Advantages of using FreeBSD (compared to Linux)

[Deleted member 9563]

A issue I have with Debian is that it moves the goalposts around so much such that upgrading from one major release to the next can involve having to put a lot of effort in (switching from aufs to overlayfs for example when your setup is primarily based on aufs), or mean taking on something that is relatively new/untested (systemD was a example). In that respect to me FreeBSD seems to have the edge (less unchanging (more thoroughly tested progression)).

From what I see this is even more of an issue with MS-Windows, although users familiar with it tend to be in denial about it because they've already acquired the necessary skills over the years. But yes, that is exactly the reason I use FreeBSD for my desktop usage. And also why I'm switching my Linux boxen from Debian to Devuan.

As for hardware support. Gimme a break. There is no reason why any computer sold with a FreeBSD desktop can't use fully supported hardware. As for the rest of us, we can simply chose the hardware we need to suit our purposes.

 

[azathoth]

Then you haven't had them done right: five minutes each side, serve on a bed of rice, with a mushroom and cream sauce.

kek

 

[scottro]

FreeBSD is weaker in hardware support than Linux. Saying otherwise, or saying an OS isn't drivers only, just obfuscates the discussion, I think. It depends upon one's purpose. If you want converts, which, indirectly results in more manpower, the old sales adage of promise less than you can deliver, deliver more than you promise, seems the best way to me. If one just wants to vent anger, it doesn't really matter.

A new laptop, with say, a newer Intel video card and/or an Intel wireless card using the iwm driver doesn't perform as well under FreeBSD as it does Linux. A bit of a vicious circle, I suppose, this keeps some people from using it, and while the folks here can say, Oh, we didn't want those people anyway, it lessens the pool of potential developers and documentors.

While I'm sure my memory is shaded by confirmation bias, it seems to me that Ubuntu is what really helped get Linux mainstream. While the hard cores were denigrating it, its ease of access brought more people into the fold, resulting in better, clearer documentation, and more people being interested in getting hardware support.

We can shout, NETFLIX USES FREEBSD, and people will say, that's nice, but FreeBSD can't use Netflix, so bottom line is, it doesn't suit my needs.
(And they store their content on Linux, I believe.)

Even documentation, one of our strongest points, now suffers due to lack of manpower, and maybe, if one of those Linux folks had been able to get the same speed from their iwm wireless, they would have been the one to fix some documentation.

Gosh, this sounds like I'm trolling. Folks, I'm just trying to say that we shouldn't create realistic expectations, and furthermore, calling someone dumb goes a long way towards closing their mind. Operating systems are tools, why do we get so angry? Yes, they're tools for our jobs, and Linux's popularity making it impossible for you to bring FreeBSD to your workplace directly affects your life, but even there, perhaps, especially there, we don't want to produce unreasonable expectations.

 

[drhowarddrfine]

The problem isn't the response. The problem is people coming here and questioning the value of FreeBSD and comparing it to Linux and invite such responses and one shouldn't expect less.

Some will say FreeBSD makes a lousy desktop because it's not just like Windows or a Mac when others, who are perfectly happy running i3 as a developer, think FreeBSD makes a great desktop and, therefore, the questioner needs to be educated. So an obvious response to "Is FreeBSD a good file server?" would be "Netflix thinks so!" because it really is an excellent example that FreeBSD makes an excellent file server.

So, unfortunately, these open ended questions vary according to a person's background and needs. FreeBSD is everything I would want a desktop for my needs and will scoff at anyone who thinks highly of Windows.

 

[Deleted member 30996]

Anybody will say that if you let a FreeBSD Desktop connected under Gnome, KDE several days, the desktop will crash by itself at a moment.

Does Fluxbox count? Because none of my FreeBSD machines running it have ever crashed in 12 years.

The reason ? There is generally a hidden "linuxism" mechanism which make turn the things wrong on BSD, and so Lumina could be the first true reliable answer to solve theses kind of issue, but this desktop is young and needs developments to reach the same functionalities as Linux desktops. But as today, Lumina is already a true alternative for administrators.

*snip*

- FreeBSD implements a Linux emulation. With some patience, an experienced user can get most of Linux applications working on FreeBSD with incredible performances, sometimes as it ran natively. That is not always possible if the application is too much Linux oriented, but as far as I know Linux has no equivalent to "bridge" to BSD, other than hard virtualisation solution which cost a heavy loss of power.

I've been running all 3 of my FreeBSD laptops with Linux emulation disabled for the past several days with no problem. I don't any Linux programs or any of the Linux compatibility libraries installed so what's the point in having it enabled?

So what could be the most TRUE reasons to choose FreeBSD today over Linux ?

- Server, for desktops ideally use Win/Mac or Linux

I'm going to pretend I didn't see that, in light of my first response.

 

[The.Silicon.Projects]

Does Fluxbox count? Because none of my FreeBSD machines running it have ever crashed in 12 years.



I've been running all 3 of my FreeBSD laptops with Linux emulation disabled for the past several days with no problem. I don't any Linux programs or any of the Linux compatibility libraries installed so what's the point in having it enabled?



I'm going to pretend I didn't see that, in light of my first response.

1) Linux emulation

The average user won't use the Linux emulation very much, but just imagine some specific business..
Companies across the world, acting in different areas (biology, chemistry, aeronautics....) , universities, may have a need to use some specifics and critical softwares developed for Linux, absolutely not the kind of software you find in the FreeBSD /ports/system.

They have IT staff able to "transplant" the Linux on the BSD plateform using the emulation layer
But as I said Linux emulation in FreeBSD is not 100% perfect, there are still some mechanisms too specific, but we can say that one can make work 80% of the Linux programs with an impressive speed.

2) Linux emulation and Linux adaptation

Please don't confuse Linux Emulation and Linux program adaptation

In Linux emulation a sub layer attempts to reproduce the Linux mechanisms, so the Linux code ignores as much as possible that it is running on a foreign host, in the same manner that Windows can run on FreeBSD through Virtualbox

But when Gnome 3 is ported to FreeBSD, it is not running on an emulation layer, it runs on the BSD base system, this is completely different. Basically Gnome 3 has been developed for Linux and use some specific mechanisms of Linux, so it took a long time before Gnome 3 became available for FreeBSD because it needed some workaround. KDE 5 Plasma is ready in most of Linux distributions... still not the case for FreeBSD, because unfortunately KDE staff have taken very very bad decisions following Gnome and using massively Linuxisms saying goodbye to *BSD, so now for the staff porting the software this is a headache to create something usable and stable, as for Gnome 3 it will take tong time.

On the contrary the philosophy of Lumina is to use as less as possible "platform dependent" solutions, so portability can be done quickly, and stability can be reached faster. Unfortunately Lumina is a young desktop, and in any case Lumina has no ambition. Lumina aims to be an alternative to LXQT, XFCE.. ok, for some of us it is sufficient, but not for everybody.

3) Desktop

We, and all the members of this forum can run FreeBSD as a desktop, this is not the question.

But we are not the average user, an average user wants all the comfort possible that offer Windows 10 or Mac OS.
I deal with some end user clients... I can tell you that even using a KDE desktop is something they will NEVER NEVER NEVER accept, because they want all the comfort of a Windows or Mac OS, they want beautiful interface... they don't care of the underlying and they don't want to spend 2 seconds to try to understand what's inside. So all must be accessible, pleasant, from this point of view Windows and Mac OS have no serious challengers as today.

The future challenger could be eventually in the coming years (10, 20 years ? or never ....) Canonical with Ubuntu in his home made flavor, today Unity, so I don't speak of Lubuntu or Xunbuntu.

I have begun with a ZX81, followed by an Apple II... ok I am not a C, Java developer but one can understand why I have been able to learn myself FreeBSD as a middle level user now, and why I finally managed to learn the basic of the shell scripting.

But my nephews, my nieces haven't seen that and they are very far from such considerations. This is a modern generation, with smartphones (myself I don't care about smartphone, I run an iPhone 4 a client gave me...), playing a lot with snapchat, something I can't understand, they want something easy, pleasant to use.

Yesterday I was answering to someone forced to use TrueOS due to a graphic card only supported by FreeBSD current, he clearly answered that Lumina couldn't be the desktop he was waiting for.

We are FreeBSD users, and for most of us accessibility, esthetic are minor considerations. We don't care because what we want basically is a powerful, flexible and reliable server. But this is absolutely not the opinion of the average user.

And myself I keep on using Windows for most usual tasks, for leisure, because this is pleasant to use.
If Google and Microsoft track me, I don't really care, I will just take care not to give all to the same.
I use Windows, but mainly Firefox. I use GMAIL and Google engine, but tend to use more and more QWANT which will be probably in the next years a possible challenger to the two giants Google and Bing (Sorry but duck duck go, dogpile... give me no satisfaction, only Qwant seems to be promising but still far from Google)

I use FreeBSD Desktop to administrate with little comfort, my server, and in such case Lumina, LXDE are sufficient not speaking of FLuxbox, OpenBox .....
But in fact most of time I use console simply because one compile faster under console.

I will also try to use FreeBSD Desktop when a computer is too old, my choice will be when possible KDE.
I try to recycle some Archos Tablets, the ancestor of all modern tablets (no Steve Jobs is not the inventor of the tablet, the first tablets ever were Archos and Cowon) by implanting FreeBSD 11 i386, I hope to run Lumina.
The excellent memory management of BSD makes BSD a good solution (only 500 MB of RAM)


4) Windows manager / Desktop

Fluxbox is a window manager not a desktop
Generally, problems are located at an upper level, what we call usually "desktop" is a package suites integrating full tools including a window manager.
Yes I know that many administrators use fluxbox when they need some graphic access.

In fact the most fragile desktops are KDE and GNOME3
Personally I use LXDE... frankly LXDE is very very light.... just a few components compared to the tons of components in Gnome 3 and KDE, so finally LXDE is not so bad, just HAL and gvfs are annoying me, creating sometimes some errors and hangs, so I will switch to Lumina as soon as this desktop become decent, I want to get rid of HAL and gvfs, using only DEVD based solution.

Last thing....
There is a little hypocrisy in the FreeBSD community of developers, because it is often said (and I have often read on this forum) that FreeBSD developers mostly develop with an... Apple, so they don't fight like most of us with UFS breaking its journal, ZFS looking for an invisible pool....

Ironically I would say : They develop something they don't use, they say to the FreeBSD users "esthetic ? ease of use ? we don't care, YOU are professionals ...".... frankly that makes me laugh and reminds me some dialogs in Quentin Tarentino's films (Pulp fiction or Reservoir dogs ?)

 

[Deleted member 30996]

In Linux emulation a sub layer attempts to reproduce the Linux mechanisms, so the Linux code ignores as much as possible that it is running on a foreign host, in the same manner that Windows can run on FreeBSD through Virtualbox

But when Gnome 3 is ported to FreeBSD, it is not running on an emulation layer, it runs on the BSD base system, this is completely different.

That is apparent from the text that is presented during boot. I was referring to /etc/:

linux_enable="NO"

Fluxbox is a window manager not a desktop.

Yes, after running it 12 years, and since it resides in /x11/x11-wm I was aware of that. You did see where I said "Does Fluxbox count?".

I still dispute your assertion that a Gnome or KDE desktop will crash under FreeBSD in 2-3 days, and if so I'd get different hardware. I started out running KDE when I used PC-BSD, which was based on FreeBSD 5.3 at the time IIRC, and it never crashed.

Ironically I would say : They develop something they don't use, they say to the FreeBSD users "esthetic ? ease of use ? we don't care, YOU are professionals ...".... frankly that's make me laugh and reminds me some words of Quentin Tarentino (Pulp fiction or Reservoi dogs ?)

That's funny, I thought of Taxi Driver. You talkin' to me?

 

[Deleted member 9563]

- Server, for desktops ideally use Win/Mac or Linux

You say that as if you are unaware of what, to some people, makes those operating systems unusable. I won't detail those reasons here as I assume you really are aware of them but prefer to troll.

let be honest.... there is today no possible comparison between FreeBSD and Windows 10 / Mac OS

Yes there is, and you know it.

 

[Deleted member 9563]

I still dispute your assertion that a Gnome or KDE desktop will crash under FreeBSD in 2-3 days, and if so I'd get different hardware.

I concur. I would say that there have been problems over the (many) years, but never so I couldn't use the system or had to reboot. Problems with crashing would be a very rare case or indicate deliberate incompetence for the purpose of making a point.

 

[Deleted member 30996]

I concur. I would say that there have been problems over the (many) years, but never so I couldn't use the system or had to reboot. Problems with crashing would be a very rare case or indicate deliberate incompetence for the purpose of making a point.

Must be the later. All my machina are Win7 vintage or older and solid as a rock. My Sony Vaio came with Vista on it as did my Thinkpad X61 and I leave them running 24/7.

 

[ralphbsz]

You say that as if you are unaware of what, to some people, makes those operating systems unusable. I won't detail those reasons here as I assume you really are aware of them but prefer to troll.

Yes, Windows and MacOS are indeed unusable to some people. But they are also highly usable to many others, and some people prefer them. And the people who do prefer them even have very logical reasons.

I have used Windows (since 3.1, including NT) as a desktop, and MacOS (since 8), and Linux (repeatedly, various distributions, usually Fedora), and FreeBSD for a short period, and AIX with DCE, and in old times various other Unixes and VMS. Every single server that I use has either Linux or FreeBSD on it. Yet, this forum post is being typed on a Mac. Matter-of-fact, in our household every single user-facing machine is either Mac or Windows (we have three adult computer users, all of whom are experienced).

Where I agree with you: There is no single "ideal" desktop for everyone. But for a large fraction of computer users, Windows, Mac, and tablets are a better solution than FOSS software on the desktop.

 

[rufwoof]

There is no single "ideal" desktop for everyone. But for a large fraction of computer users, Windows, Mac, and tablets are a better solution than FOSS software on the desktop.

As multi-tasking smartphones develop and wireless speeds/bandwidth costs decline/capacities rise, the need for a desktop will tend to decline to being just hookup monitors and keyboard.

I asked my son the other day what planet that might be in the night sky. A quick snap image on his phone and a few swipes later and he had a complete map of the stars and planet names on his phone. He verbally controls things on that phone, dictating and sending messages, dictating documents, tells him how long before the next bus arrives ... etc.

Having used both now, I'd say Linux and FreeBSD compare equally (such as Debian vs FreeBSD). Both however are way behind alternatives in functionality and convenience and more inclined to be used by the older generation and on older hardware.

 

[Deleted member 9563]

A quick snap image on his phone and a few swipes later and he had a complete map of the stars and planet names on his phone.

That's probably quite convenient, but is still somewhat tedious compared to how I bring up the same dataset in graphical format on my DOS machine. I set the default opening screen to be realtime, but you can move back in time or into the future by the hour or century as you please. That stuff has been around for very many years and is just getting a a new skin. In case you're interested, I just type sky from any directory or drive.

The bottom line is that all operating systems have many capabilities. And even as they evolve over the years, some things get easier and some things get harder. Just pick one based on your personal priorities.

 

[Deleted member 9563]

more inclined to be used by the older generation and on older hardware.

Perhaps I should have included this in the previous comment. A lot of older IT professionals will indeed be running *NIX because of familiarity. However any professional of any age will be conversant with Linux on servers or they are unlikely to be working.

As for hardware, what are you talking about? Servers are generally very modern or they don't pull their wight for the space they take up in the rack. On the desktop, you can see what people are running here. First up in that thread is an older box (you were right!) with 2 x 6-core Xeon @ 2.8 ghz. Uh oh, how does that that compare to the android mobiles and little laptops the kids are using? In my case, I'm not, and never have been, a professional. And I'm just an old age pensioner to boot, so don't have a lot of money. So my "older hardware" consists of only a 4 core Intel with SSD and 16GB of ram. A nice sedate machine suitable for an old fart such as myself. Honestly, making assumptions about who uses what, is not going to take you very far in the non-fiction category.

 

[drhowarddrfine]

I spend more time fixing people's Windows machines than I do our workstations and servers at work. All of our workstation hardware is bleeding edge, or was when we bought it less than three years ago. We don't use Windows and I have not used Windows for anything for about eight years. I see no value in it and only trouble.

 

[-Snake-]

Easy to answer:

1.- Freebsd is a complete system, not a remix called "distribution"
2.- Extremely unix-like, very simple to understand.
3.- Good documentation.
4.- More stable.
5.- The community is not so full of users with no desire to learn or with "religious" fanaticism with licenses, is more about technology.
6.- Base system separated from third party software.
7.- The BSD license is more useful sometimes.
8.- FreeBSD is still FreeBSD, gnu/linux has changed for years adapting to the "novice" user and is no longer interesting so many are migrating from linux to some BSD system.

What advantages does gnu / linux offer regarding FreeBSD?

Same as windows, compatibility with hardware and applications.

 

[ralphbsz]

Both however are way behind alternatives in functionality and convenience and more inclined to be used by the older generation and on older hardware.

Actually, older people should logically be using OS/360 or MVS/TSO as a desktop. Matter-of-fact, I know of a guy who does that: he carries an IBM 3084 in his backpack, and runs MVS/TSO or VM/CMS on it. Now obviously a real 3084 would not fit into a backpack (it weighs several tons, requires 400Hz high voltage and water cooling); instead he uses a quad-core Raspberry Pi to emulate the 370 instruction set.

 

[Datapanic]

As an IT Professional, I don't really care what's better than what or what someone prefers to use - as long as the hardware dies and software bombs out and things reach EOL, I have a paycheck!

 

[fernandel]

I am an average user and I use FreeBSD as a desktop but it is not usable for my work (biology-genetics) where I/we use Linux or OS X. Application which we and not just we use are not usable on FreeBSD. I use also OS X for Blender with cycles engine because on FreeBSD doesn't work and in the old time I use also AIX on IBM RISC machine.
OS is the personal choice.

 

[Deleted member 30996]

And I'm just an old age pensioner to boot, so don't have a lot of money. So my "older hardware" consists of only a 4 core Intel with SSD and 16GB of ram

I'm no spring chicken.

Yesterday I bought a business lease return Thinkpad T61 (it was running when they pulled it from service) with an Intel Core 2 Duo T7300 @ 2.0GHz, 4GB RAM and Intel 965GM for under $75 delivered to replace my old T61 the dock murdered. It didn't come with a HDD but I have one with FreeBSD 11.0-RELEASE on it from my old one.

I loved that machine used it every day, much more than I do my Thinkpad W520 with Intel Quad Core i7-2760QM @ 2.40GHz, 8GB RAM and NVIDIA Quadro 1000M with 96 CUDA cores and Optimus, and plan to use it instead of the AMD Triple Core box I'm on now.

 

[ralphbsz]

The Thinkpad T2x and T6x were among the best laptops ever; the T4x wasn't as good. I still have several T20-T22 and a T60p in my spares pile, and they get pressed into service when I need a generic Intel machine (32 or 64 bit). Matter-of-fact, the way I installed FreeBSD on my server was: I kept the actual server running, grabbed a spare T2x, put a spare SSD into it, installed FreeBSD 11.0, did all the configuring and tweaking to make it the new server, then with just an hour downtime switched the SSD back into the server and started running.

In general, laptops of that generation (roughly 2005 to 2015) seem to be the best ever made. They have more than enough CPU power and RAM to be fully functional, they have good screens, and they are sturdy: big and heavy enough to actually survive normal use. This message is being typed on a 2008-vintage MacBook pro 15"; for many years I used 2011 and 2014 MacBook Pro's in the office, and our son now uses a 2015 MacBook pro as his machine. My wife used a T22 as her home machine for many years, and only recently switched to a 5-year old Dell (don't know the model number). The newer MacBook air and very flat MacBook pro (the ones with only USB-C connectors) don't tempt me at all; they keyboards and connectivity are just too awful. I know quite a few colleagues who had the new ultra-flat Lenovo Thinkpad (I think they are called X1), and were very unhappy with their mechanical reliability: Put it down on a desk a bit too hard, and have to ship it for repair right away, because something breaks.

 

[Deleted member 9563]

I'm no spring chicken.

I've found older folk on just about all forums. The assumption that everyone is just a kid (ie under 40 lol) is indeed just an assumption.

 

[Deleted member 30996]

The Thinkpad T2x and T6x were among the best laptops ever; the T4x wasn't as good.

I have an X61, too, although the 4:3 screen resolution is more constrained than I am accustomed and took some getting used to. The HDD for the 61 series are interchangeable, I have them with Kodi, Lakka, OpenBSD, FreeBSD and can swap one out in about a minute.

In general, laptops of that generation (roughly 2005 to 2015) seem to be the best ever made.

Without looking, I remember mine to be made in 2008. My W520 was the last model before they introduced the chicklets keyboard.

With features like the ThinkPad Roll Cage, ThinkVantage Active Protection System, clamshell lid, Ultrabay, etc.it would be hard to find one better constructed. Some models you can spill water on the keyboard and there are holes in the chassis to let it drain without shorting out. Some had Titanium or carbon-fiber composite lids.

That and the fact they are the only laptop accredited for use and to have flown on the Shuttle, MIR and International Space Station. Radiation? Vibration during liftoff? No problem.

https://s1.postimg.org/nmh492373/Space_Pad01.jpg

 

[rufwoof]

Easy to answer:

1.- Freebsd is a complete system, not a remix called "distribution"
2.- Extremely unix-like, very simple to understand.
3.- Good documentation.
4.- More stable.
5.- The community is not so full of users with no desire to learn or with "religious" fanaticism with licenses, is more about technology.
6.- Base system separated from third party software.
7.- The BSD license is more useful sometimes.
8.- FreeBSD is still FreeBSD, gnu/linux has changed for years adapting to the "novice" user and is no longer interesting so many are migrating from linux to some BSD system.

What advantages does gnu / linux offer regarding FreeBSD?

Same as windows, compatibility with hardware and applications.

Comparing FreeBSD with Debian, as a end desktop user with Debian I follow their oldstable branch, which the current stable version falls into once a new stable version is released ... typically every 2 years. Having been live for 2 years before dropping into oldstable most issues have been fixed and as such updates are relatively infrequent (security fixes). The Debian repository is all encompassing i.e. system and programs (Debian can modify 'packages' specifically to fit in with the complete set). A one stop shop for everything, that is pretty much fixed (system and programs), is watched over by Debian (secure system and programs) and can be used for 2 years before upgrading (to the next oldstable). The downside is that being older versions it may not work with the latest hardware or have all the bells and whistles of the latest versions.

Contrasting that with FreeBSD legacy that is also supported for around 2 years ... that only applies to the system, not the programs ... that could be updated regularly to the latest or relatively new versions (and in so doing potentially induce instability of the 'whole').

I've been using FreeBSD for a little while now pretty regularly (main boot desktop) and like it a lot. However of the two, Debian oldstable has the greater appeal to me as a workhorse that changes relatively little for 2 years at a time.

As a example, forward time under Debian and Jessie (version 8) has recently dropped from being the current stable into oldstable. That system and repository of programs is pretty solid and will continue to receive security updates as and when required. Staying with that as a main boot and pretty much both the system and programs will remain the same for 2 years ... just work. If forward time I adopted Freebsd legacy (10.3, and putting aside the next legacy stepup is in 2018) then whilst the core remains relatively unchanged, the programs when updated for security purposes (pkg upgrade) could pull in new versions of those programs ... that potentially could break the whole end user desktop setup and require having to turn focus away from the task in hand onto having to focus on fixing the tool.

The Debian model is very flexible/comprehensive, and for those that just want a desktop setup that works well, requires little attention other than a 'upgrade' every couple of years but that is security patched quickly as and when needed ... it looks to me that has the edge over FreeBSD at least on that 'stable desktop workhorse' front.

 

[drhowarddrfine]

rufwoof So you are saying you can pull in new programs into Debian two years from now and you are sure they will work with all the new stuff?

FreeBSD also only puts out security updates "as and when required" so I don't understand what's different. Program updates for security reasons has nothing to do with FreeBSD. Those are third party elements FreeBSD has no control over. Neither does Debian for that matter.