Introduce yourself, tell us who you are and why you chose FreeBSD

astyle said:
udev is not part of the Linux kernel? What would happen to FreeBSD if you remove for, example, OpenZFS? or is it so well integrated into the kernel that pkgdb registration is unnecessary? ?
Click to expand...
It started 2003 as part of the Linux kernel, nowadays it has been completely assimilated by systemd back in 2012. As so many other parts of the Linux userspace as well... systemd is the borg of init systems.

For a while the Gentoo project had its own fork, which they maintained actively, named eudev. Eudev was retired in 2022, so Gentoo is now using udev from systemd as well.
 
Built-in ZFS, Jails, NFSv4 ACL support in ZFS and Samba, the impressive software package collection, and the amazing developers are what really keep me on FreeBSD. I run it on an aging Intel S3420GPLC server and FreeBSD runs rock-solid.

ZFS is incredible and having it be built-in to the base system, not break on updates, and just integrated nicely is amazing.

Jails are exactly what I have been looking for. I just couldn't get along with LXD or Docker. I'm not a fan of how "ephemeral" they feel for my simple home-server setup. I also had numerous instances of LXD containers being killed (not gracefully) because of a snap update (I'm also not a fan of snap). I feel way more comfortable with Jails and like the way they work way more. They just feel solid/robust and "clean".

NFSv4 ACLs in ZFS as well as Samba is amazing to have in a file-sharing environment, especially with macOS or Windows clients. POSIX draft ACLs on Linux are a joke in comparison and just don't work well in this type of environment. It's really nice being able to set up a Samba share and have it "just work" without permissions and ACL nightmares. Since one of my server's main duties is to be a file server, this is an extremely important thing to me.

The software package collection is impressive - even the UniFi Controller is available as a package and just works! It's surprisingly a pain to set this up on modern Linux distros, but on FreeBSD it "just works". Most Linux distros won't package things like Plex or UniFi since they're non-free, which makes it more of a pain to install them.

I also just grew to like the simpler/more straightforward way a lot of things are done on FreeBSD. There are far less services running by default, and it's much easier to wrap your head around where everything is than most modern Linux distros which can feel quite complex.

The only criticisms I have of FreeBSD are that there are some poor defaults, such as C-states not being enabled by default.

Finally, the developers are amazing. I posted a bug report for a bug that ended up not even being a FreeBSD bug but rather one with Minecraft (too many syscalls causing increased power consumption). They made a patch to allow adjusting processes to prevent this behavior and it got into the next RELEASE version, and it works perfectly.
 
hardworkingnewbie said:
It started 2003 as part of the Linux kernel, nowadays it has been completely assimilated by systemd back in 2012. As so many other parts of the Linux userspace as well... systemd is the borg of init systems.

For a while the Gentoo project had its own fork, which they maintained actively, named eudev. Eudev was retired in 2022, so Gentoo is now using udev from systemd as well.
Click to expand...
The more I learn about Linux, the firmer my resolve to stick with FreeBSD... SMH... :rolleyes:
 
tOsYZYny said:
Do you develop using Android Studio, what about run Android applications, or easily run docker?
Click to expand...
Docker is a Linux thing, iirc... Android Studio - I tried to compile it a few years ago, and gave up fighting past Java errors... even a pre-compiled pkg did not run for me back then. Now I have other things on my plate ?
 
I still daily drive Linux, but I now also use FreeBSD, for now just on VMs but I plan to install it on bare metal.

FreeBSD does many things better than Linux systems:
  • Better packaging system compared to the most popular Linux package managers
  • System administration is more sane
  • Ports as an alternative to binary packages
  • Clear distinction between system core and third party software, which results in a very stable core that updates every 2 years while you can install software in rolling or quarterly fashion, you don't need the entire system to update every 2 years (Debian stable) or the entire system to be a rolling release mess (Arch)
  • The Linux space is very aggressively political and vocal about software, look at how much they want to purge X11 from this realm as fast as possible.
  • The popular Linux OSes (like Fedora) are slowly shifting towards a more automated Windows/Mac-like experience, at the cost of taking away user freedom and power. There will always be DIY systems though which is great
  • Freedom of system configuration, like Linux, but more efficient than on Linux for the most part
  • Unique bootloader, init system and coreutils that just work, while most Linux systems stick to grub/systemd/coreutils
  • No GNU ideological nonsense
  • There is THE FreeBSD system, and not just the FreeBSD kernel that is used to make countless distros
  • OSS audio is pretty simple to use and configure, and iirc FreeBSD's implementation is better than on Linux systems

However, Linux also has some advantages to FreeBSD:
  • More freedom of choice in package managers (while most of them are similar to each other, you have unique ones like Nix and Portage)
  • Different installation methods that suit different people, and different system defaults
  • More diversity of core software among distros (init systems, etc)
  • More hardware and driver support
  • More proprietary software support (for example Reaper)
  • A kernel with more eyes on it
  • Slightly higher open source software support, though the difference isn't that big (for example, as of now scala-cli only partially works on FreeBSD)
  • Gaming is better (Linux-native games don't need Linuxulator, Steam is native to Linux, etc)
  • Lots of software we use (like desktops and window managers) are originally thought to be used on Linux and developed by Linux users, and we port them to FreeBSD. The Linux ecosystem gives us lots of good stuff too.
  • Pipewire and Pulseaudio are better for bluetooth audio and other use cases
  • KVM hypervisor for QEMU
  • Many distros with the same kernel, and so they all have binary compatibility with each other
I do not intend to run Windows and MacOS at all because:
  • They are proprietary and extremely privacy-invasive
  • These systems are anti-freedom, and do not let me use or configure/build them as I wish
  • No actual package management
  • Not as good for development environments
  • Worse performance and significantly higher resource usage
  • Barely customizable at all
  • Not fun or interesting to use
 
grahamperrin said:
When did this extreme invasion of privacy, with macOS, begin?
Click to expand...
We don't hear much about it on MacOS but we do hear about privacy concerns on iOS, so I don't want to assume that anything from Apple is safe, since we can't confirm it either.

Besides this, I also don't like proprietary systems because they are by nature more locked down and less flexible/modular.
 
Nice time to start nitpicking, as per tradition on the Forums: ;)

macOS has been a walled garden (where Apple calls the shots on how to use the UI to manage files, for example) for a LONG time... since Leopard, I'd imagine, maybe even longer...

I'd call it an invasion of privacy when you have to have an account on OS manufacturer web site just to be able to log into your brand-new metal for the first time, or to use a feature that has, up till now, been a free default on your own metal... or when you have targeted ads show up and touch your device in weird places.

Just locking out functionality is one thing, but forcing the app to call home because of a stupid license is another thing that I'd count for a privacy violation. Sometimes it helps to define what counts for a privacy violation vs what does not count.
 
For macOS there is a software available named Little Snitch. It's a outgoing firewall for applications.
It's a commercial software but they give a free 3 hours "try it for free" time. I can recommend to install it
and have a look what happens. The data send out is massive and goes in any part of this world.

Better not, Thanks!
 
Space Banana said:
We don't hear much about it on MacOS but we do hear about privacy concerns on iOS, so I don't want to assume that anything from Apple is safe, since we can't confirm it either.
Click to expand...
It is a complete deal breaker that macOS (Ventura or later) requires an internet connection to Apple's DRM servers to even install it. I would never do that and am so surprised that so many security conscious people find that acceptable. (It would actually make it impossible to re-install on our work network for example, so it is now literally unsuitable for the enterprise).

Its annoying because if you look past the naff, clunky UI, macOS is actually fun to explore and very serviceable due to its (mostly) BSD userland. The (admittedly older) software installation as simple .app folders you can copy and run anywhere is IMO superior to a package manager for consumer-facing software.
 
kpedersen said:
It is a complete deal breaker that macOS (Ventura or later) requires an internet connection to Apple's DRM servers to even install it. I would never do that and am so surprised that so many security conscious people find that acceptable. (It would actually make it impossible to re-install on our work network for example, so it is now literally unsuitable for the enterprise).

Its annoying because if you look past the naff, clunky UI, macOS is actually fun to explore and very serviceable due to its (mostly) BSD userland. The (admittedly older) software installation as simple .app folders you can copy and run anywhere is IMO superior to a package manager for consumer-facing software.
Click to expand...
Well, to be fair, most BSD and Linux installers do benefit from an Internet connection (to install packages that did not fit onto the install image), but at least they don't require Internet to get started... And you do have to read install instructions to figure out how to proceed. At least it's not because of licensing servers, but rather, disk space restrictions for the good stuff.
 
meaw229a said:
For macOS there is a software available named Little Snitch. It's a outgoing firewall for applications.
It's a commercial software but they give a free 3 hours "try it for free" time. I can recommend to install it
and have a look what happens. The data send out is massive and goes in any part of this world.

Better not, Thanks!
Click to expand...
So, enable logging, read that log, get pissed enough to learn pf(4) ... ?
 
I'm not a fanboy and I don't game.
My principle environment is Windows, because that is where all my real work is done.

I really like FBSD for my NAS and other console-based, server-type use.
 
grahamperrin said:
Not required in my environment. Devices such as Macs and iPads are managed.
Click to expand...
If stuff is managed at work, it's much easier to complain that the device does not work properly. Either you get a replacement device for free, or everybody is stuck with an awkward, time-consuming, multi-step procedure to do something simple like file management. But that is not the case when you're a regular consumer shelling out north of $1,000 USD for an Apple device of your own.

Turning off personalization does work - if you pay attention and actually bother to do it.
 
astyle said:
… if you pay attention and actually bother to do it.
Click to expand...

When I last helped someone, a few days ago, attention was required; it was impossible to ignore the option to personalise. Choices were integral to the first run routine.

astyle said:
Either you get a replacement device for free,
Click to expand...

? … do you mean, for example, a hardware fault with an in-warranty device that's beyond economical repair?

astyle said:
… or everybody is stuck with an awkward, time-consuming, multi-step procedure to do something simple like file management. …
Click to expand...

? … sorry, I really can't visualise what you mean.
 
I've been on linux desktop for about 20 years, on and off. Mostly rolling distros. I have a renewed interest in security (a friend recommended freeBSD). When I noticed that ZFS can do snapshops, a lot of opportunities came to my mind for a project I'm working on where I'll be versioning the permissions of different files and folders. Git doesn't care about permissions, so I'm going to replicate the workflow with snapshots. Not ideal, probably not going to have branches, merges, and other niceties, but this is still a great find for me.

Will be dogfooding on my desktop/laptop too.
 
shallwhack said:
I've been on linux desktop for about 20 years, on and off. Mostly rolling distros. I have a renewed interest in security (a friend recommended freeBSD). When I noticed that ZFS can do snapshops, a lot of opportunities came to my mind for a project I'm working on where I'll be versioning the permissions of different files and folders. Git doesn't care about permissions, so I'm going to replicate the workflow with snapshots. Not ideal, probably not going to have branches, merges, and other niceties, but this is still a great find for me.

Will be dogfooding on my desktop/laptop too.
Click to expand...
If you're looking for a history of file permissions (or figuring out if one set of permissions is better than another for a specific reason), it may be simpler to just go with syslog and cron facilities offered by FreeBSD. ZFS and git are awesome tools, but maybe pick less cumbersome tools for the task?

BTW, git does care about file permissions - if you learn enough about it, you'll discover how that even works. :)
 
ikbendeman said:
Who's new to FreeBSD? Did you migrate from another OS and what was your reason?
Click to expand...
Medical doctor doing some research. I'm using R, some scripts in Perl and g95.
My first private driver was an old Mac, then I've moved to win98 since everybody was using win at that time. My old professor was using an old Sun...I was kind of fascinated, I think it kicked in at that time...
Then 10 yesrs on XP, then Vista...frustrated, I've tried Ubuntu, Fedora, Scientific Linux, Debian...then I've moved back to Win7...it was great, just running for my daily purpose...then win10...
Now, I'm tired of proprietry OS and software. I want my driver to do exactly what I want, no less no more. I've tried Linux again...but it is much to fragmented and overbloated. Installing FreeBSD with a GUI on my laptop was a big deal and a nice challenge. I've learned a lot doing that and I'm really happy to run FreeBSD on my driver now.
 
astyle said:
If you're looking for a history of file permissions (or figuring out if one set of permissions is better than another for a specific reason), it may be simpler to just go with syslog and cron facilities offered by FreeBSD. ZFS and git are awesome tools, but maybe pick less cumbersome tools for the task?

BTW, git does care about file permissions - if you learn enough about it, you'll discover how that even works. :)
Click to expand...
From what I've read, git only cares about the executable permission, for the user. It makes sense: it's not designed for restricting access but for collaboration. But if you can point me in the direction of setting it up so file permissions are respected, that would be awesome.

Example that would mimic my use case...

There's a file end-world-hunger.md, accessible by groups admin, editor, participant, volunteer, sponsor

John is part of one of those groups on the machine being git remote.

He clones the repo. He has access to the file and many others.
But the metadata is not on the file itself (unless I'm wrong; that data is kept in the filesystem representation of that file).

Now the file lives in ~john/prj. Whatever permissions that folder has, will take over permissions the file had in the original location (if git doesn't represent the permissions). That is, it would obviate the original metadata. Git clone will write files as if they were new.

And that's within the same machine. Could be John is running Mac or Windows where the permission system would be totally different.

I haven't tested this; but if John adds stuff to end-world-hunger.md and pushes to remote, the file might keep the permissions it had originally. That'd be good.

But say there's another file not for John to see 'editor-only-file.md'. Unix permissions make this file invisible to John in the unix filesystem.

But editor-only-file.md is tracked by git. When an editor creates that file and 'git add editor-only-file.md', only filesystem permissions prevent John from seeing it. If John pulls after that commit has been pushed to remote, he will get that file. No matter what the orig. filesystem permissions were.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top