New FreeBSD user (maybe)

Solomon Grundy

Solomon Grundy

Hello everyone!

I tried many GNU/Linux distros, and in all of them I found the same problem, the stability. In fact, it happened many times that for the first days the OS was really smooth and after a week there appeared some lags or problems with Xorg for example.

So, seeing a thread of comparison between Slackware and Gentoo, a user said that when he tried FreeBSD he didn't turn back ever.

Now, my questions are these:
  • In the long term, is a FreeBSD system going to be keeping the stability?
  • My use is mainly desktop use. Am I going to find programs like LibreOffice, Virtualbox, PDF readers and the right programs/drivers for my HP printer (HP Deskjet 3520)?
  • I want a system that manages my hardware in the "right" way, without any waste of hardware resources
  • How much "rolling release" is FreeBSD?

My system:
i7-3770
Nvidia gtx 650
Asus Motherboard (Asus p8h77-m pro)
 
1) It's been extremely stable for me the past 15 years.
2) Printer I'm not sure but if its Postscript it shouldn't be an issue. LibreOffice, Virtualbox and PDF readers can be found in the ports tree.
3) A modern OS doesn't waste resources, FreeBSD is a modern OS.
4) Keep in mind that FreeBSD has a strict separation between the base OS and third party applications (i.e. ports/packages). Ports/packages are in constant motion. The base OS comes in several 'flavors' if you will. A -RELEASE, -STABLE and -CURRENT. The releases are only updated for security patches, -STABLE gets new features and bug fixes (this is probably a 'rolling release'), -CURRENT is used for development (only use it if you're developing for FreeBSD and know what you are doing).

System specs shouldn't be an issue, the NVidia card should work with x11/nvidia-driver (Official NVidia FreeBSD drivers).
 
SirDice said:
1) It's been extremely stable for me the past 15 years.
2) Printer I'm not sure but if its Postscript it shouldn't be an issue. LibreOffice, Virtualbox and PDF readers can be found in the ports tree.
3) A modern OS doesn't waste resources, FreeBSD is a modern OS.
4) Keep in mind that FreeBSD has a strict separation between the base OS and third party applications (i.e. ports/packages). Ports/packages are in constant motion. The base OS comes in several 'flavors' if you will. A -RELEASE, -STABLE and -CURRENT. The releases are only updated for security patches, -STABLE gets new features and bug fixes (this is probably a 'rolling release'), -CURRENT is used for development (only use it if you're developing for FreeBSD and know what you are doing).

System specs shouldn't be an issue, the NVidia card should work with x11/nvidia-driver (Official NVidia FreeBSD drivers).
Click to expand...
Uh, seems pretty cool.
What do you mean with Postscript?
 
Solomon Grundy said:
I tried many GNU/Linux distros, and in all of them I found the same problem, the stability. In fact, it happened many times that for the first days the OS was really smooth and after a week there appeared some lags or problems with Xorg for example.
Click to expand...
The big question here though is if this these issues can be traced back to the operating system or its user. No offense intended, but I've witnessed just too many situations already where some people easily blame the OS for a certain behavior while the actual cause could be fully traced back to the way it had been used. This isn't merely about Linux or FreeBSD here, even Windows falls under this category.

I can relate to the issue where changes in the software can happen over time and that those changes sometimes leave their effect on the entire environment. But in most cases, especially with the more popular distributions, those changes are documented, acknowledged and warned about.

Reason I mention this should become obvious soon enough:

Solomon Grundy said:
  • In the long term, is a FreeBSD system going to be keeping the stability?
Click to expand...
SirDice already answered most of it, but still my 2 cents: depends on how you're going to be using it. It most certainly has the potential for it, but it's also an environment which can be a little heavy on the maintenance here and there. Which is mainly because all additional software, this includes the X graphical environment, is treated as such. Sometimes maintained by people who have more deeper ties into FreeBSD but also often by individuals who try to keep their "port project" going.

In other words: it's always possible that some slip ups do find their way into this after which it's up to the end user to work their way around it. FreeBSD isn't the kind of system like Windows where you merely click "Update" and expect everything to be done for you.

As long as you keep that in mind then for sure: stability is a given. But otherwise it can also go downhill pretty fast.

Solomon Grundy said:
  • My use is mainly desktop use. Am I going to find programs like LibreOffice, Virtualbox, PDF readers and the right programs/drivers for my HP printer (HP Deskjet 3520)?
Click to expand...
You'll find approximately 24,000 different software projects in the Ports collection. This definitely includes LibreOffice, VirtualBox and PDF support. You might want to check out the Freshports website for a good bit of an overview.

Can't comment on the HP Deskjet though (not from mind) but if Cups supported it on Linux then I'm somewhat sure that the same can be achieved on FreeBSD.

Still, since you mentioned desktop usage I'd also like to point your attention to PC BSD. It's a FreeBSD spin off which is fully focussed on desktop usage, and makes certain things within the OS a bit easier to approach and use.

Can't really comment on the rest of your questions, but would like to mention the fact that a FreeBSD version is usually supported for quite a few years. Which personally appeals to me where desktop usage is concerned (I'm using FreeBSD on my laptop, mostly command line based) because you don't have to bother too much with all the hassle which is usually involved with major upgrades.

I'm pretty sure FreeBSD can deliver, but can't say for sure if you'd like it :)
 
You certainly can customize your own desktop with FreeBSD but you'll have to get your hands a little bit dirty with config files, installing required ports or packages to get desktop GUI working. Once you get the hang of it then it'll be easy to do updates or perform minor changes to config files as some stuff can be deprecated over time. FreeBSD changes slowly which gives us the time to fix and update things before its completely phased out. That's one nice thing I like about FreeBSD as it add news stuff and also phases out old stuff slowly so that's why FreeBSD is rock solid stable and doesn't break easily like Windows or Linux.
 
Your printer seems to be supported by print/hplip. See http://hplipopensource.com/hplip-web/models/deskjet/deskjet_3500.html. I don't have that printer but it looks like support is available.

Solomon Grundy said:
How much of a "rolling release" is FreeBSD?
Click to expand...
As SirDice said the base system is stable, but the packages are a moving target. There are quarterly packages that are less so if you value a more stable environment.

In the end you have to try it for yourself. We are here to help should you have any problems.
 
Solomon Grundy said:
What do you mean with Postscript?
Click to expand...
Postscript is a language most printers understand. Similar to PDF on the desktop, it's used to tell a printer how to print graphics and such. The printer looks like it's a network printer, most of these will understand Postscript. It's been a while since I configured a printer though, I rarely have a need to print something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostScript
 
Thank you for your answers :).
ShelLuser Yes, you're right when you say that stability problems sometime happen because of the user, but i spend attention to keep my system clean and well kept, and sometime happend that the system became slower without making any modification(just after 5-6 days). This happened for example with Arch Linux. I didn't see this problem with Gentoo for example(i was wrong when i wrote "all of them", but i forgot Gentoo :p).
Anyway, thank you for made me notice that problem may be a wrong system keeping :).
A thing that i like about systems like Gentoo or Freebsd is the complete control of your machine, the customization, and the possibility to get with your own hands on deep parts of the system.So...i don't think i'd not like this part of Freebsd.
 
So.....just to be sure; I'm a person who keeps a lot of attention to the OS without putting trash into it, I should benefit from BSD stability, right?
 
One thing FreeBSD has that few (if any) Linux distributions have is an UPDATING file. There is a /usr/src/UPDATING and /usr/ports/UPDATING. These files will almost always detail changes and tell you what to do to deal with them.

For example with Arch, an upgrade might break something and even though one had checked the forums and the news page, as well as the mailing list, then hear, well if you're going to upgrade, you have to be subscribed to the developer list. (That's possibly an exaggeration, but one does have to look in a few places.)

If you've been an Arch Linux user you'll probably be comfortable with whatever research and configuring you have to do. The handbook is probably as good as the Arch Wiki.

Downsides are that hardware support will often lag behind Linux and various programs may not work. Of the top of my head, Skype, Teamviewer, and VMware's console viewer in the cloud are the three that I've had to use a VM to use.

One bright side of this, though, is that even though there is less man power, and less of it focused on a desktop experience--one of our members will frequently point out how, at a BSD convention, most seemed to be using Macs---is that the developers still seem to think like system administrators. In my less than humble opinion, which is apparently shared by many on say, CentOS forums and mailing lists--the current crop of Linux developers seem to be most concerned about smart phone and single user laptop users. As a broad example, RedHat, around the time of RHEL-6 crippled its curses based install in favor of enhancing the GUI installer.

So, like every other thing in life, there will be pluses and minuses. In my VERY humble opinion, FreeBSD gets better and easier to maintain with each release, and I can't say that I feel the same about many Linux releases.
 
scottro said:
One thing FreeBSD has that few (if any) Linux distributions have is an UPDATING file. There is a /usr/src/UPDATING and /usr/ports/UPDATING. These files will almost always detail changes and tell you what to do to deal with them.

For example with Arch, an upgrade might break something and even though one had checked the forums and the news page, as well as the mailing list, then hear, well if you're going to upgrade, you have to be subscribed to the developer list. (That's possibly an exaggeration, but one does have to look in a few places.)

If you've been an Arch Linux user you'll probably be comfortable with whatever research and configuring you have to do. The handbook is probably as good as the Arch Wiki.

Downsides are that hardware support will often lag behind Linux and various programs may not work. Of the top of my head, Skype, Teamviewer, and VMware's console viewer in the cloud are the three that I've had to use a VM to use.

One bright side of this, though, is that even though there is less man power, and less of it focused on a desktop experience--one of our members will frequently point out how, at a BSD convention, most seemed to be using Macs---is that the developers still seem to think like system administrators. In my less than humble opinion, which is apparently shared by many on say, CentOS forums and mailing lists--the current crop of Linux developers seem to be most concerned about smart phone and single user laptop users. As a broad example, RedHat, around the time of RHEL-6 crippled its curses based install in favor of enhancing the GUI installer.

So, like every other thing in life, there will be pluses and minuses. In my VERY humble opinion, FreeBSD gets better and easier to maintain with each release, and I can't say that I feel the same about many Linux releases.
Click to expand...

"One bright side of this, though, is that even though there is less man power, and less of it focused on a desktop experience--one of our members will frequently point out how, at a BSD convention, most seemed to be using Macs---is that the developers still seem to think like system administrators. In my less than humble opinion, which is apparently shared by many on say, CentOS forums and mailing lists--the current crop of Linux developers seem to be most concerned about smart phone and single user laptop users. As a broad example, RedHat, around the time of RHEL-6 crippled its curses based install in favor of enhancing the GUI installer."
Could you explain to me this part, please?
P.S When you talk about the fact that developvers think like system administrators, what you mean?
 
Well, it would take the thread really off topic. Just as an example, RedHat and its derivatives, even though it's aimed more at the server market, hide the bootup messages by default, and they have to be specifically enabled by removing the rhgb quiet part of the kernel line. That's an easily changed minor one, but serves as an example.
 
Why I've been on *BSD since the "DEC tapes";
Linux has too many "chiefs"[1]. There's a new "distro" born every minute. They come, and go as the sun rises, and falls. FreeBSD, on the other hand has only one "chief", and only one "distribution" with growing versions.
Point being; a single group supervises the FreeBSD distribution "base system". As such, problems, and security issues are kept to a minimum. Now some ~25yrs. later. This still remains the same. Something you're not likely to find with most other "open source" Operating Systems. When something goes wrong. I know exactly where to go, and know they'll be there, when I go there. Again, not as common with the other open source OS's. The FreeBSD ports(7) system, while part of FreeBSD, "technically" isn't. It's "overseen" to the extent that they are kept installable, and to a large extent; error-free. They are actually maintained by FreeBSD users. Much the same as Linux distros are maintained. In fact, as I write this, I maintain ~60 ports(7). The point to make here, is that there is some separation between the FreeBSD "base system", and the ports(7). So when one discusses the stability, and functionality of FreeBSD. They need to know that that refers to the OS "base", and shouldn't include the ports(7). Which is not to say the ports(7) aren't stable. Just not the OS (FreeBSD). I try Linux distros on a regular basis. But, as yet, haven't found the "stability", and security I enjoy with FreeBSD.
So logistically speaking; FreeBSD should really be considered the best choice, IMHO.

1) Linus Travolds only oversees the Linux kernel.
Linux distro's are not bound to use the kernel as he see's fit.
 
- 4 years without crash or performance issues. 30 seconds was needing before 4 years to boot up, 30 seconds needs now.
- All of them exist. Ports have more packages than you think ;)
- In FreeBSD answer is easy. Or is already working or is just will not work. Just so flat. On Windows, you buy a computer and install the OS. On FreeBSD you choose the hardware to work with FreeBSD.
- FreeBSD is not rolling release. There is FreeBSD 9, 10, 11.

FreeBSD is for the elite. Is just not for everyone. You can install it and use it for some months (Not you personally. Generally speaking). But only few people will stay forever. Have software and hardware limitations and do things with the manual way. FreeBSD is always terminal even if you run the most GUI Desktop Environment ever created! Is always config files and do thing with the Unix way.
Why use it? Because is just a daemon. A real daemon. Strong, stable, genius, reacts like a nuclear bomb. Wrong command can return the disaster, secure, flexible.
Free Memory is wasted memory. An Operating System from Hackers to hackers. If something just works, just doesn't need fixes. A magic world built from you and only for you. Using FreeBSD you must accept a completely different way of computing. Is amazing and extremely hard too.
It depends only to you if you want to fight with the BSD daemon or the poison bubblefish to find the right way of meaning "What is in reality computers"
 
I've used it steadily since April 2010.

It don't matter how much desktop lipstick you put on it, you are not going to avoid the command line, learn to live with it or move on.
 
Chris_H said:
Why I've been on *BSD since the "DEC tapes";
Linux has too many "chiefs"[1]. There's a new "distro" born every minute. They come, and go as the sun rises, and falls. FreeBSD, on the other hand has only one "chief", and only one "distribution" with growing versions.
Point being; a single group supervises the FreeBSD distribution "base system". As such, problems, and security issues are kept to a minimum. Now some ~25yrs. later. This still remains the same. Something you're not likely to find with most other "open source" Operating Systems. When something goes wrong. I know exactly where to go, and know they'll be there, when I go there. Again, not as common with the other open source OS's. The FreeBSD ports(7) system, while part of FreeBSD, "technically" isn't. It's "overseen" to the extent that they are kept installable, and to a large extent; error-free. They are actually maintained by FreeBSD users. Much the same as Linux distros are maintained. In fact, as I write this, I maintain ~60 ports(7). The point to make here, is that there is some separation between the FreeBSD "base system", and the ports(7). So when one discusses the stability, and functionality of FreeBSD. They need to know that that refers to the OS "base", and shouldn't include the ports(7). Which is not to say the ports(7) aren't stable. Just not the OS (FreeBSD). I try Linux distros on a regular basis. But, as yet, haven't found the "stability", and security I enjoy with FreeBSD.
So logistically speaking; FreeBSD should really be considered the best choice, IMHO.

1) Linus Travolds only oversees the Linux kernel.
Linux distro's are not bound to use the kernel as he see's fit.
Click to expand...

Don't forget GNU and Lord Stallman! :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top