I'm using FreeBSD on my servers non stop for 20 years. It has some quirks, but it's rock solid.

> "but [FreeBSD's] rock solid"

Curious to hear your feedback of FreeBSD v5-8. Since many consider those releases (years) very bumpy.

I've been an erstwhile FreeBSD user since v2.x (ca. December 1996), running FreeBSD on my own machines since v4.x (ca 2001), and started using it as my primary laptop/desktop daily driver since v5.3 (ca. November 2004). Prior to that, SunOS/Solaris was my drug of choice.

In the past, I would update the OS and ports religiously, sometimes rebuilding world and packages on a weekly basis. I've never once experienced any bumpiness between v5.x and v8.x (or any other version, but see my comments on v13 below). The OS has always been rock solid.

I have occasionally experienced some package issues, usually when upgrading a port that had lagging dependencies -- some packages written in PHP come readily to mind. The number of times this has happened is more than 2 and less than 6, and in each of those cases, using portdowngrade and waiting it out a few weeks did the trick.

Apart from OS-independent hardware issues, the only real FreeBSD issue that I've ever encountered was in the v12->v13 upgrade. If you were running ZFS, there was a gpart bootcode command you needed to run as part of the upgrade process, which I sometimes forgot to do, which caused the post-upgrade reboot to hang. Normally this wouldn't be a big deal, you just insert the rescue CD and run the command and be on your way 2 minutes later; but at that time I had a number of my servers running on a VPS provider that didn't allow you to mount your own ISO, so I had to wipe the machine and reinstall the OS from scratch and restore stuff from backups. I don't really count this as a FreeBSD issue per se, just an obtuse service provider. (I've since moved most of my digital properties oceans away from that company.)

Nowadays I upgrade the OS and packages far less frequently. I upgrade the OS with every minor release and also if there are any security issues that affect me. I upgrade the packages every couple of months, or if there is a bugfix that affects me, or if I need a new feature only available in a newer release.

Since I started using it, there have been a number of developments that have made my FreeBSD life so much better: cperciva's portsnap and freebsd-update, pkg-ng, and of course the biggest one: ZFS. All of these allow me to maintain and upgrade the systems very easily.

I stick with FreeBSD because of its consistency and ease of use, so I'd be curious to know what you mean by "bumpy"?

If they started using FreeBSD 20 years ago, 5.x would probably be what they began with.

I thought 3.x was the bumpy one (first SMP, IIRC).

He was the first I know of that did such thing.

You don't get telnetd enabled by default. To get it working you need to explicitly start it. No idea why you're talking about it here.

Binary upgrades on FreeBSD are fine. I rarely compile my own kernel these days, but even when I did needed a custom kernel I never had any issues. It just works, For me FreeBSD and OpenBSD needs much less maintenance than Linux.

FreeBSD is not a "desktop first" system and has strengths elsewhere. I use it for 20+ years constantly. Sadly my experiments with FreeBSD desktop ended years ago as there always was something "not working".

Typing this on a FreeBSD laptop.

Haven't tried using netflix on it though.

I don't think it needs to be said that while FreeBSD can serve as a daily driver for some people, it is insufficient for the vast majority of computer users in the world

Ok then, you didn't need to say it.

A 50 mm lens on a full-frame sensor will render an equivalent perspective to a 32 mm lens on an APS-C sensor.

You can easily verify this by taking an 24-70 zoom lens on a full-frame sensor, taking one image at 50 mm in full-frame mode and another image at 32 mm in APS-C mode.

Depth of field and other optical properties may be different but the perspective will be the same.

The only thing that changes the rendering perspective is the physical location of the camera. If the camera does not move and you take a picture with the same field of view, the perspective will be identical regardless of the sensor size and focal length you used to achieve this.

The reason different focal lengths are imagined to produce different perspectives is because, implicitly, you need to stand a different distance from the subject to frame the same image at different focal lengths, and it's this difference in camera position that causes the change in perspective.

Actually perspective WILL BE different, angle of view is changing, not what the lens is rendering.

Would you mind explaining or offering resources on understanding why it is different? I have a M43 camera as well, and I have always just halved the focal length and aperature I want a lens to be on my system to be a roughly equivalent match to the full frame performance I am trying to emulate.

I'll try :) Generally speaking focal length is a characteristics of a lens which does not change, if you use smaller sensor you're just "cropping" what given focal length would render. For example if you'd have, let's say 100mpix camera and 24mm lens it would give you different perspective than 85mm evn if you would crop 24mm image to have same angle of view as 85mm.

I'm an avid runner (50-70km/week) and I've been running for 5 years. I run long distances on trail.

Seems that although it increases performance and stamina for me it also brings my heart rate up, which is not desirable in most cases since I'm training ~80% of the time in zone 2 (aerobic). At given pace I can have few bits higher HR when caffeinated (between 5 and 10 bpm) which means that I need go go slower in order to stay in zone 2.

For me it's a tool that I'm using during races. Also worth noting is that caffeine works on me really well.

I too am a runner (~100 mi/week when not tapering or recovering) and "normally" I limit my caffeine to a double espresso at 5:15am. I take that one to synchronize my sleeping and bowels. However, it's a little more complicated than that because I divide the year into three different major training blocks and what I do varies both by which major block I'm in as well as what I'm doing within that block.

As such, there are trainings where I use extra caffeine for a variety of different purposes, e.g. to get maximum speed to train my body to go faster, or for the mild analgesic effect to counter some discomfort from long distances. Depending on how much extra I take and when, I may have to take the attendant tiredness into account when planning the following day's activities, both physical (more training) and mental (programming).

I believe I benefit from my use of caffeine, but it's tricky. I log all the caffeine I take as well as all the calories, analgesics and alcohol in a text file (which I keep in a public repository in GitHub). I can then look back and try to figure out what's worked well in the past so I can do more of it as well as what has held me back.

Heart rate isn’t a good metric to be iron clad to. It’s far to variable as your stroke volume changes in response to: stimulants, sleep, stress, external heat, blood pressure, body temperature, and time spent running.

For all of the fitness tracking that exists, perceived exertion and relative pace to your max is better.

I've noticed that the psychological effects of caffeine disrupt my ability to pace myself, but I like to use heavy doses when I'm using it at all. I just become so eager/impatient on the drug, it's all go-go-go and my discipline is out the window.

It's great for getting shit done in a sprinty bulldozer, potential wake of destruction kind of mode. But I can't imagine it working well for me in a distance running context where managing my cadence and cardio/breathing is key.

Agree. If I want some energy boost I drink matcha, sencha.. green teas. Looks like it kicks off faster than coffee for me, but depends, for example matcha seems a bit harder for gut when drinking before workout. Some of them could be helpful for fat burning also combined with zone 2 but I am not sure, wasn't reading about this.

I disagree. I used to be an AIX administrator for well over a decade, got certified in basically everything related to AIX being on the side hard core FreeBSD user (still have some servers). In my opinion AIX is indeed different, but rock solid and fun to work with.

I've been since AIX v3. Moving to linux 10 years ago was like coming out of the stone ages.

But it's the same for every language. Something that's a stupid hard problem that takes a huge effort to solve is suddenly a one-liner in the next release.

I'd say it's not only woodworking, few of my engineer friends are working with leather, growing vegetables, fixing bicycles and one is making knives.