# Okay, so what's so great about FreeBSD?



## fieldse (Mar 17, 2009)

=D

Hi all.

I'm a new Linux user, started on ubuntu a few weeks ago, progressed towards some other distros recently.  A (Microsoft!) programmer friend told me that if I'm going to go the Linux route, I should look into FreeBSD.  

So- sell me on it. 

What's so great about it?

And, if you're capable of giving a balanced critique as well - what are the drawbacks / weaknesses?  I have a high tolerance for learning curve, etc etc, but there is really a reasonable limit to what is practical for a normal human being.  Does FreeBSD stray over that line?  Am I going to have trouble with compatibility issues, finding drivers, etc?

Thanks!  Look forward to your responses.  

-- 
e.m.fields
Chapel Hill, NC


----------



## vermaden (Mar 17, 2009)

fieldse said:
			
		

> So- sell me on it.
> 
> What's so great about it?



Now imagine a Windows user coming to some random Linux forum and wants the same afrom them, as you want from us: "tell me what Linux can give me and if I will have any problems with it".

We do not have all day to write these things, imho these are good start points for FreeBSD newcommer:

http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux
http://wiki.freebsd.org/AvoidingLinuxisms
http://www.cons.org/cracauer/freebsd.html
http://ivoras.sharanet.org/freebsd/freebsd7.html
http://ivoras.sharanet.org/freebsd/freebsd8.html
http://freebsd.org/handbook
http://freebsd.org/about.html
http://freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/
http://freebsd.org/docs/books.html


----------



## DutchDaemon (Mar 17, 2009)

Sorry for moving this to 'Off Topic'. These forums are mainly a community support effort, focusing on technical issues. It's not really an advocacy platform, and I wonder whether there's a lot of enthusiasm for selling anyone on anything. It's not really in the BSD DNA -- though there is a bit of marketing..

By the way: if this deteriorates into another Linux-FreeBSD shouting match, or if things like "M$" and "Winblows" get thrown around willy-nilly again, I'll close this thread before you can sneeze with your eyes open.


----------



## fronclynne (Mar 18, 2009)

fieldse said:
			
		

> What's so great about it?


Maybe it's nothing more than familiarity, but I can use it while drunk, which is more than I can say for any other operating system I've tried this with.

By "tried this with" I mean, like: right now.

Oh, and by "use" I mean non-destructively.


----------



## jb_fvwm2 (Mar 18, 2009)

the freebsd-questions list often has *long* threads answering
the OP. ( a few times, most years).  Several ways to search
that list on the web, including digest form in google groups.


----------



## anomie (Mar 18, 2009)

fieldse said:
			
		

> What's so great about it?




 jails
 the base system upgrade process
 good documentation

YMMV. Use what works for you.


----------



## fieldse (Mar 18, 2009)

LOL @ vermaden:


			
				vermaden said:
			
		

> Now imagine a Windows user coming to some random Linux forum and wants the same afrom them, as you want from us: "tell me what Linux can give me and if I will have any problems with it".
> 
> We do not have all day to write these things, imho these are good start points for FreeBSD newcommer: ...





Thanks for the links/response.  I do understand, but in my experience: people who love their system love to talk about it.  If you don't have the time, don't respond. 


@DutchDaemon:


			
				DutchDaemon said:
			
		

> Sorry for moving this to 'Off Topic'. These forums are mainly a community support effort, focusing on technical issues. It's not really an advocacy platform, and I wonder whether there's a lot of enthusiasm for selling anyone on anything. It's not really in the BSD DNA -- though there is a bit of marketing..



=D  
Understood, no problems. I didn't really see an appropriate category, as "off-topic" was listed as "Non-BSD-related", but not trying to clutter up your forums. 
As far as "selling anyone on it": As above- people who love their particular thing generally enjoy sharing it, and I enjoy being "sold" on something good. I'm not trying to cause a ruckus.  


@jb_fvwm2:


			
				jb_fvwm2 said:
			
		

> the freebsd-questions list often has *long* threads answering
> the OP. ( a few times, most years).



Heh, figured as much.  Seems to be the way in all the other forums, figured I'd start the traditional quarterly debate over here with our cousins. 



			
				anomie said:
			
		

> jails
> the base system upgrade process
> good documentation



@anomie:  Jails?  I suppose this is something I'll have to look up.


To all:
Again, let me reiterate:  This is intended to be a friendly community discussion, not a flame-war / argument-starter / snobbery-fest. If you love FreeBSD and feel inclined to respond with your input, please kindly do so, as "we" would do in turn for such a thread on our own forums.  

I look forward to your replies
--
fields


----------



## ephemera (Mar 18, 2009)

fieldse said:
			
		

> I'm a new Linux user, started on ubuntu a few weeks ago, progressed towards some other distros recently.  A (Microsoft!) programmer friend told me that if I'm going to go the Linux route, I should look into FreeBSD.
> So- sell me on it.
> What's so great about it?


For me its about _choice_. And in some respects a better one (vis-a-vis Linux).


----------



## jb_fvwm2 (Mar 18, 2009)

One thing freebsd users *might* want to consider is a
journal with seperate pages for different topics.  I
should've started that way back in 2004... for instance
...
a page for zfs or other features you might try eventually;
a page for buildworld hints;
a page for ports which fail to build;
a page (or several) for notes relating to your specific hardware;
a page for notes relating to your window manager;
.............
etc etc etc.   Already it has saved me a few 
hours of re-reading or browsing; 
I have seven or so times that number of topics already, probably.
.............


----------



## vermaden (Mar 18, 2009)

> Thanks for the links/response.  I do understand, but in my experience: people who love their system love to talk about it.  If you don't have the time, don't respond.



Its not about being rude (if it looked like that, then sorry, that was not my intention). Propably, as many other peolpe here I like A LOT things that are IMHO reoslved better then in Linux or at Mac OS X, it is a good idea to create such thread and then reply with link to all newcommers, but not type it again and again 

Also check daemonforums.org I remember several such threads there.


----------



## vivek (Mar 18, 2009)

Free
Opensource
Ease of use
Jails
Security
Performance
Ports system
Stable
One place to get all packages, kernel, security patches, man pages, installer etc.
Better documentation


----------



## roddierod (Mar 18, 2009)

Well as a professional microsoft programmer during the day and a freebsd user at home and via ssh at work, I'll second your friends recommendation.

As for what makes it great, I think coming from windows only a few weeks ago anything that most of the people around here will says is going to leave you with more questions that answers because you did even have an option to deal with it in the windows world (e.g. the jails answer).

But I'll throw this at you, I can do more with less hardware and memory than on windows. I can download torrents, encoded divx movies, watch a movie, compile a program and browse the web all at once on FreeBSD machine without the machine crawling. I can't do that on the same machine when I dual boot into XP. So I removed XP


----------



## roddierod (Mar 18, 2009)

fronclynne said:
			
		

> Maybe it's nothing more than familiarity, but I can use it while drunk, which is more than I can say for any other operating system I've tried this with.



Best answer ever!


----------



## graudeejs (Mar 18, 2009)

Why i prefer FreeBSD over Linux and Windows?


I love FreeBSD for it's performance (compare OOO compilation from sources. For example GNU/Linux Gentoo vs FreeBSD)

I love that i can compile heavy stuff, watch movies, do upload/download, write programs and surf internet all at same time without lags.

I love FreeBSD community, because it's very friendly

I love the documentation and manual pages that actually explain what you can do and how to do it.

I love that it makes me learn (Gentoo also made me learn, but FreeBSD ... )

I love multiple virtual monitors. I can switch from one, (unlike under windows where you have everything in one stupid panel, that would explode if i run as apps at same time, as i do under freebsd)

I love that I can customize about everything (I have completely customized desktop environment)

I love that I don't have to pay for it, and it doesn't eat crazy amount of resources.

I love that 3-5 seconds after login, I can already surf web.

I love that I don't have to reboot every time I install/unistall/update app (unlike in windows).

I love that when I ask people for help (to solve problems), they know what they say and do

I love it because it's fun (also painful sometimes, but mostly fun)

I love that I'm not forced to install 200 unneeded dependencies, not to mention Gnome/KDE.... etc

I love that when shit happens it's 99.99% my shit that happens, and I'm responsible for it.

I love that there are much more Power/Advanced users than trolls using it.

I love it because it invents/implements cutting edge IT technology.

I love it because /bin/sh is Bourn Shell, not a link to bash

I love that i have to deal with terminal, instead of point and click all the time.

I love it because installed apps are where they are supposed to be. In /usr/local/

I love it because in 2 years of using FreeBSD, I learned much more about Unix, than in 3 years using GNU/Linux

I love it because i have tried all windows since 95 and about 8-10 GNU/Linux distros. And it just feels right.

I love it because..... I love it


----------



## ctaranotte (Mar 18, 2009)

I cannot agree more about the aforementioned but I would however add the lady users are prettier :e


----------



## fronclynne (Mar 18, 2009)

And I prefer the BSD license: it gives everything and asks nothing in return.


----------



## MG (Mar 18, 2009)

I actually don't know what's so great about FreeBSD. It just feels logical, I think.
Years ago I was trying to build a 486-home router. I tried several Linuxes and a FreeBSD iso, but the FreeBSD docs on the install cd seemed to be helpfull enough to build a working router and stay with FreeBSD.
It is one of few operating systems that seems to get faster and easier in newer releases.


----------



## sossego (Mar 19, 2009)

I hope that I don't ruin this thread.
Anyway. memory management is better.
Dependencies are easy to find. The ports have lists of closed/unstable ports.
The configuration options are upfront. No searching for them in the make files. 
Xorg is always dynamic. I've only had to change the resolution.
Disk failure can usually be healed with another BSD. I've used NetBSD to fix ther MBR when FreeBSD didn't work.
It mounts, reads, and writes but your items are safe. This is a reference to the ext2/3 systems.
With 256M you can: Run fluxbox with gaim, run qemu with blackbox and another gain in that, and run a qemu terminal with naim in that.
Run lame and blender while surfing the web.
I*'ve only installed twice: 6.2 i386 and 7.0 amd64. 

The system requires work, dedication, and patience. I'm short on all of these.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Mar 19, 2009)

> if I'm going to go the Linux route, I should look into FreeBSD.


I didn't notice anyone saying this but, to be sure, FreeBSD is not Linux.


----------



## oliverh (Mar 19, 2009)

Quality and experience since some decades: http://www.oreilly.de/catalog/opensources/book/kirkmck.html


----------



## jemate18 (Mar 20, 2009)

FreeBSD is one of the GREATEST OS for me...

1. BEST ever documentation
2. ports and packages RULZ! and no other OS can match to this
3. ONE complete OS from kernel to other stuff
4. You can learn a lot of what's going on INSIDE in an OS usage point of view
5. Dedicated developers and volunteers..

What more?

it is the best!


----------



## jemate18 (Mar 20, 2009)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> I didn't notice anyone saying this but, to be sure, FreeBSD is not Linux.




Yeah I also noticed it...... I dont know the reason why many people associate non-windows OS to be Linux.... Well in fact, there are a lot more...


----------



## SPlissken (Mar 20, 2009)

Real Unix child


----------



## mdg583 (Mar 28, 2009)

If you are reasonable in your expectations, freebsd is very usable and not too much of a hassle, once you learn a lot of the basics of the system. If you constantly try to push it (install the latest software, do major changes to your system to fix minor problems) it can become a major hassle. Installing/upgrading software _can_ take a very, very long time. (e.g. 12 hours), depending on how fast your machine is. Eventually that gets very frustrating.

I find that there is almost always one or two things I can't get working - right now it is the gnome terminal and the flash plugin.

It won't replace everything about Windows - there isn't very much commercial software that runs on freebsd. That means you have to use free software - which you will probably have experienced in linux.

I like freebsd as a desktop, quite a bit more than linux. But this depends what you intend to do with it. If you just want a good OS that is not Windows, I don't think freebsd is the right choice. You pretty much have to enjoy tweaking, 'hacking', maybe developing etc., at least a little bit. I am pretty sure most of the significant advantages of freebsd are in those areas anyway.


----------



## fronclynne (Mar 29, 2009)

*I like to cook my own food, too*



			
				mdg583 said:
			
		

> I like freebsd as a desktop, quite a bit more than linux.


I was having this discussion with my Ubunutu-using S.O., and my preference for FreeBSD comes down to its *non*-desktop nature.  I explicily do not need/want
a graphical, menu-based package manager
radio-buttoned network configuration
3D effects
dying moose/cat/garden-hose sounds when I start my computer desktop
a unified, themed desktop
a "desktop" (such as it is) at all, actually
But I stopped liking integration after wfw3.11 and mac system 7.


----------



## oliverh (Mar 29, 2009)

>to its non-desktop nature

It's just K.I.S.S. and you can build whatever you want upon it.


----------



## Brandybuck (Mar 30, 2009)

Looking through your list, I want all of them to some degree or another. But they should not be mandatory. If you don't want a GUI you don't need a GUI.


----------



## fieldse (Apr 4, 2009)

*To all your replies:*

First, let me say thank you all for the intelligent and well-thought out responses. 




			
				MG said:
			
		

> I actually don't know what's so great about FreeBSD. It just feels logical, I think.



@ MG:  I definitely can relate to that.  I have always had an annoying vague impression of a seemingly random and inconsistent directory structure with other OS's, even knowing very little about them. 



			
				drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> I didn't notice anyone saying this but, to be sure, FreeBSD is not Linux.



Understood.  I'm sure that he (previously mentioned friend) is well aware of this fact, though it *was* an implication in the wording.  I can see that this is the primary "pet peeve" for FreeBSD. You must admit that Linux and FreeBSD are *much* closer cousins than the others.  And I don't think "all non-windows OS's are Linux", certainly.



			
				oliverh said:
			
		

> Quality and experience since some decades: http://www.oreilly.de/catalog/opensources/book/kirkmck.html



@Oliverh - Very cool, great article!




			
				jemate18 said:
			
		

> FreeBSD is one of the GREATEST OS for me...
> ...
> 5. Dedicated developers and volunteers..



@jemate18:  Dedicated / knowledgeable community - This one seems like an important factor.




			
				fronclynne said:
			
		

> ... my preference for FreeBSD comes down to its *non*-desktop nature.



Well, to be a bit of a difficult prick here:  It seems that the "desktop" nature is really a thing of the choice in window manager, not the OS.  If you wanted to, you could run a system entirely from command-line, but ... =)  

But I do agree with you.  It's one thing of which I have surely come to appreciate the value during my brief venture with Linux already - how much is you really learn by necessity after leaving the Windows "nest". 




			
				fronclynne said:
			
		

> I explicily do not need/want
> 
> ...
> dying moose/cat/garden-hose sounds when I start my computer desktop
> a unified, themed desktop



LOL!  Aha hahaa... Yeah... Good ol' Ubuntu. 

So - 
*Reactions*: 

 It does sound like FreeBSD has a much steeper learning curve, and requires a lot more knowledge to effectively operate. IE, never going to be a good machine for your mom & pop. 
 It seems that there is serious limitations on access to some applications. 
 It sounds like FreeBSD is *much* smaller in its share of operating systems across the globe than even many linux distributions, and therefore seems like it is going to be very limited in recognition by outside developers. 
 While the FreeBSD community (may) be relatively tiny, it also sounds like there is a stronger community, and perhaps the best quality of knowledge among users, that there is to be found. 
 It sounds like it excels in stability/speed/resource usage moreso than any other OS I've heard about. 
 It sounds like this is not going to be the choice for someone who needs a functional operating system tomorrow.
 It does sound like this is the OS for someone who perhaps works at a computer, and has the time/inclination for tweaking / customizing.

On target, mostly?


----------



## vermaden (Apr 4, 2009)

fieldse said:
			
		

> On target, mostly?


Mostly, there are also areas where Linux is nowhere near to FreeBSD sollutions, like sound for example.

On Linux you got ALSA and got problems with OSS apps, now you gos ALSA wich PulseAudio and have problems with PulseAudio, CPU usage, skipping sound, high CPU usage etc.

On FreeBSD you have live in kernel mixing of up to 256 OSS channels, so you can run arts, esound along with pulseaudio without ANY problems or slowdowns.

In short words FreeBSD's implementation is currently the best possible on ALL UNIX (and Linux) systems.


----------



## halplus (Jul 15, 2009)

Hi:

You have all said good things about the OS. But i would like to express some things I really hate. Why? Well becausse saying what is bad will make it better.

Hardware support is not very good but almost everybody knows that given the M$ pressure to force that.

When the operating system is not properly rebooted it usually corrupts a partition(slice) and when the partition is corrupt it will be unable to fix it during boot unless you reboot in single user mode or if is not the root you forcedly unmount it. And that really sucks. Specially when you have to call the hosting company and request the operation because it can't be done remotely. I beleive the OS should automatically correct that during boot or at least be able to be configured like that. Why have a human do what a computer can do? There is no point.

Versions are dropped too quickly. That's exactly one of the things I hate most about linux. Too quick development is bad. For instance microsoft keeps and mantains operating system versions for at least 2 years (minimal). They bring new stuff but still mantain versions a loong time. That permits persons to learn the new OS and software companies to get their software supported a longer time without spending heavy cash into new debug/development cycle for a new OS. And updates are really very very easy in windows. So maintenace costs are really interesting compared to other operating systems. Something i beleive FreeBSD should learn.


----------



## phoenix (Jul 15, 2009)

halplus said:
			
		

> When the operating system is not properly rebooted it usually corrupts a partition(slice) and when the partition is corrupt it will be unable to fix it during boot unless you reboot in single user mode or if is not the root you forcedly unmount it. And that really sucks. Specially when you have to call the hosting company and request the operation because it can't be done remotely. I beleive the OS should automatically correct that during boot or at least be able to be configured like that. Why have a human do what a computer can do? There is no point.



There are ways to mitigate this, and to make it so that only extreme errors require human intervention.

Have a look at gjournal(8) which can remove the need for fsck at boot.

Have a look at */etc/defaults/rc.conf* for the fsck_y_enable option, which will auto-correct most errors during the automatic fsck at boot.

Have a look at */etc/defaults/rc.conf* for the background_fsck option which will take a snapshot of the corrupt filesystem, and run the fsck on that snapshot in the background while the system continues booting.

There's also ZFS, which removes a lot of the above issues.  In FreeBSD 8.0, it'll be bootable as well.  If you have a problem in ZFS that requires manual intervention, it's usually due to hardware.  



> Versions are dropped too quickly. That's exactly one of the things I hate most about linux. Too quick development is bad. For instance microsoft keeps and mantains operating system versions for at least 2 years (minimal). They bring new stuff but still mantain versions a long time. That permits persons to learn the new OS and software companies to get their software supported a longer time without spending heavy cash into new debug/development cycle for a new OS. And updates are really very very easy in windows. So maintenace costs are really interesting compared to other operating systems. Something i beleive FreeBSD should learn.



Doing some research into this before complaining would be beneficial.  

Start here.  You'll find that everything you wrote above is already done.


----------



## phoenix (Jul 15, 2009)

fieldse said:
			
		

> *Reactions*:
> 
> It does sound like FreeBSD has a much steeper learning curve, and requires a lot more knowledge to effectively operate. IE, never going to be a good machine for your mom & pop.



FreeBSD works best for those not afraid of a challenge, those who like to learn new things, and those who don't mind firing up a text editor to configure things.  The return on investment for this is that you learn a lot more about how the OS works, and how to fix it when it breaks.



> It sounds like FreeBSD is *much* smaller in its share of operating systems across the globe than even many linux distributions, and therefore seems like it is going to be very limited in recognition by outside developers.



It all depends on where you look.    Baraccuda's spam filtering appliances all run FreeBSD under the hood.  IronPort's spam filtering appliances all run FreeBSD under the hood.  Juniper Networks routers all run FreeBSD under the hood.  One of the big managed wireless providers uses FreeBSD under the hood as well, except I can't remember which one, now.  There are a lot of devices out there running BSD (whether Free, Open, Net, or DFly).

In the server rooms, as well, there's a large number of FreeBSD boxes out there.

On the desktop, though, FreeBSD isn't known or used nearly as much as RedHat, SuSE, *buntu, Debian, etc.



> It sounds like this is not going to be the choice for someone who needs a functional operating system tomorrow.
> It does sound like this is the OS for someone who perhaps works at a computer, and has the time/inclination for tweaking / customizing.



Define "functional".    You can have a fully functional KDE 4 desktop up and running in a couple of hours (install the base OS from CD, configure networking, *pkg_add -r kde4*, configure X, and you're done).

Alternatively, one can grab a PC-BSD install CD, and have a working X desktop up and running even quicker.  Then you can either use the PC-BSD apps and never even know you are running FreeBSD.  Or you can drop to a shell and muck around with the innards just like a normal FreeBSD install.


----------



## johnblue (Jul 15, 2009)

fieldse said:
			
		

> .. and I enjoy being "sold" on something good.


I enjoy process of discovery and thinking for myself.


----------



## danger@ (Jul 15, 2009)

phoenix said:
			
		

> Doing some research into this before complaining would be beneficial.
> 
> Start here.  You'll find that everything you wrote above is already done.



And continue with http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/handbook/updating-upgrading-freebsdupdate.html.


----------



## Eponasoft (Jul 16, 2009)

The thing that I like the best about FreeBSD is that it is both unified and liberal at the same time. Features that need to be standardized are just that (like pkg_add), but yet there's still tons of things to choose for yourself. Windows has the standardization but lacks the choice, and Linux has the choice but lacks the standardization (since there are so many distros and every one seems to have their own 'best way' of doing things). FreeBSD takes some time to get used to (even from a Linux background), but once you get the hang of it, you'll wonder how you survived without it.


----------



## fronclynne (Jul 16, 2009)

*I'm a difficult prick: just ask my exes.*



			
				fieldse said:
			
		

> Well, to be a bit of a difficult prick here:  It seems that the "desktop" nature is really a thing of the choice in window manager, not the OS.  If you wanted to, you could run a system entirely from command-line, but ...


With FreeBSD, you can easily and quickly install KDE, Gnome, XFCE, or whatever you want.

With most of the Linux distros I've tried (excepting Slackware, Gentoo, and Arch) you have to *de-*install whatever the default tries to stick you with if you don't like it.

I'm not going to argue "better/worse" here, but I know which I prefer.


----------



## jdr (Jul 16, 2009)

nobody mentioned beastie!! i use it cause it does what i need, run a www server at work, and a development www server at home.


----------



## rliegh (Jul 17, 2009)

I'll start with the down-sides: 
1)No wireless drivers for my laptop
2)Network appears slower on 7.2/i386 than it should (though I'm trying to look into what's causing this; but FreeBSD is the only OS I'm having problems with)
3)FreeBSD is ignored by third party application developers (not FreeBSD's fault, but it's a PITA to deal with)


As far as what I like about FreeBSD, it's the polar opposite of Solaris, Vista and (to some degree) Ubuntu in terms of system requirements. I'm running GNOME, a media player, xchat and 5 firefox tabs and yet according to the system monitor all of that only uses 212 megs. My desktop has 2 gigs of ram and I can run a 768 meg Vista virtual machine in VirtualBox and still have ~800 megs left over if I need it. 

There aren't any other systems I'm aware of that gives me so much functionality at such little cost.

I have convenient access to the source code for the entire system in /usr/src. Getting the source tree for an entire Linux system is an incredible PITA (ironic given the "free software" mindset of Linux's GNU advocates). 

Performance; file operations appear (I say 'appear' b/c I have done no benchmarks) faster under FreeBSD than under Linux.

So, FreeBSD provides a modern desktop experience for very little cost in terms of system resources -that's what brings me back to it.


----------



## mwatkins (Jul 17, 2009)

If you will be running *nix desktop(s) AND file servers, with FreeBSD you can comfortably run both. Linux and FreeBSD are sufficiently different that if possible, if you have to manage remote or local file servers *and* run a *nix desktop, it is nice to do both on the same OS.

From a daily usage perspective this shows up mostly in file system hierarchy differences with FreeBSD arguably being far more logical.

Sure, you can use Linux for both. Or Windows. The arguments for or against either are stated already or easily discovered.

But at least you can configure your desktop under FreeBSD; yes, there are the odd driver issues to be aware of but being aware of these before you invest in hardware will save you any grief. Yes, there are a few common apps which either aren't available on FreeBSD or need to be run in Linux mode. But for someone heading down a systems admin path it is likely there are no show stoppers preventing adopting FreeBSD for your desktop OS.

For a file server / application server / database server perspective, I would pick FreeBSD without any hesitiation except for one area:

If you are destined to become a "control panel" user (i.e. to help automate the reselling of shared or other types of internet hosting), think carefully about this. While the scene is changing rapidly of late, many control panel vendors provide either no, or substandard, support for FreeBSD. I do believe this will change. I started down this road when there were few choices and in our case we ended up writing our own code to do the job.

But I would still head down that path again, and I have decent experience with Linux and FreeBSD to make that informed choice. The sorts of issues you commonly run into with specialized internet hosting are a) attacks (pf is a superior firewall to the common Linux solutions) and b) security issues. Jails is a useful tool in this regard. From my perspective the FreeBSD ports system is also superior to the package management solutions on other OS's. I also don't much like the "backporting" which goes on in certain key Linux distributions rather than releasing say OpenSSH as version 5.2 they'll take as patches key changes, maybe all - who knows - and apply them to OpenSSH 4.x. It feels untidy to me, and FreeBSD tends to be a daemon (pun intended) for tidyness.

With FreeBSD 8 offering native Xen guest OS compatibility I expect we'll see more virtual server providers offering FreeBSD and thus more FreeBSD users overall.

No, you wouldn't typically plop down FreeBSD desktops in front of your parents (unless you are live-in technical support) or for a whole school district full of kids (Phoenix can speak to that one) but you would put a FreeBSD file server(s) / router(s) / db server(s) in the shop / basement / school district / parents house to manage a whole swack of Linux desktops for less technical users.

Bottom line: it is a high quality operating system that you won't go wrong with if you are adept at learning new things, and any knowledge you gain will still be eminently useful on other *nix OS's.


----------



## DrJ (Jul 18, 2009)

mwatkins said:
			
		

> No, you wouldn't plop down FreeBSD desktops in front of your parents (unless you are live-in technical support)



I get so very tired of this line.  This grandpa has no issues at all with FreeBSD desktops (I've been using them since the 4.x days) and I need no technical support from the young'uns.  It helps, I suppose, that I've used BSD for over 25 years, but it just is not that hard.

And no, I'm not a programmer any more.


----------



## mwatkins (Jul 18, 2009)

Irony-in-action quote of the day:



			
				DrJ said:
			
		

> I get so very tired of this line.  This grandpa has no issues at all with FreeBSD desktops (I've been using them since the 4.x days) and I need no technical support from the young'uns.  *It helps, I suppose, that I've used BSD for over 25 years*, but it just is not that hard.



Ya think?

At any rate, I stand by my line.

I'm no whipper-snapper either - closing in on 30 years in the IT industry in one form or another. My kids are not yet at the point where I need to worry or look forward to be called gramps. 

I too run BSD on the desktop (although lately I cheat by accessing my dwm workspaces via XMing on Windows - its a handy environment for the work I am doing these days). I know it is not that "hard".

But aside from my own friends who came out of the Unix industry (I worked for Data General myself) who may now be "grandpas", I don't know any personally that would enjoy the mental challenge of adopting an entirely foreign (to them) OS that requires some assembly. Nor do I know any gramps or grannies that I would plunk down a BSD desktop unless I knew they had someone to step in when things inevitably go wrong or they want to know why the latest bridge or bowling tournament software they bought doesn't work.

That isn't so much a comment on BSD or X but on the availability of a helping-hand - be it from a neighbour or from some geek-on-the-go for hire - who will have some Unix experience. The odds do not favour this.

I'm loathe to recommend Windows too but at least there is more likely to be someone who might ride to the rescue for poor ol' gramps. I don't need any more people to support, thus I want gramps to run something that someone near him can support. In this case grandma will look after many of his needs. 

Whatever is recommended to these folks has to at least:

a) reliably boot
b) provide some means of rescue if it doesn't, often by someone who will be brought in to do the job for free or for hire, by gramps or grandma who may live in other locations
c) auto-update in some sane manner with security as a prime objective. The net is a dangerous place.
d) run the software they are likely to want/need and deal with the files their buddies will be mailing to them. A typical active gramps might serve as a volunteer somewhere, get meeting minutes or spreadsheets (usually in MS formats), lots of pics from the kids and friends. If they are like mine, they'll be big football fans and watch their alma mater over the internet using a variety of tools, some of which are custom to their school of choice. Granny is keen on doing basic DTP work, churning out cards and function menus and awards and photoshopping her pic collection and playing a number of games to keep mental acuity up; meanwhile gramps is still running FirstChoice in a DOS window because it is the only application he can get his mind around aside from some limited ability with the browser.

*You *can do most of these things, perhaps all of these things by virtualizing Windows (oh boy, something else to break for poor granny and gramps); and *I *can do these things too. 

But *they *can't, and the vast majority of elderly folks are going to fall in that grouping as well as 40 and 50 year olds, most of which are barely able to manage their Windows boxen.

Thus unless someone like you or I are willing to configure and manage this setup over the years, I would not recommend a BSD desktop nor even a Linux desktop. Maybe an Ubuntu or PC BSD might change my mind sooner or later, but the ready availability of a helping hand is going to be an issue for *nix on the desktop of the non-professional / non-geek user for some time.


----------



## DrJ (Jul 18, 2009)

mwatkins said:
			
		

> But aside from my own friends who came out of the Unix industry ... , I don't know any personally that would enjoy the mental challenge of adopting an entirely foreign (to them) OS that requires some assembly.



But this is not age-related -- it deals with technical interests.  Scientists or engineers from my era could do it too if they so chose.  Some use "alternative" operating systems; most don't want to for the usual reasons, but it that is their choice.

And while computers are much more part of the lives of the younger generation these days, that does not equate with an interest in computers or software guts.  My daughter and son-in-law would need support to move from their Macs (and I set up their networking).



> If they are like mine, they'll be big football fans and watch their alma mater over the internet ... Granny is keen on doing basic DTP work, churning out cards and function menus and awards and photoshopping her pic collection and playing a number of games to keep mental acuity up ...



Being a grandparent does not mean that one is not working and using computers as a tool in that capacity.  Heck, *my* father, who is in his late 80s, still is active in doing new things on the computer (mainly in sophisticated image processing).

I'll stop here and not pull the thread further off topic.


----------



## lm8 (Jul 18, 2009)

halplus said:
			
		

> And updates are really very very easy in windows. So maintenace costs are really interesting compared to other operating systems. Something i beleive FreeBSD should learn.



I'm still learning the ins and outs, but so far, Microsoft definitely seems easier to update if you don't have Internet access.  It might be a nuisance to find the service packs at their site, but you can download on any operating system, burn to disk and sneaker net to your Windows box if it's not connected to the Internet to update.  Haven't seen a good equivalent on FreeBSD other than reinstalling a new release on DVD from scratch.  I think that would mean rebuilding and recustomizing everything you've installed or changed since the last version of FreeBSD was installed, which could mean a lot of work.  If there are good sneaker net solutions for updating a FreeBSD system, I would love to hear them.

The other negative, I just can't seem to get used to the ports/packages system.  I've read nothing but good about it, but I'm just not partial to the system.  I tried Slackware before trying FreeBSD and it's much more lenient on what it allows you to install.  Personally, I'd rather be able to install something that doesn't work, than not be able to install something that does, but that's just my preference.  There were something I was trying to install packages for on FreeBSD and it was complaining I needed Python before I could install.  They were C/C++ programs that don't need Python to run, so I'm mystified as to why it would be a prerequisite.  Maybe it's needed to compile, but I've built the same applications without it.  Also, the ports makefiles may be great for the end user, but I haven't seen an easy way for a programmer to automate creation of them.  I can automate creation of a SlackBuild script or a mingwport script.  If I need to build a lot of programs not in ports, it seems rather time consuming to build and rebuild makefiles until they're just right, when I really just want to get the software built and installed once as quickly as possible and have a way to remove if needed later.

On the plus side, I really prefer the FreeBSD licensing over Microsoft and other Open Source operating systems.

The thing that really sold me on FreeBSD for my laptop was when it was able to play a DVD full screen.  It worked fine in Windows ME on the same machine, but I've tried 3 variants of Linux and not one could do the same.  I wanted an up-to-date operating system, but one that would still run well on low resources.  Both Windows and Linux can't give you both.  FreeBSD delivers.


----------



## mwatkins (Jul 19, 2009)

DrJ said:
			
		

> But this is not age-related -- it deals with technical interests.



I buy that.

And I also am selling the point that, demographically speaking, there are few 70 and 80 year olds that had any significant computer experience when they were working and what they have had access to in their retirement has mostly been MS Dos and MS Windows. I suppose I could have qualified my remark and said "I wouldn't normally put a technical desktop in front of granny or grampa" and added "unless they are part of the select group of 0.001% if all septo and octo generians with a suitable level of technical aptitude and interest". 

Sure, there are a great many retirees who are now also computer users, hobbyists and more. That changes the context as far as I'm concerned - these are not so much granny or gramps but at least are *possible* technical desktop users, yet demographically speaking I bet I'm on solid ground as assuming this group is largely still not likely to be technical desktop users.


----------



## oliverh (Jul 24, 2009)

mwatkins said:
			
		

> Irony-in-action quote of the day:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's just wild guess. You don't have any numbers, only the widespread assumption of elderly people barely able to think anymore. I do know many people, even 60 years old, able to cope with Apple, Windows and sometimes Linux and I'm not talking of using a browser or mail, they do really advanced stuff. Maybe exceptions, but then where is the proof to your saying?


----------



## mwatkins (Jul 26, 2009)

oliverh said:
			
		

> That's just wild guess. You don't have any numbers, only the widespread assumption of elderly people barely able to think anymore.



Ah, but that's not the assumption that I am making. The point I'm making relies on observation of computer users in general, a large percentage of which each year run unsecured, infected, exploited because they do not know any better and are not interested - until something untoward happens to them - in changing that status.

True, I did note that users over a certain age have had less exposure computers during their working career than say the current crop of 20 and 30 somethings.

I'm also making an assumption about user tendencies in general, but that is an informed opinion. Having been involved in IT for more than 25 years now, in various roles and levels of responsibility ranging from the bottom rung to the strategic end of the ladder, I have much more than assumptions to go on when it comes to sizing up users or our industry.

We can also extrapolate the experiences witnessed here on forums.freebsd.org and others -- even self acknowledged geeks with some Linux experience, but apparently precious little systems management or X knowledge, frequently get tripped up once they walk away from their self-contained X / desktop package world. 

There are a lot of moving parts in an X / graphical desktop environment sitting on *nix. Very few people, as compared to the population at large, will make that journey on their own. There is no supposition involved in making that assertion.

FreeBSD is my OS of choice but I still would not place it on my mother's computer (75, weak computer skills) or my wife's mother's computer (about the same age, fairly strong computer skills but not "system management" skills). My father in law - a geo engineer - nope. First Choice on DOS is his preferred environment. I would not even put a more GUI friendly *nix on their machines because then I'd become the sole support avenue instead of sharing the load with the other rellies, all but one of which in my extended family are Windows users. The amateur astronomer enjoys Linux. Sometimes.

Ensuring there are sufficient support options is a key part of systems management I'm sure you'll agree.


----------



## desnudopenguino (Jul 28, 2009)

It does what I want it to do, without having to do 300 other things.  You can install just the minimal stuff to run, or you can install everything including the source code to build the kernel & the environment.  This is very nice when customizing an install for whatever reason.

Jails are amazing.  I keep my different servers separated but on one host & have no problems.

the Ports/Packages are sweet.  building the apps from source or installing the package depending on how big it is & everything makes installing applications very easy & you don't have to surf all over the internet to get the applications.  But you can also install from source without using ports, if you really want to.

The ability to only need to be familiar with one OS to be able to have desktop, server, firewall, etc... functionality run well.

The community/documentation is awesome.  The online manual(s), man pages, mailing lists, forums, etc... are very helpful & centralized.  There isn't a bunch of misinformation floating around, and everyone's (at least most people) are peaceful and willing to help, not flame & troll.  Most other OS's/computer information I use a google search instead of searching specific docs or forums, but when there's something with FreeBSD I'm researching, I know where to look, and it saves a lot of time!

That's what's so great about FreeBSD!


----------



## dennylin93 (Jul 29, 2009)

Perhaps one of the best things about FreeBSD is the Handbook. It covers everything that a new user should learn. Much better than documentation for Linux that I have seen.

I started using FreeBSD around a year ago, and I have learned much more about the internals and other stuff than I have from using M$ Windows. You can say that it's fully customizable. When something goes wrong, check the logs. Much more informative than the error messages that pop up in Windows.

The Ports is something that nearly every FreeBSD user uses. Contains all the software that's needed. It's also separate from the base system, so they're still usable after an upgrade.


----------



## cerulean (Jul 31, 2009)

Here are the things I really enjoy about FreeBSD (these may or may not be part of other systems):

1. Multi-year uptimes. I had an active FreeBSD server online for over 812 days. It was forced offline due to an extended, scheduled power outage. I can't think of a time where one of my FreeBSD servers crashed that wasn't related to hardware. (and for the record, the server mentioned managed mail, web sites, NAT, firewall, DNS, spam scanning, virus scanning, network monitoring, FTP, SSH, squid proxy, file services and more.. every day).

2. Swapping hard drives. New hardware? Ok .. pull a hard drive from the old server, pop it in the new server .. do some minor system reconfig (usually just the network interfaces) and your back up and running. No messy reinstalls, data migrations or other non-sense.

3. PF. I *love* PF. Great firewall, very logical, very easy to manage. 

4. Logical layout. I really enjoy having everything on the system so organized and logical. I really enjoy the confidence of knowing how the system operates (I still find myself scratching my head on basic bootup issues with Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X when they occur)

5. Consistency. I can install a port (application) and have a high degree of confidence on knowing where it installed files. 

6. Ports. Ports are wonderful. Port auditing, port management, port upgrading, etc. Its great. I believe all of my servers run all their software from the ports system which makes management very centralized. 

7. Documentation. I have found so many resources on FreeBSD that I can grok. It seems like other systems either have documentation that is too easy or way too complex. For some reason FreeBSD docs (handbook, books about FreeBSD, blogs, various online resources, etc) just seem to generally resonate with me.

8. Reboots. There is just so much you can do without having to reboot (ie I think everything except possibly setting up a software RAID and loading a new kernel .. and maybe those too). 

9. Minimal downtime. I find with FreeBSD, I'm able to address issues very quickly and keep availability very high. For example, the server mentioned in #1 above I *think* had total downtime of *maybe* 8 hours over the course of 5 years... thats 99.99% availability (5 hours of that was the scheduled downtime during the power outage). This is through hardware upgrades, hard drive upgrades, software updates and system updates.

10. Enjoyment. I just enjoy using FreeBSD. Out of all the operating systems I currently use (various flavors of windows, mac os x, linux, solaris), FreeBSD is the only one I really *enjoy* using.


----------



## copypaiste (Jul 31, 2009)

A simple example just to put my 2c into the tread.  It took me the whole day to set up apache+php+cgi+mysql+mrtg on Solaris (had to get through the perl and cc incompatibilities hell), but I'm sure I can get all these up'n'running under FreeBSD in a 30 mins or so, using nice and beautiful ports system.

@cerulean: ditto what you've said. High five, man.


----------



## MG (Jul 31, 2009)

DrJ said:
			
		

> I get so very tired of this line.  This grandpa has no issues at all with FreeBSD desktops (I've been using them since the 4.x days) and I need no technical support from the young'uns.  It helps, I suppose, that I've used BSD for over 25 years, but it just is not that hard.
> 
> And no, I'm not a programmer any more.



Lol. My dad likes FreeBSD for surfing, keeping his music collection and OpenOffice. He's still running 5.2, but no need to update.
A few weeks ago I caught him reading a manpage on how to add a user.

But I think you both are just members of the very small group of people not becoming psychotic when there's no start button visible.


----------



## rbelk (Jul 31, 2009)

> But I think you both are just members of the very small group of people not becoming psychotic when there's no start button visible.



MG, I'm kinda offended with that remark. I was using 8" floppy disks, swapping out data reel tapes, and punching cards before you were a gleam in you daddy's eye. Now that's psychotic :e:e:e, just joking OK.

I was broke in good using CP/M, UNIX, and MVS in the late 70's and early 80's. Yes I have done batch on mainframes with JCL and punch cards. Man, I feeeelllll old!


----------



## Eponasoft (Jul 31, 2009)

I have actually been considering trashing Windows XP on my mother-in-law's computer and installing FreeBSD instead.  Since she always manages to hose her Windows install with tons of spyware, viruses, and other annoying BS, I think she would have a very hard time breaking her computer with FreeBSD. Installing KDE3, she wouldn't really know the difference anyways.  She just wouldn't be able to run all the malicious crap that people send her in emails, so there would be no chance of her ever infecting her system and trying to infect the other systems on the network. And that's one of the biggest reasons I think FreeBSD is so great...the casual malware writers tend to stay far away, so there are very, very few things that will affect the system, and virtually all of what there is require root access or some way to elevate privileges.


----------



## DrJ (Jul 31, 2009)

rbelk said:
			
		

> I was broke in good using CP/M, UNIX, and MVS in the late 70's and early 80's. Yes I have done batch on mainframes with JCL and punch cards. Man, I feeeelllll old!



Me too, but I started earlier, and can include VM/CMS, VMS and RTE/A.  I still have my first computer (dual 8" floppies and MP/M 8-16!) that predates the original IBM PC.


----------



## aragon (Aug 1, 2009)

Not sure this has been mentioned, but something I really like about FreeBSD is their approach to security fixes.  Security fixes aren't issued as version upgrades, they're issued as the bare minimum of a patch file that fixes only the problem and changes nothing else.

In many other OSes, a security fix is issued as a version upgrade.  In a production environment where a high demand service may have been running for years, upgrading versions to fix urgent security holes is simply not an option.  Version upgrades inevitably change behaviour which is something that can't just be rolled out without prior testing to ensure it doesn't effect the service adversely.


----------



## Alt (Aug 7, 2009)

In my opinion, this is most important differences:
- License diffs. This go far and change many things, e.g. software porting problems, like some drivers and flash plugin. The vendors dont want to distribute in bsd license, cus of competition from another vendors.
- Ideology diffs. Linux is kernel; *bsd is an OS. Both largely use gnu software.
- Freebsd develops kernel+contrib; linux - only kernel; They concentrate on kernel and PR it while other developers like gnu/openoffice/etc work for their honour in some sense..
- There is lots of linux users. Many of them have suffient skills to join develop, and they do so. Of course, this have good sides and bad sides.

I think freebsd have only one weakness - too small developers community, cause of insufficient PR.

p.s. Sorry for my terrible English.


----------



## dennylin93 (Aug 7, 2009)

It's quite true that FreeBSD has less developers than Linux. However, more doesn't necessarily mean good. FreeBSD has the ports tree and ZFS support while OpenBSD has PF and OpenSSH. The developers still produce excellent stuff.


----------



## Sfynx (Aug 8, 2009)

aragon said:
			
		

> Not sure this has been mentioned, but something I really like about FreeBSD is their approach to security fixes.  Security fixes aren't issued as version upgrades, they're issued as the bare minimum of a patch file that fixes only the problem and changes nothing else.
> 
> In many other OSes, a security fix is issued as a version upgrade.  In a production environment where a high demand service may have been running for years, upgrading versions to fix urgent security holes is simply not an option.  Version upgrades inevitably change behaviour which is something that can't just be rolled out without prior testing to ensure it doesn't effect the service adversely.



Too bad this does not hold for the Ports system (AFAIK), that one is behaving as a bleeding edge repository without some sort of 'stable' branch.


----------



## MG (Aug 8, 2009)

Sfynx said:
			
		

> Too bad this does not hold for the Ports system (AFAIK), that one is behaving as a bleeding edge repository without some sort of 'stable' branch.



ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/ports-current/ports.tar.gz
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/ports-stable/ports.tar.gz

These files are identical now, but I have them being different a while ago.
Maybe it is somehow related to the current code-freeze for the 8.0 release.


----------



## brd@ (Aug 9, 2009)

The ports collection is always the same for any version of FreeBSD because it just that much easier. Maintaining different branches for 20545 ports would be a ton more work than is already done. Like 10x more work, so that is why when people complain about there only being one branch of the ports tree they aren't really listened to. Having been a ports maintainer in the past I don't really see the problem. I have been using ports since I started with FreeBSD in 2001 and haven't really had any serious problems. Things may break but it seems as fast as they do they are fixed. The portmgr team has builds running all the time and thanks to the new QAT (QA Tinderbox) builds are kicked off after a port change almost right away to make sure it builds correctly. Though, bugs in the software like something not working like it should that go beyond something that can be tested by automated builds are not caught. These communities often rely on people reporting the bugs to them. So always remember the code of the open source community and help report bugs and work with the developers. Even if that means going to the KDE bugs database and reporting these bugs upstream.

And remember we always need people going through our own PR (Problem Report) database and helping us verify the bugs are real and seeing if they still exist for some of the older bugs. We have a long way to go with our PR database, but there is activity and more and more people are getting involved and helping us triage the bugs as they come in so we can get a handle on them. If you want to help you can either sign up for the freebsd-bugs mailing list or use the web interface. Find one that looks like something you could test. Follow the URL at the bottom of the email to that PR in the GNATs DB. Once you think you have tested and verified that the bug is or is not valid, you can hit the "Submit Followup" link at the bottom of the bug to email a reply and say so. Note you might want to use an alias email just for this purpose since it will make the email address you use public for all the world to see.

As one of the earlier posts in this thread mentioned, work is also going on towards getting us a better PR system that will work better for our flow. I


----------

