Why FreeBSD over Linux for desktop?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually, it's a hard sell for me. I wrote a "must have" list of features and supported hardware I need in order to be able to break free of the Linux world and I came up too short. Wish it would have been different, but without better hardware driver support, and better interoperability with existing Linux filesystems and APIs, I cannot justify it. The simpler init and and sound control (no systemd or pulseaudio) were big selling points in favor of BSD but the lack of ports for specialized software I need, and the non-existent interoperatbility with linux software raid and full disk encryption introduce too much headache to switch.
 
I wrote a "must have" list of features and supported hardware I need in order to be able to break free of the Linux world
I'm betting there is equivalent hardware that suits your needs on FreeBSD.
without better hardware driver support
For what?
better interoperability with existing Linux filesystems and APIs
That's why I won't use Linux. It doesn't have better interoperability with existing FreeBSD filesystems and APIs. Virtually non-existent interoperability with FreeBSD software.
 
I second this as a strong point. The ports tree is filled with different programs which may act as equals or even better depending on what you want.

I think you're confusing software and hardware. ports is about software applications, yet you quote a comment about compatible hardware.

A couple of points:
1) I've been hacking UNIX since it was BSD UNIX on DEC minis, and my primarydesktop (386 to original pentium) was the commercial BSDi variant before Linux was stable enough for desktop use (up to 2.4 kernel)
2) my needs are a bit above generic end-user, as I design and support some rather heady graphics and numerical processing, so lack of CUDA support, and innability to easily mount media from a slew of other systems, negates using freeBSD as my workstation host OS.
3) BSD has always been kind of troubling with regard to hardware support. It's impractical and often too costly to go looking for specifically supported hardware in this made in china, custom USB driver class, short production run, buy at BestBuy or through newegg economy.

I strongly hate what Linux has become, both in terms of technical and pragmatic immaturity of the developers, and in terms of the religious zealotry. With the introduction of a super-init (systemd) and the heavy dependence upon initramfs, it is totally unsuitable for embedded work. Hell, we've now got managers that thing the raspberry pi is a serious embedded tool, and that they should be able to hire highschool students to design mission critical embedded systems based on the pi and raspian. Cough! Choke!

I simply stated originally that for as much as I'd like to rely more upon freeBSD, it also suffers from problems that will keep it from being more readily accepted and used...at least by me. Arguments to the contrary are in my most humble opinion, pure religious dogma.

I can certainly find server uses for freeBSD, but to sell it as a mainstream workstation environment seems a bit disingenuous.

Let the flaming begin!
 
I simply stated originally that for as much as I'd like to rely more upon freeBSD, it also suffers from problems that will keep it from being more readily accepted and used...at least by me. Arguments to the contrary are in my most humble opinion, pure religious dogma.
This is an interesting claim (emphasis mine). Your argument against FreeBSD as a desktop driver is your special personal requirements, which is fine, but explicitly doesn't make it a universally valid argument. Still, you disqualify any universal argument for using FreeBSD on a desktop as "religious dogma". Does this really make sense?
Let the flaming begin!
No thanks ;)
 
tempest766 Like most Linux users, you confuse operating systems that support hardware with hardware that supports operating systems. You want to blame FreeBSD, which does not write hardware drivers for every piece of hardware out there, but neither does Linux. So your complaints are with the hardware manufacturers, not FreeBSD. Yet you've come here and stayed here looking for help using FreeBSD, including making comments some time later which makes me question why you are here despite all that.

Let the flaming begin!

This appears to be the making of a trolling comment. If you are unable and unwilling to make FreeBSD work for you, then I suggest you return to your Linux roots and not fill up this space with further whining.
 
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.

I (if I were you) probably stand with both, because both are great. Use Debian (since it is more comfortable and easy to use for me), and leave FreeBSD to the hard things, something that Debian couldn't do. When you need to use FBSD, be sure to have a DE or WM: there are a lot of great of both (most you know how to configure it), but still you could use the basics and clasics :) : Gnome, KDE, Mate, Xfce, Xlde, etc.
 
Let the flaming begin!

Are you serious? Because we are. We don't get in in your bad joke.
If you say bs about BSD despite you've asked for help here, I don't know what the heck you're doing here.
 
tempest766 You want to blame FreeBSD, which does not write hardware drivers for every piece of hardware out there, but neither does Linux. So your complaints are with the hardware manufacturers, not FreeBSD.

The question is not about blame.

The question is: For a user with certain requirements, is FreeBSD usable? The answer depends on the requirements. For my requirements of my server machine at home, it is not only usable, but the best option out there. For tempest766's requirements, it is not usable. For my desktop (actually laptop) requirements, it might be possible to make it usable, but it is much easier and cheaper (in terms of what matters to me, namely my time) to use something else.

We can have a separate discussion on why that is. It might be caused by evil hardware manufacturers, evil software manufacturers, evil programmers, evil religious fanatics, or the flapping of the wings of a butterfly, without any evil involved. Actually, I'm just giving these examples as jokes; the real reason is a combination of history and economics.

Yet you've come here and stayed here looking for help using FreeBSD, ...
If I want to decide which solution to use, part of that evaluation process it to try to make it work, and see whether it is a good solution. I think tempest766 deserves credit for trying to use FreeBSD and coming here to get help in doing so. From the standpoint of a FreeBSD evangelist, it would be regrettable that the facts on the ground are such that it doesn't end up suiting his needs, but those are facts, for better or for worse.

If you are unable and unwilling to make FreeBSD work for you, then ...
I suggest that you come here and try to get help to see whether it might be possible to make it work. And if after that it still isn't good enough, then go in peace and use a solution that's better for you. And let the FreeBSD community know where it can improve.

Criticism is the best thing that can happen.
 
For my desktop (actually laptop) requirements, it might be possible to make it usable, but it is much easier and cheaper (in terms of what matters to me, namely my time) to use something else.

Well said. On top of that, FreeBSD's viability on the desktop is largely dependent on binaries that are Linux-centric. Even Linux itself has a long way to go as a proven alternative to industry choices. This "back port chasing" is a waste of time and resources.

If one follows FreeBSD development close enough; it's clear the motives of the developers aren't focused on the desktop.

Anyway, BSD UNIX (or UNIX in general) on the desktop is already a solved problem. The developers knows this, and realize what the obvious choice is.

edit: clarity
 
I simply stated originally that for as much as I'd like to rely more upon freeBSD, it also suffers from problems that will keep it from being more readily accepted and used...at least by me. Arguments to the contrary are in my most humble opinion, pure religious dogma.

I can certainly find server uses for freeBSD, but to sell it as a mainstream workstation environment seems a bit disingenuous.

Let the flaming begin!
I moved to Debian after XP support ended. Approaching a year ago I started dual booting both Debian and BSD. Nowadays I just boot BSD (deleted Debian rather than upgrading it from Jessie to Stretch). For me it works better and is organised in a more standard/consistent manner (with Debian things seemed to be all over the place). Also when I edit videos it doesn't just crash ... better stability and IME the sound is also better. Not arguing to the contrary, or religious dogma, just saying it works best for me and my particular hardware as a daily primary boot desktop. Use whatever works best for you.
 
ralphbsz You and the others totally missed my point. He already gave up on FreeBSD but is still here criticizing and complaining and pointing the finger at FreeBSD for its failure to produce hardware drivers. He blames FreeBSD and I'm pointing out he is out of bounds on that. Since he has moved on because of this, then he should move on and not exist here anymore for that only makes him a troll. There is no point in this common "be nice to everyone" fallacy including trolls.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top