Advantages of using FreeBSD (compared to Linux)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hello,

I am very happy of using FreeBSD on several servers, and more and more machines for graphical desktop users. For me, the complete satisfaction


There might be quoted:
FreeBSD v. Linux: This is a closer call. We really have nothing against Linux. In fact, we like it. We just happen to like FreeBSD more. Although both are similar on the surface, under the hood they are two very different operating systems. FreeBSD is based on UNIX--it was born out of BSD UNIX. Proprietary AT&T code has been removed, but FreeBSD can trace its roots back into the 1970s. The Linux kernel, on the other hand, was written by Linus Torvalds as a UNIX-clone or UNIX-like system at the beginning of the 1990s. Lineage isn't everything, however. The main reason why we prefer FreeBSD over Linux is performance. FreeBSD feels significantly faster and more responsive than the several major Linux distros (including Red Hat Fedora, Gentoo, Debian, and Ubuntu) we've tested on the same hardware. (We're not claiming to have performed professional benchmarking tests--however, running the same versions of the same applications on each system demonstrated a considerable performance advantage of FreeBSD over the Linux distros we tried). Added to the performance advantage FreeBSD has over Linux is its stability advantage. Those are enough to make us choose FreeBSD over Linux. There are also usage variations--FreeBSD just "feels" nicer than Linux when we use and administer it. On the other hand, the majority of popular graphical applications for FreeBSD are originally written for Linux, and some are slower than others in being ported to FreeBSD. If you want the latest version of your favorite app and you want it yesterday, Linux allows you to live life on the bleeding edge moreso than FreeBSD. Still, most major applications make their way to FreeBSD in very little extra time, and most of us using FreeBSD prefer stability over getting the latest new feature immediately.


If you would like to join the list of advantages with your ideas, let's try to list all the possible advantages of using FreeBSD?
 
so this is another "my car is better than yours" thread. What good do you (OP) think can come of such a discussion?
(hint: saying that "X is better" is always going to cause a negative reaction from those using Y or a different letter...)
 
What I personally like about FreeBSD as compared to Linux is the fact you can easily change defaults. You can base your entire repository on Apache 2.2 instead of 2.4 for example. Or PHP 7.1 instead of PHP 5.6. On most Linux distributions you're basically stuck with whatever they've picked as default. Of course you can install things from source but this quickly becomes utterly unmanageable if you have lots of servers. Sure you can also build your own DEB or RPM packages but building said package isn't quite as easy and straightforward either. On FreeBSD the ports system and various tools like ports-mgmt/synth and ports-mgmt/poudriere make this extremely easy to do.
 
Well, given recent discussions and problems I consider it a huge advantage that FreeBSD does not get involved with horror software (personal opinion) such as systemd :D

But more seriously...

Most of all I appreciate it's slow and reliable pace. When looking back at when I started using FreeBSD (around FreeBSD 9 I think) and today there's a lot which changed "under the hood" but the interface is still the same I got to know and love so many years ago. Where the only major (more obvious) change I can think of is the package manager. (yes I know we also got ZFS on root and all that, but its use is not mandatory).

Yet even with pkgng you see that continuity is a very important thing. Using the Sun tools you'd use pkg-add (for example). The new environment merely removed the dash and exchanged it for a space: pkg add, where the dash comes back to pull up a specific manualpage (pkg-add(8)). I think that's proof of a very well thought out design, which still brings us something new while keeping the impact of the change as low as possible.

It may not be very exciting feature-wise but it is very exciting to me because I value reliability over features.

I also want to re-address what SirDice said: oh so true... I've used Linux a long time (now also a long time ago) and it never stopped to amaze me that I had to install wireless tools on a server. Simply because other packages relied on it. Sometimes you'd have to pull in totally useless junk because of that. FreeBSD gives you a clear cut choice.

Even on the system level (it's for a good reason why /usr/src is my favorite way to keep my FreeBSD system up to date).
 
I get a full working OS I can mold into my image with FreeBSD. It just works.
With linux there must be thousands of non robust half completed bad distros out there that are poorely maintained and barely work.
 
I get a full working OS I can mold into my image with FreeBSD. It just works.
With linux there must be thousands of non robust half completed bad distros out there that are poorely maintained and barely work.
I'm a FreeBSD (desktop) newbie. Currently I have dual boot of Debian Jessie (old stable) and FreeBSD (ufs). What I like about Debian old-stable is that whilst older versions of programs, the whole thing works together as one (Linux + programs/software) and has been threw a extended period of testing (by both developers/testers and then 2 years or so in live/release). It took me a while to realise that Debian 'stable' meant unchanging, not the 'solid' I initially thought it meant. They fix security and critical bugs in stable but otherwise leave it as much unchanged (stable) as possible. When the new Stable comes out and the current stable falls into oldstable - that is still supported (security fixes etc.) and many of the bugs that aren't critical or security issues are documented (known, often with workarounds suggested). I installed Debian using just their MAIN respositories and found that it worked really well (i.e. if you stick to pure Debian its very good).

Whilst there are (too) many Linux offerings out there, a fair comparision is perhaps Debian OldStable contrasted with FreeBSD. Very early days for me but it seems so far that FreeBSD lives up to at least equal comparision in stability (as in solidness). I haven't really managed to figure out how stable FreeBSD updates are yet for myself and currently I'm just using pre-built binaries being installed ... so basically using freebsd-update fetch;freebsd-update install;pkg update type updating (which I think is the thing to do and compares to Debian's apt-get update;apt-get upgrade ???).

So far I haven't really latched onto primarily booting one over the other, if anything still mostly booting Debian Jessie as that is what I've used more in the past (greater famliarity) but I am trying to expand my FreeBSD knowledge. I'd guess that both are pretty equal in many respects and time will tell as to which becomes the predominant boot choice for me in the future. I'd guess that FreeBSD could very well win out overall ... once I gain experience with actually compiling stuff from source. FreeBSD excels in that aspect as far as I can tell from my (very) limited understanding. The crem dela crem ... being able to run a system where perhaps everything was compiled from source tuned to your own particular hardware/setup.

I'm fortunate in that my hardware works very well with FreeBSD and appreciate that Linux perhaps has the edge with regard to more recent/extensive hardware support. That's less of a issue however if you're pre-aware of such limits before buying newer hardware, as you can simply target the choice of hardware purchased accordingly.

Support/development wise, I guess Debian has the edge (more involved). Many however in the Linux community go on to to their own thing and fragment/duplicate focus. As we move forward with your mobile/smart phone being both more powerful and more capable than desktop PC much of that fragmentation will perhaps have to refocus more towards a common core ... just to keep going (from the desktop PC perspective). Again my feeling is that FreeBSD will do OK as its pretty well already centralised AFAICT.

Its hard to see great futures for either Debian desktop or FreeBSD desktop ... or indeed any desktop. Desktops could very well just transition over to being a display and keyboard that your mobile device/phone wirelessly couples to, purely for the convienience of input/control and display. On the server side my understanding is that many more use Linux than FreeBSD.

I've tried to be impartial and balanced, but due to lack of knowledge may very well have some things wrong. Very generally I'd say 60/40 FreeBSD/Debian oldstable primarily on the basis that whilst both have a central/complete self contained type setup (main kernel and all the programs/software that run), FreeBSD has the edge when it comes to refining and compiling your own binaries.
 
That's less of a issue however if you're pre-aware of such limits before buying newer hardware, as you can simply target the choice of hardware purchased accordingly.
A LOT of people never think of that and only look at numbers that mean little. Such as "Linux supports 10,000 plugin cards but FreeBSD only supports 9374 so FreeBSD is bad!!!" and other comments of the insane.
On the server side my understanding is that many more use Linux than FreeBSD.
Far more internet traffic runs through FreeBSD servers and software than Linux if you consider Netflix alone (almost 40%).

I can see the average user using mobile and not relying on a desktop or laptop computer. In fact, Google has said search traffic on mobile has now exceeded desktop but I don't see the desktop going away any time soon for office and technical workers.
 
Well, given recent discussions and problems I consider it a huge advantage that FreeBSD does not get involved with horror software (personal opinion) such as systemd :D

But more seriously...

Most of all I appreciate it's slow and reliable pace.
For a 'end-user' who primarily just wants a basic desktop that consistently works well as a tool i.e. minimal maintenance effort, what is a appropriate choice/method for FreeBSD?

As a Debian user (FreeBSD newbie) I like running oldstable for my needs. I have no need for the latest programs/hardware, just basically want to word process, spreadsheet and browse the web. Debian oldstable has been through around 2 years of live release and still receives security updates. When you use just their MAIN repository then its all encompassing, with Debian providing both the core system and programs ... that collectively work well together.

Mapping that over to FreeBSD and again a single provider for both system and programs, along with security updates ... but what release should one run and how might that be updated simply in order to maintain security? My current thinking (and first install) is 11.0 RELEASE, with programs being installed using the binaries ... and updates being made by using freebsd-update fetch;freebsd-update install;pkg upgrade. Start with the current RELEASE and stay with that until EOL before upgrading to the then current Release ???

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)).

The other main appeal of FreeBSD is that the option to compile everything oneself is there, so individual programs can be configured for ones own particular hardware if the need arises, or even the entire installation locally built in a manner that best matches the hardware. Installing pre-build binaries is great for ease and simplicity, however there are isolated cases where being able to configure a particular programs build specifically for ones needs can be extremely useful.
 
For a 'end-user' who primarily just wants a basic desktop that consistently works well as a tool i.e. minimal maintenance effort, what is a appropriate choice/method for FreeBSD?
Use a Mac, and don't mess too much with it. That means you don't have to install the OS (it's already there when you take the machine out of the box), you don't worry about organizing upgrades (they are nearly completely automatic, just occasionally click on the upgrade window, and stop using the computer for 5 or 10 minutes), and everything just works. If you start messing with it too much and use non-Apple-standard applications (like Chrome or Firefox as a browser instead of Safari, or Acrobat instead of Preview for viewing/modifying PDF document), then it will become less easy.

Actually, Windows machines are similar: Get the hardware it preinstalled with a good antivirus, and then just use it without changing the configuration too much, accept automatic upgrades. Both the Mac and Windows options give a functioning desktop experience, works fine out of the box for the web, word processing and spreadsheets (just install one of the two or three standard office suites, free or otherwise), and allows running canned software (for example CAD, data analysis, or software development). Unfortunately, for office suites, Microsoft is still unbeatable in its combination of ease of use, convenience, compatibility, and it works just fine on Mac and Windows.

Clearly, one can use free software (Linux or *BSD) on the desktop, but it is a lot more handholding and work. I've yet to see any FOSS software that gets anywhere close to the low-hassle user experience on the desktop, particular compared to the Mac. In terms of desktop convenience, the differences between Debian, Fedora and FreeBSD pale in comparison to the difference between all three and a Mac.

Now, for servers and appliances, the situation is the opposite. It is technically possible to use a Mac server (Apple even sells server versions of its OS, although that is used very little outside of specialized industries), and Windows actually has some market share in the server market, but it is a hard way to do it. This is where FOSS (Linux and *BSD) shines.
 
For a 'end-user' who primarily just wants a basic desktop that consistently works well as a tool i.e. minimal maintenance effort, what is a appropriate choice/method for FreeBSD?

*snip*

Mapping that over to FreeBSD and again a single provider for both system and programs, along with security updates ... but what release should one run and how might that be updated simply in order to maintain security?

I'd recommend RELEASE. Once you've got it set up maintenance is about as simple as running:

Code:
portsnap fetch update
pkg audit -F
freebsd-update fetch

on a regular basis to ensure you stay up to date. I use ports exclusively and let portmaster do any program updates.

As for security, when I changed ISP they only provided a modem so I ran my laptops connected directly to the net for months without a second thought. I only more recently got a router so I could have more than one online at a time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From my point of view, the community is the biggest advantage. Lately, i happen to appreciate old school *nix folks even more; after seeing how the "shiny cool kids" on the block degenerate/ruin the FOSS community. Plus, learning the harder way of doing things from old school guys turns out to be more advantageous and surprisingly practical in the long term.
 
how the "shiny cool kids" on the block degenerate/ruin the FOSS community.
Just the other day, I was looking at a client's workstation using all the "you can't build web sites without it' stuff for non-core things was 25% bigger than any complete web site we have ever created. And a whole collection of "must have tools" we never use.
 
Plus, learning the harder way of doing things from old school guys turns out to be more advantageous and surprisingly practical in the long term.
If you understand the core principles it's going to be easy to apply that knowledge. Almost everything these days is a culmination of technologies but the core principles are usually still the same. An 8 bit CPU is in essence exactly the same as the latest multi-core Xeons. So if you learned to program that 8 bit CPU you can apply that knowledge when learning about those latest Xeons. The steps you need to take are small compared to someone that needs to learn that complex box from scratch.
 
Performance : it is difficult to make comparisons. In some cases Linux (but which one ? Because some distros can run better, it depends on compiling options and compilers used) can run faster, and in some other cases FreeBSD is better.

Stability : we find a lot of message of professionals migrating from FreeBSD to Linux for stability reasons, and so we also find some users migrating from Linux to FreeBSD for exactly the same reasons.

What is the truth ? THE H A R D W A R E
As far as a given hardware has perfect written drivers, stability is not a problem, on either platform, even Windows.
But... generally speaking Linux has a better drivers deposit, as we can say that Windows has a larger database compared to Linux. You know the reason why... from a commercial point of view hardware makers focuse on Windows and Linux.

So in fact... if you choose FreeBSD, you must first acquire a suitable hardware, but never buy a hardware thinking after that you will manage to make it work with FreeBSD, check first the compatibility list.

Desktop
: let be honest.... there is today no possible comparison between FreeBSD and Windows 10 / Mac OS
Microsoft made very great things first with Windows 7 (correcting major Vista issues), and Windows 10 (correcting major issues of Windows 8), nobody can deny that.

Far after Win/Mac comes Linux with advanced GNOME 3 (or Unity in Ubuntu), KDE desktops. And little after comes FreeBSD in PC BSD flavor now TrueOS.
FreeBSD Desktop works and is enough for administrators but not for most end users, and certainly not for common Mac or Windows end users.
FreeBSD is eventually used as a desktop by some Universities, researchers as these people have some UNICES knowledges, and they don't attach too much importance to "cosmetic", they just want stable workstation capable of running very fast some scientific oriented programs.

The situation of FreeBSD desktop may change in the next 10 years. It will largely depends on the development of TrueOS and in particular one of his key component, Lumina desktop, the first desktop natively developed for BSD (except the non free MAC OS desktop). If Lumina addresses some issues as simply automounting an USB key, connecting easily to any NFS, MAC or Samba network .... so OK FreeBSD will be a harder challenger to Linux Desktop.

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.

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.

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

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

- 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.

- Jails : I love playing with jails and I guess to be not the only one. FreeBSD Jails are an advanced Chrooted environment.
FreeBSD Jails give some virtualisation advantages, without some disadvantages. Jails have been implemented in NetBSD, but not in OpenBSD, and for this sole reason I will never give a try to OpenBSD even if I could be interested in some aspects of this system.
For example I love OpenBSD Packet Filter firewall far better that FreeBSD IPFW, and I know that OpenBSD holds the most advanced version, but nothing could let me drop jails as I use them as a basic administration principle of my BSD server.

- Ports : With port system, FreeBSD users can easily custom the compilation process choosing the right options. We can do that in Linux, but it is more difficult. I play a little with Linux Mageia... as far as I know, if you custom compile, this program won't be automatically updated. With FreeBSD ports system, when you get a new bunch of code, just use "portupgrade or portmaster" to recompile.

Now with "PKG " package system, you can also use official pre-compiled programs, or create your own master deposit of pre-compiled programs (so with your own ports options) to update a fleet of workstation.

- Development : FreeBSD develops itself with intelligence. Number of Ubuntu users get disappointed because Ubuntu, as Windows breaks so often the rules to make something new, something more sexy... but this does not always mean something "durable"
A lot of Ubuntu users go back to "Linux roots" with a Debian system. Linux world create a lot of new systems every day... just enumerate the number of file systems, and finally is it always useful ? It creates a lot of confusion. One system appears to be sexy and is largely adopted, but few years after the development is suddenly stopped as insufficiently supported. Just try to figure out what happened to ReiserFS... just because the creator killed his wife, the system is given dead.... oh my god... could you imagine all Windows systems getting down if Steve Balmer or Bill Gate just died ?

As a comparison Microsoft choose to make NTFS evolve, they just created exFAT some years ago to replace the two limited FAT32. For years now, BSD has made the same thing with UFS.
The last major evolution has been to adopt ZFS as a native filesystem, but fortunately UFS still remains and remains the best possible solution for desktop.

ZFS addresses BIG DATA use, so it is suitable for industry scale NAS, but for a personal desktop... frankly ZFS is much more a loss of power, UFS with journaling option is simply better.

FreeBSD will always evolve with intelligence, with transition periods if necessary. FreeBSD does not intend to create something more sexy, they just want to create a more reliable system with greater performance. FreeBSD gives more respect to users.
Some Linux administrators get tired with the number of recent major changes to Linux (SystemD...), and some of them begin to evaluate FreeBSD with its reliable development model.

- Community : long time ago I deliberately choose FreeBSD over Linux (I just hesitated a little time between FreeBSD and OpenBSD, but FreeBSD jails and Linux Emulation made the decision), even if I knew that it would be a "very harder path" as I was switching directly from Windows, with no intermediate step to Linux, because I was so much irritated by the behavior of the Linux community. Linux community wants the death of Microsoft, but also of BSD... the community has the same supremacy attitude as the hated Microsoft. Linux Boys are so often some stupid boys telling so much stupid things everywhere... this is incredible.

I also hate the extremism of some major directors of the Free Software Foundation, I prefer the BSD, MIT Licenses... which grant, from my point of view, the true liberty. So when I have a possible choice I void any GPL license, what is more theoretical than realisable, as you firstly choose a software for the functionalities.

These are political aspects, not technical, yes I assume that, but all our life is also a "political question".
You choose your religion, sometimes you leave your country to choose democracy.... choosing an OS is also a political choice because you know that a given open source operating system will live with his community. Adopting FreeBSD, and accepting the disadvantages of such choice, makes the community stronger. If the community is stronger, we can expect more interest and hope that some issues will find a solution sooner.
 
A LOT of people never think of that and only look at numbers that mean little. Such as "Linux supports 10,000 plugin cards but FreeBSD only supports 9374 so FreeBSD is bad!!!" and other comments of the insane.

Far more internet traffic runs through FreeBSD servers and software than Linux if you consider Netflix alone (almost 40%).

I can see the average user using mobile and not relying on a desktop or laptop computer. In fact, Google has said search traffic on mobile has now exceeded desktop but I don't see the desktop going away any time soon for office and technical workers.


its netflix really 40% of net traffic? holy cow
 
A really tuff challenge is archlinux vs freebsd, but now that systemd is here and archlinux removed their gui installer, I dont care enough to move back to archlinux.
I hate doing low level crap so I need another computer to do the installl. FreeBSD is arguably better now and I enjoy the zfs on root.
From cat-v.org I sometimes think of trying openbsd again, but last few times performance so slow I bounced back to freebsd.
running 11.1-RC3 on my amd 965 6 core 16g ram desktop that needs a quieter fan now.....and icewm gives me simple desktop no worries.
smplayer for vids, deluge for cof coff backups and xfe for gui file stuff....3 usb externals for storage.....zfs all....each its own pool....Im loving life!!

I watch all kinda intersting youtubes and other entertainments.
Obly think linux owuld have currently is pharo.org.....at least until I sweat a little to port it, if that is possible, but pharo runs on windows n mac so has tt be ez...

Freebsd does freak me outsometimes because system will be lagging under big rsync job and top will still show like load avg 2 or 3.......heh
Does freebsd not admit its working hard?
Anyone run a massive database on feebsd and have it come under heavy load? from everything I hear it handles itself really well...
 
Anyone run a massive database on feebsd and have it come under heavy load?
A client of mine has a fairly large MySQL database (a few tables are several GB large). There's also a lot of queries so it really pushes the machine. With databases, in general, IOPS are more important than raw CPU power. The CPUs are mostly idle while the disk controller is fairly busy. But the limitation they're running into is more hardware related than OS related. There's only so much data you can push through a PCIe bus, even if you use multiple lanes. And then there's the limitation of the SAS/SATA buses. So there are plenty of bottlenecks but none of them are related to the OS.
 
> Freebsd does freak me outsometimes because system will be lagging under big rsync job and top will still show like load avg 2 or 3.......heh

I suspect this is because of ZFS. I also had some performance problems with ZFS which I partially solved using ZIL and L2ARC on a separate SDD drive. Still I think ZFS is an overkill for a regular desktop.
 
There is more than one thing to be honest;
  • No "this distro is better" talks in the community. I used gnu/linux based systems more than a decade, half of your time is wasted by disto hopping.
  • One documentation that covers everything
  • Experienced user base (this does not mean other OSes are flooded by newbies though)
  • I would rather run a stable system than an OS which is full of fancy cutting edge software many of which have features I would never use. FreeBSD gives me the stability I want (one could argue that Debian Stable is also this kind of OS)
Since the day I installed FreeBSD on my laptop, I have not made another system install, which is great! freebsd-update(8) was enough for me to keep up with the latest version of the OS and pkg(7)does a great job in keeping your 3rd part software up to date.

By the way, Wozzeck.Live I think you are kidding, hey?
What is the truth ? THE H A R D W A R E
As far as a given hardware has perfect written drivers, stability is not a problem, on either platform, even Windows.
But... generally speaking Linux has a better drivers deposit, as we can say that Windows has a larger database compared to Linux. You know the reason why... from a commercial point of view hardware makers focuses on Windows and Linux.

So, in your world, the operating system is composed of device drivers only? No network stack, no memory manager, no scheduler, no file system manager....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top