Why FreeBSD over Linux for desktop?

Status
Not open for further replies.

kuroneko

Member

Reaction score: 11
Messages: 32

Hello everyone. I would like to know why would FreeBSD be a better choice than Linux. I currently have Linux (Debian). So I would like to know what are the benefits of using FreeBSD as a desktop over Linux. The things I do pretty much are programming and digital art(when I feel like it), I don't really play games so gaming isn't important to me. I also use a wacom tablet so it would be good if it's compatible with it too.
 

fernandel

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 160
Messages: 716

Hello everyone. I would like to know why would FreeBSD be a better choice than Linux. I currently have Linux (Debian). So I would like to know what are the benefits of using FreeBSD as a desktop over Linux. The things I do pretty much are programming and digital art(when I feel like it), I don't really play games so gaming isn't important to me. I also use a wacom tablet so it would be good if it's compatible with it too.
Search on the forum and read a handbook.
 

OJ

Daemon

Reaction score: 281
Messages: 1,072

I would like to know why would FreeBSD be a better choice than Linux.
Because it's my favorite. I can't think of a better reason than that. :)

I currently have Linux (Debian).
I too run Debian (actually now Devuan) on some secondary boxen. I find it best to use multiple computers. To me the world is not "this or that". I prefer to have it all.
 

teo

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 11
Messages: 451

OJ said:
Because it's my favorite. I can't think of a better reason than that. :)

I too run Debian (actually now Devuan) on some secondary boxen. I find it best to use multiple computers. To me the world is not "this or that". I prefer to have it all.
You use the FreeBSD system in graphical desktop for their things for the day-to-day as a main system in the laptop? I thought only the used FreeBSD for servers. :D
I quite like FreeBSD, due to lack of hardware support for laptop and had to try another Linux system as Devuan that do not have systemd.
 

OJ

Daemon

Reaction score: 281
Messages: 1,072

due to lack of hardware support for laptop and had to try another Linux system as Devuan that do not have systemd.
Funny you should mention that. Last night somebody talked me into trying some fancy video conferencing software. Since I don't have camera or microphone on my desktop computer, I thought I'd try a new Devuan laptop installation. Camera, microphone, everything worked like a charm.

Actually, all this stuff could probably be done with FreeBSD. I'm just lazy (call it efficient) and like to do things the easy way.
 

teo

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 11
Messages: 451

ShelLuser

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 1,671
Messages: 3,512

So I would like to know what are the benefits of using FreeBSD as a desktop over Linux.
Well, for starters I consider the absence of systemd to be a major benefit ;)

More seriously: impossible to answer, it all depends on how you use your box and what you expect from it. What I'd consider a pro could be a con to you. My suggestion would therefor be to simply pick up a copy (or a live CD) and mess around with it to see if you like what you got.
 
Last edited:

Trihexagonal

Daemon

Reaction score: 778
Messages: 1,370

So I would like to know what are the benefits of using FreeBSD as a desktop over Linux.
For one thing you get a custom desktop with FreeBSD, built from the ground up and set up by you with only the 3rd party programs you choose to install on it.

You use the FreeBSD system in graphical desktop for their things for the day-to-day as a main system in the laptop? I thought only the used FreeBSD for servers. :D
Everyday graphical desktop tasks are exactly what I use FreeBSD for. All I have are FreeBSD or OpenBSD boxen and I use x11-wm/fluxbox on all of them.

Surfing the web, listening to music, watching videos, downloading files, ripping CDs or burning files to a DVD, graphic image manipulation, working with text editors and a file manager in addition to everyday Admin tasks.

I'm not missing out on anything I want to do on my laptops that I could be doing with another OS.

There is a 37 page and counting thread of people who have posted screenshots of their FreeBSD desktops, including myself.

https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/8877/page-37
 

jb_fvwm2

Daemon

Reaction score: 181
Messages: 1,692

Hello everyone. I would like to know why would FreeBSD be a better choice than Linux. I currently have Linux (Debian). So I would like to know what are the benefits of using FreeBSD as a desktop over Linux. The things I do pretty much are programming and digital art(when I feel like it), I don't really play games so gaming isn't important to me. I also use a wacom tablet so it would be good if it's compatible with it too.
Because FreeBSD needs programmers, coders, and though maybe behind in some hardware support for now, in the long run your investment could, not WOULD, but COULD, advance your skills with more direct top-down involvement.
 

ILUXA

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 411
Messages: 649

For me FreeBSD is MUCH easier to use then GNU/Linux,
Linux is very glitchy and difficult to understand, with its systemd features,
while FreeBSD is clean, secure, stable and easy to use UNIX-like operating system with very good performance.
On my home PC and laptop, FreeBSD — is the only one operating system, that I use, and I really love it.
 

Luboslav

New Member

Reaction score: 2
Messages: 1

I have used FreeBSD on my notebooks as graphical desktop many years. If there were few issues with hardware drivers, all of them I have managed to solve through google, forum or by trying some workarounds by myself. With new versions of kernel comes also more HW drivers. Only thing, that I sometimes need and I have no alternative in BSD world is Microsoft Lync / Skype for Bussines. Some of calls or confs which I need to attend are provided in this environment. For this purposes I have also Win7 in VirtualBox or I use phone version of lync. The main thing which I appreciate in BSD is possibility to build my own system by my needs from base kernel to all desktop apps. I can probably do similar thing with Arch or Gentoo, but FreeBSD way seems to me much easier and very well prepared for this kind of use.
 

drhowarddrfine

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 1,071
Messages: 2,981

rufwoof And once again you are lying to us all as you stated you were "self banning" yourself and removing FreeBSD from your computer but here you are in all your lying glory.

I came back to this board cause you said you were leaving. So, once again, I am leaving and will not return till either you are banned or I don't see you lying, cheating remnants around here.
 

French Fries

Member

Reaction score: 13
Messages: 53

This is not a joke, I migrated from Debian GNU/linux to FreeBSD only a few days ago :
  • a few Beaglebone black (used for security)
  • a server (Supermicro)
  • some PC Engines toys (APU).
I remain on Debian on my laptop (at present). Here is why:

GNU/Linux has design flaws and some exciting features at the same time.
I know at least 20 flaws in GNU/Linux that are "being fixed", one day.
I am now more than 45 years old and tired of waiting.

And when it's done, FreeBSD, might be part of GNU/Linux or the converse.

For example, in security, GNU/Linux has no real daily user protection.
In a virtual machine or on a shared computer, if you break in guest root account, you might penetrate the host root.
On a VPS, if someone breaks into his "Apache account", he might penetrate your 'Apache account' ...

Take firewalling: iptables firewall is the worst logger on earth, so you can be sure that 99,9% of GNU/Linux users are not logging their firewall.
If you are a security agency, you can simply probe the OS and if it is GNU/Linux, you know there is no real logging.

FreeBSD is way better designed, you can feel it just by typing "adduser" or looking at policies, jails, etc ...
But at the same time GNU/Linux offers pax and address randomization.
GNU/Linux offers the best and the worst.

Sometimes, Gnu/Linux really sucks, like LXC equivalent of FreeBSD jails.
When you create an LXC jail, lxc download a template (from nowhere) and if you stop the pipe using lvm, it will leave LVM in a non-working state and you only have to reboot!
In FreeBSD, you don't have to "download" the template of a jail or whatever, it is WAY BETTER designed.
ZFS is rock-solid and cannot be left in an intermediary state because you hit "Ctrl-C" during a download. This cannot happen in the BSD world, simple as that.

Gnu/Linux has a nice and growing community, and among those guys, a very few of them include "ZERO-DAY" flaws in code, because noone reads source code.

This would be more difficult to do in FreeBSD, because it is also maintained by teachers and scientists (but not impossible to do).
Those guys are teachers and when it is only your second year in C, they will simply never accept a bad design of yours.

GNU/Linux has some companies selling you non-sense like "docker":

Docker does not really have a filesystem and when it runs on top of LVM, it runs in unprotected mode.
Again, where is the problem? Well, Docker is at least twice as fast under LVM. Therefore, a lot of hosting companies are running Docker with LVM.
Will they fix Docker protection with LVM?
No, what for... It's a security fucking hole, and they like it.
They write something lile : "We are aware of .... blablabla ... blablabla..." and "we can only wait for the work of others" ... blablabla ... blablabla.

Docker runs very slowly under PostgreSQL or MySQL databases because it does not have a real file system.
So you end-up with "docker-farms" and you can boast to your friends, when sometimes a single FreeBSD can handle Gigabytes of traffic/s.
Do they care? No, because you have to pay for the farms.

Yes the flaws in design of GNU/Linux are the source of a lot of innovations.
Look at Windows, it is exactly the same.
Would Microsoft be so rich if their OS had been rock-solid from the beginning?
So you have the idea : "Oh, GNU/Linux rocks, look at this new feature".

GNU/Linux features are "would-be" or "fix-me" features, they add something on top of a crap.

Last example : systemd. Very difficult to set-up
(you need to be Debian or Ubuntu, really difficult).
It is intended to restrict security ...
So in fact, it's a crap fixing another crap (kernel).

IMHO, the only way to fix things would be a partial or total rewrite of the kernel and changing release process.

Debian GNU/Linux is more for end-users, I use it on my desktop.
If you are programming digital arts, you may stick to Debian, with all those nice features.

On the converse, if your work depends on secure and available software and hardware, that "has to work" on a daily basis and should not be penetrated too easily, go FreeBSD.
But look at the market, a lot of companies are actually running Linux in production and they are still alive and quicking because ... noone really cares.

In 20 or 30 years, all this will be gone and the 2 operating systems will offer very close features, despite the difference in license.

I just can't wait for that to happen, I am a FreeBSD guy now.
 

teo

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 11
Messages: 451

ILUXA said:
On my home PC and laptop, FreeBSD — is the only one operating system, that I use, and I really love it.
So? That's good that you have on your computer installed FreeBSD completely, unfortunately I can not say the same thing , the lack of support driver for the wireless card, and something related to the battery.
Luboslav said:
Only thing, that I sometimes need and I have no alternative in BSD world is Microsoft Lync / Skype for Bussines. Some of calls or confs which I need to attend are provided in this environment.
You can use gnu-Ring replacement for skype.
 

OJ

Daemon

Reaction score: 281
Messages: 1,072

For one thing you get a custom desktop with FreeBSD, built from the ground up and set up by you with only the 3rd party programs you choose to install on it.
Actually, I think you nailed it there. I also use Linux and have always been irritated by the number of very large programs that they INSIST I must have installed by default on every single computer. Why, if I put Linux on 3 boxen, would I need to have to spend time and resources downloading and installing 3 copies of the huge programs *Office and the Gimp on each and every single one? That's just pure dingbat idiocy! The up side, I suppose, is that it teaches patience and tolerance - though why that should be a major mission of an OS is beyond me. :)
 

rufwoof

Active Member

Reaction score: 65
Messages: 202

Actually, I think you nailed it there. I also use Linux and have always been irritated by the number of very large programs that they INSIST I must have installed by default on every single computer. Why, if I put Linux on 3 boxen, would I need to have to spend time and resources downloading and installing 3 copies of the huge programs *Office and the Gimp on each and every single one? That's just pure dingbat idiocy! The up side, I suppose, is that it teaches patience and tolerance - though why that should be a major mission of an OS is beyond me. :)
The default tends to be "install recommends" however that is easily changed by adding APT::Install-Recommends "0" ; APT::Install-Suggests "0" ; to /etc/apt/apt/conf ... which makes a big difference. For instance my Debian install that includes LibreOffice, firefox ...etc. weighs in at 650MB ... small enough to be based in ram and run quickly as a result (and backups/restores that take just a minute or two (quick enough that I've never bothered timing it)). If anything freebsd is less modular as with Linux you can opt for whichever version of busybox or os commands you want to pair with that kernel. Some for instance go for very light/cut down versions of busybox ... others prefer comprehensive full blown separate commands. But as ever flexibility induces security issues/risks (generally however security is a process not a product).
 

French Fries

Member

Reaction score: 13
Messages: 53

So? That's good that you have on your computer installed FreeBSD completely, unfortunately I can not say the same thing , the lack of support driver for the wireless card, and something related to the battery.
Exactly. Debian is still ahead for laptops and "graphical" display/design.
I don't want to sell you FreeBSD.

Gnu/Linux is crap, but I am still using it on my laptop, but at least I know the quality of what I am running.
 

OJ

Daemon

Reaction score: 281
Messages: 1,072

The default tends to be "install recommends" however that is easily changed by adding APT::Install-Recommends "0" ; APT::Install-Suggests "0" ; to /etc/apt/apt/conf ... which makes a big difference. For instance my Debian install that includes LibreOffice, firefox ...etc. weighs in at 650MB ... small enough to be based in ram and run quickly as a result (and backups/restores that take just a minute or two (quick enough that I've never bothered timing it)). If anything freebsd is less modular as with Linux you can opt for whichever version of busybox or os commands you want to pair with that kernel. Some for instance go for very light/cut down versions of busybox ... others prefer comprehensive full blown separate commands. But as ever flexibility induces security issues/risks (generally however security is a process not a product).
Interesting. I've never seen anything like that on any Linux install disk, Debian or otherwise. Are you suggesting I rewrite the CD before installing?
 

rufwoof

Active Member

Reaction score: 65
Messages: 202

systemd. Very difficult to set-up (you need to be Debian or Ubuntu, really difficult).
Is it not however just infamiliarity that makes it seem difficult at first. Having used systemd for a while now I personally like it a lot and see it improving with time. At first however I was very much in the holy-sh*t, this is way too difficult camp, simply due to infamiliarity.

Something parallel/modular had to follow linear SysV. sleep events are eliminated in sysD replaced by depends-on. The ease of being able to write a module and just drop it in (or removed) is pleasing. And some of the tools are great, systemd analyze for instance that can not only show bottlenecks, but also present them in nice graphical .svg charts if so desired.

Likely with time more will be absorbed into sysD. Choice of browser for instance (different modules, just activate whichever one(s) you want, invoking when you want). A negative of that however is that other systems that 'borrowed' from repositories will no longer be able to do so ... at least not without also adopting sysD.
 

rufwoof

Active Member

Reaction score: 65
Messages: 202

Interesting. I've never seen anything like that on any Linux install disk, Debian or otherwise. Are you suggesting I rewrite the CD before installing?
Crikey, the DVD installation approach is something like 3 DVD's. Many prefer to net boot install or debootstrap and 'cut their own' where only exactly what you ask for is built, ready to be written to CD or whatever and used to install. For instance I built a minimalist <100MB cli/net connected Debian that I use a base ... and my preference is to add xorg, jwm, pcmanfm to that for a basic desktop (i.e. pcmanfm provides both file manager and desktop icon management). Thereafter add libre, firefox ... etc. as desired. Locale's take up a lot of space and more often most aren't used, localepurge, a unofficial tool can make significant savings there ... a bit like Puppy Linux 'trim the fat' if you're in anyway familiar with that. Personally I don't use that myself as I stick to 100% Debian Main repositories only (all open source and maintained/version controlled by Debian (security updates etc.)). As I see it FreeBSD doesn't offer the same level of pkg/port version control/integration (consideration of the effect of the potential version update of any one upon all others/the-whole).
 

ILUXA

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 411
Messages: 649

So? That's good that you have on your computer installed FreeBSD completely, unfortunately I can not say the same thing , the lack of support driver for the wireless card, and something related to the battery.
Choose hardware, that should work with your operating system, and not an operating system, that should work with your hardware.
 

OJ

Daemon

Reaction score: 281
Messages: 1,072

rufwoof this is all very fine, but what you are describing has nothing to do with normal reality. All kinds of things can be done by a user that wants to spend a lot of time and effort learning IT. I've spent too much time myself on occasion. Anybody with a life doesn't have that kind of time, and assuming that they do sounds somewhat arrogant. :) You can't compare operating systems like that. What you are comparing is people.
 

OJ

Daemon

Reaction score: 281
Messages: 1,072

Choose hardware, that should work with your operating system, and not an operating system, that should work with your hardware.
Unfortunately, that's rocket science. (it seems)
 

Loala

New Member

Reaction score: 1
Messages: 8

Debian and other Linux distros are working good with my laptop too.
But only with FreeBSD, I could set powersaving prefixes for my graphic chipset, so I could keep my laptop cool and prevent running fans while I am doing my work.
I tried to do that with linux of course but I couldn't do. I googled up and had no answer, and asked to the community, but all I get was the answer saying "your chipset is too old so that is not supported.".
But with FreeBSD like I said I could set it up and runnig so I am happily staying with it.
Other settings are much easier simpler and self explanatory too so there was no reason for me not to be using FreeBSD for Desktop OS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top