# Linux or FreeBSD



## VJro (Jul 8, 2022)

Hi all, I want to ask your advice! I have always worked with Windows, but now I decided to learn Linux or FreeBSD. I read that FreeBSD is faster, can you please tell me what are the main differences between these operating systems?


----------



## SirDice (Jul 8, 2022)

VJro said:


> but now I decided to learn Linux or FreeBSD.


Why don't you learn about _both_? 



VJro said:


> I read that FreeBSD is faster


In certain cases, sure. Other cases, not so much. 



VJro said:


> can you please tell me what are the main differences between these operating systems?


Linux is a _kernel_. It's the various distributions that cobble together parts from various other sources (the GNU project for example) to get something that resembles a complete OS. FreeBSD is a _complete_ OS. The other big difference is that the source code of FreeBSD can be traced back all the way to the original Bell labs/AT&T UNIX. The Linux kernel was written from scratch by Linus to be UNIX-like. 





__





						bsd-family-tree « misc « share - src - FreeBSD source tree
					






					cgit.freebsd.org


----------



## CuatroTorres (Jul 8, 2022)

If you plan to install it on your machine, hardware compatibility may be a factor in your choice. You don't want to learn a system that you can't make work.


----------



## SirDice (Jul 8, 2022)

As he's used to Windows I would recommend VirtualBox or Windows' own Hyper-V to set up various VMs. Then you can experiment without risking your current Windows installation. Heck you could install a dozen different Linux distributions, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and anything else you might want to learn about.


----------



## Deleted member 67862 (Jul 8, 2022)

VJro said:


> Hi all, I want to ask your advice! I have always worked with Windows, but now I decided to learn Linux or FreeBSD. I read that FreeBSD is faster, can you please tell me what are the main differences between these operating systems?


As SirDice said, Linux is just a kernel (the backbone of an OS) that is usually distributed with GNU utilities on top (known as GNU/Linux) and with different package management systems in "distros" such as Ubuntu, Fedora, Void etc. FreeBSD and other *BSD operating systems develop the kernel and utilities all together.

FreeBSD has better sound, one of the reasons I switched is because its sound system doesn't constantly pop with my Razer Kraken headphones but GNU/Linux does for whatever reason. FreeBSD also makes building from source (so you can have your own build options) incredibly easy with the Ports Collection, which is comparable to Gentoo's Portage or Void's xbps-src. Documentation on Linux is almost embarrassingly bad compared to FreeBSD, which has every aspect of the base system documented in a handbook. FreeBSD has binary compatibility with Linux applications, in other words you can trick a Linux application into running under the FreeBSD kernel, but not everything works without a headache.

On the other hand, Linux is backed by a much larger community and Linux will run on nearly every device with little to no issues. FreeBSD's kernel is not as robust so it will not be a fun experience depending on your hardware. I had far worse luck running FreeBSD on a laptop than a desktop. Graphics drivers are based on the ones from Linux, and may give worse performance than what you get on Linux.


----------



## Profighost (Jul 8, 2022)

maybe this article may answer most of your questions:
As a core difference between FreeBSD and Linux I also recommend to read about licenses (FreeBSD license <-> GPL).
So the answer to "What to chose" also depends on your needs.
What do you want to do?









						Explaining BSD
					

Brief explanation about BSD




					docs.freebsd.org
				




Since this question(s) are not so uncommon some is already written about it e.g. here:









						FreeBSD Documentation Portal
					

FreeBSD Documentation Portal




					docs.freebsd.org
				




Personal quick answer
If you want/prefer/expect something turnkey with fully automated set-up desktop environment, especially feel a bit more like Windows, you'd better look for a Linux-Distri such as Ubuntu.
If the main target is to play games, less experienced users may find it easier to install games under some popular Linux distri.

In FreeBSD you need to dig into a bit.
I personally find most things are much easier to install under FreeBSD as under Linux, but FreeBSD is very modular (neither to be ment good nor worse).
You just have to decide what you all need, install and in most cases configure it. (98% you'll get from the HB and documentation, the rest could be duckduckgoed or answered here.)

It's always the question ready vs. effort.
What Do you want?
If you're willing to dig into it, learn the system, not use it only, I'd recommend FreeBSD.
With a bit effort you'll receive a very reliable, stable system, absolutely tailored the way you like it - _your_ system


----------



## zirias@ (Jul 8, 2022)

Cool, another thread where I can throw my personal opinion (why *I* prefer FreeBSD) at: https://sekrit.de/webdocs/freebsd/advocacy.html

But as SirDice said: best have a look at both. How else should you be able to decide, after all?


----------



## Profighost (Jul 8, 2022)

...yeah, in fact that's again someone mentioned the word "fish" and we may face another village brawl Pro-FreeBSDler beating each other

Also what Zirias linked I find very readable to make a choice.


----------



## tanis (Jul 8, 2022)

I got a few questions my self  :

What does working with Windows mean? 
What reason is guiding your decision to look at Linux or FreeBSD as a possible replacement?


----------



## arveex (Jul 8, 2022)

In a few years there will be just one LinDows (TM) - systemd's Poettering just got hired by M$.

So, if you want to ditch all that s***t, BSD is the choice.


----------



## hardworkingnewbie (Jul 8, 2022)

arveex said:


> In a few years there will be just one LinDows (TM) - systemd's Poettering just got hired by M$.
> 
> So, if you want to ditch all that s***t, BSD is the choice.


Actually Lindows was released in August 2001. Now it's known as Linspire after Microsoft sued them.





_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSdRTOh2jeA_


----------



## ralphbsz (Jul 9, 2022)

tanis said:


> I got a few questions my self  :
> 
> What does working with Windows mean?
> What reason is guiding your decision to look at Linux or FreeBSD as a possible replacement?


These are good questions. Another set of questions is: What do you want to use the OS for: desktop, server, embedded, networking? What applications do you need/want to run? Will it have to interoperate with other machines? What is the administration mechanism going to be? How reliable does it need to be? Can you afford getting professional (paid) service for it?

Do you want to program? If yes, why, what, and how?

Even more important: Why do you need or want a computer at all? Why not just get a web browser; these days most things that a user-facing computer can do can also be done from a web browser.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jul 9, 2022)

fwiw, I predict we will never hear from the OP again and this question should not have been allowed in the first place.


----------



## scottro (Jul 9, 2022)

We are easily trolled here, aren't we. Sigh. But I'm sure you're right as they haven't made any reply. Still, on the bright side, one can hope others, seriously wondering the same thing, might come across these threads and learn things they didn't know before.


----------



## CuatroTorres (Jul 9, 2022)

I agree. I think there is enough documentation to know about the differences between the two systems. A bad start if you want to learn and ask instead of research. The question has no complexity.
OP is missing. Vote for elimination.


----------



## Brian546 (Jul 9, 2022)

Depends on what you want to do. If you want a desktop I’d only recommend Windows 10. On the other hand Windows Server 2016/2019, most Linux distros, or any of the BSDs make good server operating systems.


----------



## hbsd (Jul 9, 2022)

Brian546 said:


> If you want a desktop I’d only recommend Windows 10.


If you want a desktop I'd only recommend FreeBSD.


----------



## meine (Jul 9, 2022)

VJro said:


> Hi all, I want to ask your advice! I have always worked with Windows, but now I decided to learn Linux or FreeBSD. I read that FreeBSD is faster, can you please tell me what are the main differences between these operating systems?


If you want to learn a new OS, just take some basic Linux Live image on a USB -- it's the easiest start IMHO. Start learning UNIX commands, learn using a repository for your software, try different programs and Desktop Environments and Window Managers. Explore, tweak and break a few things when learning. Join the according forum.

When you have the basic idea start with FreeBSD and build your favourites together, deepen your learnings.

[for understandability I skipped the technical discussion on Operating System and Kernel stuff]


----------



## Menelkir (Jul 9, 2022)

Brian546 said:


> If you want a desktop I’d only recommend Windows 10.


I don't recommend windows 10 unless there's some special need. For a regular desktop usage (mails, web, etc), windows 10 isn't even the right tool for the job.


----------



## Beastie7 (Jul 9, 2022)

Menelkir said:


> For a regular desktop usage (mails, web, etc), windows 10 isn't even the right tool for the job.



Windows 10 is a perfect option for a desktop. Because it presents... a desktop. FreeBSD doesn't. You can't expect a mere mortal to waste time doing post install CLI configuration just to run Firefox either.

To the OP, if you have work to do and need it done in a reasonable amount of time; there's no shame is using Windows or macOS. Don't make life hard crawling the CLI just to gain cool points or boost your ego. Even source committers who work on the kernel everyday use these options.


----------



## hbsd (Jul 9, 2022)

Beastie7 said:


> Windows 10 is a perfect option for a desktop. Because it presents... a desktop. FreeBSD doesn't. You can't expect a mere mortal to waste time doing post install CLI configuration just to run Firefox either.


In Windows 10, those mere mortals waste their time with installing drivers and dealing with bugs, viruses and malwares. You install FreeBSD once and use it forever without any problems. Whereas Windows is practically unusable after a few months of use, and you have to reinstall it and all the necessary software from the scratch.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jul 9, 2022)

Beastie7 said:


> Because it presents... a desktop. FreeBSD doesn't.


But it can.



Beastie7 said:


> You can't expect a mere mortal to waste time doing post install CLI configuration just to run Firefox either.


Who does that?


----------



## vermaden (Jul 9, 2022)

VJro said:


> Hi all, I want to ask your advice! I have always worked with Windows, but now I decided to learn Linux or FreeBSD. I read that FreeBSD is faster, can you please tell me what are the main differences between these operating systems?


If you want to learn - then things you will learn with FreeBSD will be usable for decades. Things you will learn in Linux will last for several years at most - then they will rewrite the critical stuff again and you will have to learn other things again ... and after some time the cycle will happen again.


----------



## hbsd (Jul 9, 2022)

drhowarddrfine said:


> fwiw, I predict we will never hear from the OP again and this question should not have been allowed in the first place.


Like always you were right. I personally expected OP to check the answers at least once.

Guys, OP's gone, so there is no point in continuing this thread.


----------



## scottro (Jul 9, 2022)

hbsd I did too. drhowarddrfine is more cynical than we are, and sadly, this is a case where the cynicism is justified. (That is not meant as criticism or insult, just that they are more experienced, it seems, at judging which people truly want to learn).


----------



## VJro (Jul 10, 2022)

Thank you so much for your answers! To be honest, I'm a complete novice at this. I have Linux on my office computers, so I decided to read about it and google brought up this forum. But apparently this forum requires a different level of knowledge, I rushed the question.


----------



## CuatroTorres (Jul 10, 2022)

VJro Last seen 12 minutes ago
There's still hope.


----------



## qorg11 (Jul 10, 2022)

In my _"advanced power user" _experience, I've have less pain using FreeBSD than Linux. So now I only recommend FreeBSD to advanced computers users who know what they want, and have no issue with reading documentation and learning a whole new system from scratch.


----------



## tyson (Jul 10, 2022)

VJro said:


> Hi all, I want to ask your advice! I have always worked with Windows, but now I decided to learn Linux or FreeBSD. I read that FreeBSD is faster, can you please tell me what are the main differences between these operating systems?



If you never used Linux or FreeBSD things can be hard at start. Both OS'es need way more technical knowledge about hardware than any Windows version.
FreeBSD is different than Linux in its core, but most applications are shared between them.
VirtualBOX is your friend, and you can check any OS you want.


----------



## CuatroTorres (Jul 10, 2022)

It seems confusing to stop at the speed feature if the goal is to learn. Probably the OP should spell out his intentions in more detail.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jul 11, 2022)

His second post contradicts the first. He said he only used Windows but then states his office computers are Linux. Confusing


----------



## freezr (Jul 11, 2022)

Sounds like a troll question...


----------



## hruodr (Jul 11, 2022)

ralphbsz said:


> Even more important: Why do you need or want a computer at all? Why not just get a web browser; these days most things that a user-facing computer can do can also be done from a web browser.



You can also have a linux PC in the browser: 
	

			JSLinux


----------



## hbsd (Jul 11, 2022)

hruodr said:


> You can also have a linux PC in the browser:
> 
> 
> JSLinux


distrotest is a much better alternative. You can test BSD operating systems and many Linux distros in your browser.


----------



## hruodr (Jul 11, 2022)

hbsd said:


> distrotest is a much better alternative.


I am not sure if it is much better, a little better or better. I suspect it is much worse.

The link I gave boots the system in the browser, linux runs in the browser under an emulator,  TinyEmu, that is compiled with emcc and runs in the browser. No remote connection to a virtual machine.



			TinyEMU


----------



## bsduck (Jul 13, 2022)

hruodr said:


> I am not sure if it is much better, a little better or better. I suspect it is much worse.


At least it offers a vast choice, not just a few outdated Linux releases plus FreeDOS and Windows 2000.

Thank you for the link anyway, it's quite fun to run Windows 2000 in a browser. The booting time difference with the emulated Fedora is considerable...

Trying to shut down Fedora also was a funny experience:

`# shutdown -h now`
`System has not been booted with systemd as init system (PID 1). Can't operate.
Failed to connect to bus: Host is down
Failed to talk to init daemon.`

`# poweroff`
`System has not been booted with systemd as init system (PID 1). Can't operate.
Failed to connect to bus: Host is down
Failed to talk to init daemon.`

`# halt`
`System has not been booted with systemd as init system (PID 1). Can't operate.
Failed to connect to bus: Host is down
Failed to talk to init daemon.`

`# acpiconf -s 5`
`sh: acpiconf: command not found`


----------



## wolffnx (Jul 15, 2022)

go with FreeBSD directly and learn it in the hard way...error..and solution and so...
allways make a backup before do something important, learn about ZFS 
about Linux or FreeBSD, mmm, Linux is not what it was in the good days,so FreeBSD, you will not regret


----------



## blackhaz (Jul 16, 2022)

VJro, go with Linux (I would probably advise Debian) if you:

Want to touch a Unix-like system and get experience with it
"Need things done now"
Want a "pre-built" operating system - install and use
Wish to have all apps to just run, with as little tinkering as possible
Are okay not understanding fully what your OS is doing (or ready to dig deep to understand)
Feel fine buying books or looking for third party sources to get information
Don't care about inconsistencies between different Linux distributions
Generally don't care about standards and "making things right"
Want to join a very large camp of users
Want a system optimized for general use case
Go with FreeBSD if you:

Want to run and understand a Unix-like system
Would like to see how your OS works from the inside, from the boot to GUI
Want a feel that your OS is what you make out of it
Like having good documentation available as part of the system (FreeBSD Handbook, man pages)
Can dedicate time to make small things right, e.g. setting up sleep, and configure the OS as you see fit
Have fun learning how your hardware works and interacts with the OS
Appreciate true UNIX heritage
Enjoy this forum
Are fine with joining a much smaller camp of users
Want a system that expects to be molded into something by its user
Appreciate freedom - you can make things on FreeBSD, sell, lease, set on fire - it's all yours
Do you want a fully furnished house or an empty one to furnish yourself? Are you OK assembling some furniture yourself or you need a guy to come in and bring everything? Would you enjoy trying to change oil yourself or need full service? Finnish vodka with a juice of your choice, or brandy? Just kidding. 

Of course, everyone's perspective is different. All this is not mutually exclusive. Of course, you can learn how to set up WPA authentication on your wireless interfaces in Linux manually, you just get less chances of doing so, and sleep just works out of the box - with mainstream distributions like Debian, Fedora and Ubuntu, to which my personal experience is limited. I am sure there are Linuxen out there that will show you all the guts.

Hope this helps.


----------



## ct85711 (Jul 16, 2022)

One other consideration that I'd add with blackhaz's list, is look at what applications you need/use.  The application list may end up directing you one way or another, depending on if it will run on FreeBSD and/or if they is a alternative application that you can use instead.  Some applications can be made to work under the linux emulator to various degrees, others you may be forced to running in a full VM to get it working.  There are some limitations running stuff in a full VM, that it would make it impracticable for your use cases (ie hardware usage).  I admit I had to switch one of my systems back to linux until my requirements/needs change.


----------



## eternal_noob (Jul 16, 2022)

I use a Raspberry Pi 400 and i have to have both.

Under FreeBSD i don't have sound. Under Linux i don't have fun.


----------



## Profighost (Jul 16, 2022)

About the point if to learn Unix(like) quickly prefer Linux first I'd like to  contradict.

At university (>30y ago) we had Sun Sparc stations with Solaris.
I really loved those.
Of course as a student I neither couldn't afford a license nor a suitable machine for my own.
So I started with Linux, because it was promoted beyond students as "a unix, but free".
But it's not.
Shallow on the very first look Linux really seems to be some kind of unix.
But the deeper you dig into it, the more you get away from real Unix.

After a long odyssey over Windows and several Linux distris I never felt comfortable with 
I finally started with FreeBSD, and felt at home directly.

If you don't care much about the system, want something turnkey, nothing much tailored to your needs, chose a Linux distri.
But if you want to dig into a operating system, if you really want to learn unix(like):
Start with FreeBSD directly in the first place.

Well, of course it's not as easy installed as a turnkey OS, because it's none, it's modular and to be individual tailored, but it's no rocketscience neither to get FreeBSD and a desktop environment installed. (I did it .)
But you dig into the system - and true unix(like) - from the very start.

I don't see the point to start learning something different first, which then will be your reference, and then switch to FreeBSD, only being confused and wondering, why in FreeBSD this or that is made different (no, under Linux it's made different)... first start upside down, and then turn around? What for?
I came from Solaris. 
I compare Linux with Unix, not vice versa.
You can see the results nearly daily on this forum: People coming from Linux, having it as their reference, needed to be adjusted to the righteous path 
Well, of course, if ones intension is primary operating systems, not it's usage, then I also recommend to learn both.
But then I also recommend Windows Server, because that's what most companies having on their their servers 

Even then, start with Unix/(Free)BSD. 
Make (Free)BSD you reference, not Linux!


----------



## blackhaz (Jul 16, 2022)

Profighost, at which point did Linux start to diverge from a true Unix for you? It's an interesting topic, I wish people would talk more about this. Where do you begin to realize there's something Linux'y here? 

For me it was on a rather pedestrian level - when systemd arrived , then ifconfig disappeared, then some critical CLI tools begin to be unpipeable or the output was formatted the way you had to grep the hell out of it to extract useful information. I forgot what it was exactly, I simply couldn't pipe stdout to something else, and if parts of the system aren't designed for pipe, it's no longer Unix for me. But I am a desktop user. Know very little about the internals.


----------



## Profighost (Jul 16, 2022)

To do it in detail would be a long post and off-topic .
There were/are many small, minor points, maybe too minor for many, such as directories are organized "strange" (in Ubuntu you'll find directories/files such like "2398erghiasddjkiasfpiuhwrfp9iuwehhrfg982143982" That's crap!!)
And it differs from distri to distri, or how config is made, and the work in the shell (to me shell is first choice and desktop additional.)

Installation of packages is something still not really working smooth. Then is missing this, or that library is wrong version, missing independcy, after hours of slaving over it, still not working: warning ... warning...warning....error...error...error. Aborted. 

I'd have to try to remember all those things I left behind years ago, and feel uncomfortable about them again,... just to list them here. (And maybe then need to argue about them how stupid I am and seeing the things wrong?)
No thanks.

But, OK, so much:
Linux started to be a copy of Unix. But in my eyes it became more and more something of it's own, what wouldn't be bad, if it would be done right, what it was not.
The core reason I say that is I have the feeling they want to get closer to Windows instead of to Unix.
And besides it's wrong for the reason Windows is no good example, it's a systematically bs also.
Because then you could stay with Windows in the first place.
In my eyes there is no reason going to the market copying what already exists.
Except you're selling it cheaper, which mostly also means doing it worse. Or you hope to be taken over.
One may say:"Or to do it better."
In theory, yes. But in real world >90% buy the lowest price, only.

To me Linux is way too experimental and anarchic. Lacks to much of consistence. Between the different distris as after new versions occured. If you know Suse and then look at Debian you feel you start all over again (would have switched directly to FreeBSD if I'd knew what I know today). Maybe today not so much anymore, but 15...20 years ago you couldn't rely on the distri you decided for would be the same, still free availabe or even exist at all next week.
Tha's nothing to found on something seriously, really.

To me Linux is enthusiast's handicraft rubbish.
For Windows users it's very useful to have a USB-Stick with a live-system by hand, to maintance the points of Windows, where Windows lacks for a real, full, professional OS.
But else Linux to me is something like old cars are for oldtimer-freaks:
They are not intend to be actually driven.
They are there to potter with them.
If something does not work, they are happy, because it's a reason to fiddle.

If it's working, they look for semething it's not.
They want to fiddle, not really use it.
That's nothing for me.

Don't get me wrong. 
I do not say anything is bad about Linux.

So, it seems, I did not gave you an straight answer on your question, but made some kind of general Linux bashing.
Well, since those are processes, it's not possible to put it to a single point.


----------



## Profighost (Jul 17, 2022)

The most important core point of Unix vs No-Unix is Unix-Philosophy.

I totally and completely fully agree with UP uncontradicted.
Because if you want the best, that's the way to do it.

FreeBSD follows UP completely,
Linux partially.

UP was defined by people who gave the whole thing a very good thought.
One of UP's cores is modularity.
Modularity is not for Unix or operating systems only. It's systematic.
Modularity is global, fundamental core rule of solid engineering.

Modularity is something all agree with immediatly, because it sounds reasonable and promises high quality results.
You can sell things by writing "modular" on it.
And then something else is done or bought.

Modularity is not only a technical term, sounding good and reasonable, because it promises adaptivity, flexibility, efficiency and more.
Modularity also means:
1. Effort. You need to search, find, chose and decide what modules you need and install them. You need to organize the modules.
2. Restriction (modesty). You have to be satisfied with you only get all you want and all you need.

Today's people are so used to always get way more superfluid stuff as they asked for, that they are disapointed if they only get what they ordered, and cannot deal with it, if someone complains to received things didn't asked for.
"But everybody else..."
The majority are morons, cattle, silently nodding anything through you present them.
I don't care what "everybody else....".
I know what I want, and what I don't want.

Most who would sit at my machine would complain:
"Looks boring. Nothing on it. Empty. Spartan. Old fashioned...."
Well, it's _defined by me_ _for me_ and reduced to _my_ needs.
All I need it's there. It's reduced to it's core.
I only potter with something if I need it or want something new.

Coming from Windows, over the years I "downgraded" from LXDE over xfce to fvwm2. [I was no Gnome-type-user and I always disliked KDE]
With fvwm2 I finally can do what I could not do with any other I used before:
I can tailor my desktop _exactly_ the way I want it to.
I don't care much about modes and how window decorations look [funny thing: the look currently modern as "plain and clear" 20 years ago would be blamed as "ugly, primitive, incapable" ]
If I need a red alarm-knob I give it a good design.
And then bother about other things.
But (software)world is full of people arguing:
"Let's make it triangle shaped!" - "round!" - "square!" -  "ROUND!!" - "...what about to make it blue or green? Red is so old-school...." 

This was my way top-down.
But this also ain't UP.
Starting with everything and then throw all over board you don't want and ignore what you don't need, but lug it around anyway is the opposite of efficient.
UP - modularity, efficiency - means bottom-up.
Start blank and then add (only) what you need and want.

So a turnkey OS with a complete, predefined Desktop Environment is not UP.
It can't.
Because all decisions and selections about the modules are already chosen, and not by the user.

This ain't no problem, because for the majority this is best.

But we need to preserve diversity.
Life needs evolution, and evolution needs diversity.
Keeping individual styles is a very comfortable bonus included for free.

Modularity is most efficient to realize diversity.
Thus:
Don't understimate Unix Philosophy.
Don't take it lightly as marketing slogan, only.
Keep it more than some wise words.
Live it!
Use FreeBSD!


----------



## hruodr (Jul 17, 2022)

Profighost said:


> At university (>30y ago) we had Sun Sparc stations with Solaris.


Perhaps it was SunOS, not Solaris?

SunOS was a BSD derivate and hence like FreeBSD. Solaris was System V and more like Linux.

I also had a similar experience, I used SunOS, then changed to Solaris, and when I began using FreeBSD I felt 
again at home.


----------



## Profighost (Jul 17, 2022)

hruodr said:


> Perhaps it was SunOS, not Solaris


Can be. I'm not sure anymore. I'm also not sure, but I think those were Sparc stations II, and according to Wikipedia they could run both.
...it's been about 30 years... 

My very first machine was a Schneider (german license built of Amstrad) PC1512 with one single 5,25" Floppy, without a HDD, and MS DOS 3.2. 
Couldn't do really something useful with that thing. 
At university then there were those Unix machines.
It was my first contact with Unix at all.
I really _loved_ to computer on those.
For myself at this time I had an Amiga 2000, also not complete rubbish for its time.

Then - unavoidable - came Windows. 
Big disapointment if you knew how computers could work.
I joined computer's hell with late 95. 
Cause until then my Amiga was still very usable. And we Amiga users could only laugh about all the issues Windows-users were telling  
Those were good times.
Since then I was always looking for getting this satisfactory workfeeling back. 
All alternatives all my computer versed friends came up with (I studied at a technical university - full of computer nerds ) was Apple (not affordable), Linux, nobody really was doing it then if not developing on it (opensource systems were still deep in their infancy then), and, what all used, Windows.
"Get used to it!"

After some research I ordered Red Hat (version 4.something? I don't remember anymore). 
Came on 6 or 8 3,5" floppy disks. 
If you weren't already an involved Linux hacker, you couldn't do much with that, because the Handbook was... crap. 
After several weeks messing around with it, not get it run really, I wrote Red Hat an ugly e-mail (I was young and stupid ) and tossed the whole rubbish into the garbage.
So, I admit, Linux and I did not had a good start in the first place.

So I stayed with Windows, not being satisfied, not to say pi%%3d.... always again and again trying Linux, still not satisfactory to switch to it, not really the satisfactory feeling I had on those Unix machines... 
And a couple of years ago I made a research again, because I really wanted to get rid off this Windows ... - I don't want to say crap again  
once and for all.
What is there? 
What could be looked closer at.
And I stumbeld over "FreeBSD." Aha. Never heard of it. But sound promising.
After three, four start attempts (the usual backdraw: 8 years ago to get X running was not so easy as today) I decided to bite through and gave it a real trial,... 
Voilà, here I am.

I wouldn't recommend FreeBSD to my wife or my parents (just for the reason I'd stick with the maintence... 
...but if anybody willing to dig a bit into a system, is looking for a reliable, stable, intelligent, smooth, powerful, userfriendly, controllable....individual tailorable...
 - _really unix_like: 
FreeBSD.

I switched over as a process. 
(I recommend to have at least one running machine, capable of browsing the internet (Handbook) while learning to get into FreeBSD on another machine.)
I completely stopped working with Windows app. 5...6 years ago. (I still had a small 7home partition for games. It's also gone.)
I have some Linux Live systems somewhere for testing things; but this is to be discontinued, too. 
....I already experimented to create a FreeBSD live system of my own...

Now I have FreeBSD only on all my machines (Desktop, Laptop, (small) Server) exclusively.  
And they all working more and more together, not only having acces to files only on my NAS anymore, one may say: 
it's becoming a _system_


----------



## Hobbes (Sep 16, 2022)

Hi all,

Sorry for jumping into this thread in my first post, but now I'm facing a similar dilemma and I want to share my thougths.

I the early 2000's (when I had more time and no responsibilities beside my studies) I briefly used Linux (Suse and Debian) at home. However, at the University (and my jobs after that) I had to use Windows because almost all the technical software that I used back then (Matlab,, Autocad, Orcad, etc.) only had Windows versions (and, sure…the games).

Now I still need Windows at my job, but at home, running Windows in my two laptops (one 10 years old and the other 4) it's nearly impossible... even in the newer laptop —i5 with 12 Gb (RAM), 1 TB (HDD) and Intel/Nvidia graphic cards— Windows takes more than 10 minutes to start. And I’m really, really tired of Microsoft, Windows 10/11 are more a platform for advertising than an OS.

So, I installed Debian (11 stable) in the older laptop and a Windows 10/Debian (dual boot) in the newer. The older goes quite well (fast and reliable), but... the other:

Windows: after a fresh installation, it install two automatic updates... slow as a turtle again, stuffed with ads again, hideous again.​Debian: fast, but erratic, unpredictable. I installed it tree weeks after the one in the older laptop, but it behaves different, it has a slightly different directory structure, config files in different places (I downloaded the very same stable version, but it seems that comes with some updates).​ 
Looking for answers, I started to read more about Linux, Systemd, Unix/BSD, etc. and I found things like this:






						Why you should migrate everything from Linux to BSD
					






					www.unixsheikh.com
				







						Why you should migrate everything from Linux to BSD - part 2
					






					www.unixsheikh.com
				



Great, seems like BSD is more coherent and consistent OS... so I erased Windows and Debian and I installed FreeBSD in my (not old but not quite new) laptop... but something went wrong. Even without the GUI, the systems was too slow (for example, Vim took 3/4 seconds to open an empty text file). Probably because the system needed some tune or faced some driver problem/bad configuration (I disabled NVIDIA graphic card and Installed Intel drivers for the integrated one, but not sure if those were the ones that FreeBSD was using).

Now I've installed Artix Linux (to avoid Systemd) just to try something different to Debian in Linux world. It's fast, really fast, but requires to use other package manager, get used to new directory structure, dealing with lack of documentation (also Debian documentation is not as good as I was expected).

At this moment I still have the dilemma. Learn to use a new Linux distribution or try FreeBSD again. I kwon the benefits and drawbacks of both options, so probably my decision will depend of the time I can spare, the software I need, and the behaviour of the older laptop (now it’s my daily driver and allows me to use the other as test platform).


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Sep 16, 2022)

Hobbes said:


> Even without the GUI, the systems was too slow (for example, Vim took 3/4 seconds to open an empty text file).


I always find such statements interesting. In 20 years of using FreeBSD I have never seen this even on the desktop


----------



## rafael_grether (Sep 16, 2022)

If you never used *nix-like before, probably you get some difficulties using linux, freebsd or any other *nix-like.
Linux ou FreeBSD? Learn booth!

For advocating, the mainly difference is the license. BSD license is more permissive, with minimal restrictions.
Technically, Linux is just a Kernel. FreeBSD is a complete OS.

Before install a Linux distro or FreeBSD, I suggest you to try some Gnu/Linux in LiveUSB Image, or NomadBSD in LiveUSB.
And read the books!


----------



## Alain De Vos (Sep 16, 2022)

eternal_noob said:


> I use a Raspberry Pi 400 and i have to have both.
> 
> Under FreeBSD i don't have sound. Under Linux i don't have fun.


I use a very cheap renkforce audio USB on it. & Audio works out of the box.


----------



## Alain De Vos (Sep 16, 2022)

I dual boot with gentoo-linux & OpenRC. Not so much different from FreeBSD except for ZFS-on-Root.


----------



## astyle (Sep 16, 2022)

vermaden said:


> If you want to learn - then things you will learn with FreeBSD will be usable for decades. Things you will learn in Linux will last for several years at most - then they will rewrite the critical stuff again and you will have to learn other things again ... and after some time the cycle will happen again.


I like to use the example of `# ifconfig` to demonstrate why I recommend FreeBSD over Linux... in Linux, running `which ifconfig` will return stuff like /usr/bin, /usr/libexec, /sbin, or just about anything from a LONG list of possible locations, which are very distro-dependent. Not only that, the location can also change pretty much whenever a butterfly sneezes. FreeBSD offers stability in place of that.


----------



## Alain De Vos (Sep 16, 2022)

FreeBSD kept ifconfig.
Linux has also "ip".
I never figured out why linux "ip" is better than FreeBSD "ifconfig".








						Why you need to drop ifconfig for ip
					

For a long time, the ifconfig command was the default method for configuring a network interface.




					opensource.com


----------



## Jose (Sep 16, 2022)

Funny that you should pick `ifconfig` (perhaps you did this on purpose?) All l33t Linux d00dz know that ifconfig is old and bogus. The `ip` tool is the new hotness:





						If you’re still using ifconfig, you’re living in the past | Ubuntu
					

The world evolves I regularly see “recommendations” to use ifconfig to get interface information in mailing list posts or bug reports and other places. I might even be guilty of it myself. Still, the world of networking has evolved quite a lot since ifconfig was the de-facto standard to bring up...




					ubuntu.com
				




That is a pretty good example of what's wrong with Linux. No one ever made a name for themselves by fixing bugs in ifconfig(8). Go and write a whole new network configuration tool for Linux that becomes the standard and the job offers will beat a path to your door.


----------



## astyle (Sep 16, 2022)

I had no idea about the Linux `ip` command until today... Yeah, the articles complain about how complex `ifconfig` is - my take is that the utility and the manpage reflect the IP model that IEEE designed around 1973 and DARPA adopted/implemented in 1978... While `ip` seems to reflect the OSI/RM model that first saw light in 1977.  

There's some debate about whether the OSI/RM model is even useful. On one side, the 7 layers are easy to remember. On the other side, the OSI/RM model is difficult to match to existing network protocols like NFS or HTTPS... Apache can reject connections based on ip address - is that a Layer 3 or a Layer 7 action? Arguments can be made for both.


----------



## eternal_noob (Sep 16, 2022)

Alain De Vos said:


> I use a very cheap renkforce audio USB on it. & Audio works out of the box.


Yes, but this would be cheating.


----------

