their experiences over the last 18
years.

I recently installed FreeBSD on a home server and was very pleased both with
the process and the result. Also, the documentation is just impressive (that
goes, in my experience, for all the BSD systems).

~~~
yahoofbsd
They're still using FreeBSD, and happy with it as far as I know.

~~~
jsjohnst
Completely not true. Around 2008ish there was a big migration towards using
RHEL. There's still some FreeBSD boxes, but the vast majority have been
switched at this point to Linux.

I don't completely agree with the reasoning, but it mainly came down to driver
support, maintenance cost, and debugging tools.

~~~
dmuino
Note that we didn't run stock freebsd. It was a custom freebsd4 with a custom
gcc 2.95 toolchain. I don't remember all the mods, but migrating from 4 to 6
was a nice undertaking, and it was done in parts. People who worked there will
remember the term "4 on 6". After the migration, the kernel was 6 (and you got
the latest drivers) but we were still running those weird 4 user-land
binaries.

Inktomi (YST) was acquired in 2003, later Overture (YSM) and both were linux
shops. YST was the biggest property by far and we didn't have any kernel
developers. We were doing just fine with stock debian, then stock RHEL. (I did
a few very minor patches for 32-bit, like splitting user-space/kernel to
3.5/0.5G instead of 3/1G, and some caching improvements for /proc, but I
wasn't a kernel developer). Linux just worked. Drivers were available and
supported for the HW we needed. Oprofile, systemtap worked fine for the most
part. We later hired one kernel developer to help Mail move to linux, but we
always had more freebsd kernel developers.

For freebsd you needed to write the drivers and the tools. That took time and
money. The community was also smaller and it was harder to hire people with
experience. Acquisitions were running on linux too.

The decision was not easy. Y! already had _great_ freebsd engineers. By
announcing that linux would be the supported platform going forward it was a
given that many of them wouldn't be happy and leave. Fortunately not all of
them left. For example Peter W. still works there.

In any case I don't think there was really an alternative.

------
erlichson
We used FreeBSD exclusively at my first startup in 1999 (flashbase), partially
because of Yahoo's success with it (I was at Stanford). We found the base OS
to be very stable and the networking stack to be especially robust. But, the
mysql port was not that stable and drivers for proprietary products, like
Oracle, were hard to come by.

Back in the day, Oracle did a freebsd driver partially for Yahoo. The Oracle
drivers were not open source and hence there were few options to connect
without Oracle's help.

I worked in the kernel networking group at SGI in the 90s and there was a lot
of freebsd loving there. Also, the FreeBSD license was more relaxed and
commercial products (like NetAPP) could include and extend FreeBSD without
disclosing their modifications.

Our frustration with lack of support for FreeBSD moved us to choose Linux and
Windows (for SQL server support) the next time around in 2004.

------
jrapdx3
FreeBSD has been my server platform since early 2000's, chosen for reliability
and relative ease of configuration (vs. Linux, etc.). The primary server for
my business was running FBSD since 2005, stopping only for of power outages,
or periodic maintenance. (Still works too.) I have used FBSD on desktop
systems too, though that has significant limitations.

It's my impression that the pace of FBSD development has been increasing in
the last couple of years, hardware/driver compatibility included. As well, it
seems recently there's been more "cross fertilization" among the BSDs, and
Linux to a lesser extent, signs of health and vigor for these projects.

While there are former FBSD users deciding to go with a different OS, such
switching is not new or a one-way thing. I think it's a safe bet some
enterprises are choosing FBSD over something else, anyway there's little risk
any major FOSS OS project will soon disappear.

------
thatha7777
Fun fact: Russia loves FreeBSD.
([https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=freebsd](https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=freebsd))

------
api
I tried both as a teenager. At the time I ended up sticking with Linux, but
even in retrospect it's hard to quantify why. I remember though that it felt
more understandable and "approachable" somehow. It was little stuff like bash
vs csh or the presence of ever so slightly more modern editors and utilities.

I think if FreeBSD would have put a bit more effort into modernization and
community in the early to mid 90s we'd all be using it more now. It's guts
were superior at the time and in a few ways still are.

~~~
badsock
There's not being modern, and then there's not chasing every rabbit down every
hole. Right now I feel like FreeBSD is a wonderful mix of advanced, modern
tech like ZFS and bhyve, married with an absence of "oooo-shiny!"
misadventures like PulseAudio and systemd.

And in particular, right now I'm grateful that the BSDs are small enough to be
ignored by the herds of people migrating away from Windows and bringing their
mindsets with them - that all seems to be landing on Linux.

~~~
digi_owl
I wonder how much the reason they are landing on Linux is that there are
multiple companies actively trying to pitch Linux to existing Windows users.

RH for instance seems to be heavily pitching RHEL (never mind Fedora and
CentOS) towards corporate and the Military-Industrial complex. The latter in
particular are interested in RHEL after some poor experience using Windows on
warships and similar.

But at the same time there is a pile of MSCEs running around in these
organizations, and so there is a incentive to make daily Linux management at
least superficially similar to reduce retraining costs.

------
abricot
In the early 2000's i almost exclusively used FreeBSD. The hardware i used
were always a bit behind the curve, and still i could max my network
connections.

What made me move to Linux eventually, was the ability to keep all my software
easily updated, including the kernel.

~~~
CrLf
I've tried FreeBSD on occasion and that's exactly what kept me away from it.
Keeping (multiple) systems current is always where most of the work is (if you
do keep them current, that is), not on initial installation/configuration.

Honestly, I don't know if this is still the case.

~~~
josh64
FreeBSD has made leaps and bounds with this.

You can use `freebsd-update` to update the OS itself from binaries instead of
having to build world.
[https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/handbook/updating-
upgra...](https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/handbook/updating-upgrading-
freebsdupdate.html)

You can use also `pkg` to install/upgrade software packages like `apt-get` on
Debian derived distros. [https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/pkgng-
intro.html](https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/pkgng-intro.html)

~~~
betaby
freebsd-update still implies semi-manual /etc/* merge. Both freebsd-update and
pkg are no way close to apt-get and more importantly Debian 'unattended
upgrades' feature.

~~~
GalacticDomin8r
> freebsd-update still implies semi-manual /etc/* merge

freebsd-update.conf

> Both freebsd-update and pkg are no way close to apt-get and more importantly
> Debian 'unattended upgrades

Exactly, it's better.

------
betaby
No [proper] NUMA -> no go for my tasks. I was downwoted for that not long time
ago, but again, NUMA ... Source
[https://wiki.freebsd.org/NUMA](https://wiki.freebsd.org/NUMA)

------
Ologn
In 1996 I began working at a very bootstrapped Internet Service Provider
(ISP). Some of you younger people might not even know what an ISP is - there
used to be companies other than Verizon and AT&T that you could get Internet
access from.

Any how, aside from an NT server or two, and a Sun IPX box, our servers were
generally Linux (Slackware and Debian) and FreeBSD. Mostly FreeBSD.

FreeBSD had a lot going for it. A lot going for it over Linux at the time, for
our company. Often we would get our hands on an x86 box of one type or another
and have to make it into a server. These boxes usually had no CDROM, and
usually we installed network cards, which themselves were coming in randomly,
on their bus (usually ISA, sometimes PCI).

To get the latest version of Slackware, we'd have to download all five of the
Slackware base "A" disks. Then the compiler was on the 10 "D" series of disks.
Then the 4 "N" disks would have networking. Plus more if you want ghostscript
(another set) or emacs (another set), or God help you, a workstation with
X-windows running fvwm...

FreeBSD was two disks - boot and root. Then you go into ports and install from
there. Because boot and root were enough to get your network card working -
when Slackware and Debian often did not have those cards working at all. Many
a time I was going to install Linux, couldn't get the network card working,
put in the FreeBSD boot/root disks, got the network card working with no
problem, and the would-be Linux box became a FreeBSD box.

It was not just network cards - these two disks had a great system for not
just recognizing all Ethernet cards and getting them to work, but being able
to install a full-out system over a modem and 56k (or 28.8k, or 14k) baud POTS
connection. FreeBSD just made it real easy to install itself.

This was not just my opinion, others I knew thought the same thing. Not until
Ubuntu did I find a Linux system that worked to make installing it easy. When
wireless ethernet cards became more ubiquitous, I had left FreeBSD behind
years before, but most Linuxes had trouble with every other card out there,
even Ubuntu initially. FreeBSD never seemed to have these problems, being able
to install easily was something they prioritized - and I think it helped them.

Also, our Linuxes at the time were vulnerable to the "ping of death" and these
sorts of security problems. I still know companies which use FreeBSD. They
started years ago and never changed.

I'm not sure when and why Linux started overtaking FreeBSD. Linux had this
pre-GRUB boot loader called LILO which was horrible, but it did allow people
with Windows boxes to be able to turn their desktop or laptop into a dual boot
machine on which they could play around with Linux. Linux was more advanced on
the multi-boot front if I recall, and that was probably one of the reasons it
got ahead.

Also another mentioned reason is commercialized BSD like BSDI was under a
cloud of lawsuits in the early 1990s, whereas commercial Linux companies like
Red Hat were free of all of this, and this served to help Linux as well.

~~~
phaemon
Well, you have a very different memory of the era than I do. I never had any
problem getting an ethernet card working on Linux: there was never any work to
do! They just worked out of the box.

I believe it was almost entirely due to the work of Donald Becker. I don't
know anything about the guy, other than he had a NASA email address, but I
kept seeing his name mentioned when looking for anything network card related.

I remember the floppy disk pain though. Few machines had CD-ROMs so basically
it was copying 30 images overwriting Microsoft Windows & Office floppy disks
(they were better quality than the cheap 3.5" disks you generally got supplied
with and there were always spare ones) and then swap, swap, swap...

------
rythie
It's interesting that because the OS was ahead in one key area, probably only
for a couple of years, they spent 18 years using it.

~~~
merlincorey
That's why Apple chose FreeBSD to base OSX off and Juniper chose it for JunOS,
because of something 18 years ago...

Or maybe BSD has maintained its technical superiority in some areas for some
users.

~~~
jamiesonbecker
Actually, those choices were for licensing, not necessarily technical
superiority, but nevertheless FreeBSD does maintain technical superiority in
some areas and falls behind in a few others. It still has a great firewall,
for instance.

------
X-Factor
After installed several linux distros, I decided to try my chance with free
BSD. I still remember how I suffered to setup my ADSL. But It was 10 years
ago. I am sure the installation process is easier compared to the past but I
am not that brave anymore.

