# How and why is BSD better than Linux, or vice versa?



## owemeacent (Jun 2, 2014)

/* The last thing I want to do is start a flame war, but if this post does make it happen, let it commence, but I'm not on either side. */

Why do some people use BSD instead of Linux? Why do some people use Linux instead of BSD? What are the major differences that make you choose your side?


----------



## fonz (Jun 2, 2014)

This has been discussed many times before, but I'll bite.

For one thing, FreeBSD outperforms pretty much every Linux distribution in terms of documentation quality.
Second, Linux started as a bit of a hodgepodge mixture of many different things (strictly speaking, Linux itself is just a kernel, but there's of course more to an operating system than just that, think of GNU for example) whereas most BSD systems are self-contained and just better structured and engineered.
Force of habit, probably. To each his own of course, but those who have become accustomed to the way BSD-style Unices work usually don't look back.
Having said that, to the end user it's probably all the same. Most of the differences are under the hood and of little concern to those who just sit at a workstation trying to get their daily work done.
Less fragmentation: there are a few major BSD variants and a few forks/derivatives of those, but it's still nowhere near like Linux with its hundreds if not thousands of distributions great and small. Moreover, BSD folks usually get along well, which cannot always be said of the proponents of different Linux distributions.
The BSD daemon is a whole lot cuter than that slightly fat penguin called Tux  P In fact, feel free to do a quick image search for girls dressed like either the Linux or BSD mascot and do your own math  :h
Everyone knows how to pronounce BSD, so there's no need to fight over something as silly as how to pronounce "Linux" 
BSD looks/sounds/feels like LSD. Err... wait, maybe we shouldn't go there...  :beergrin
Most BSD systems tend to distinguish much more distinctly what is the base operating system and what is third-party software.
(No flaming please.) There are licensing issues: BSD-style versus (L)GPL.
There are probably other reasons, but this should get you started.


----------



## noeyx (Jun 2, 2014)

fonz said:
			
		

> The BSD daemon is a whole lot cuter than that slightly fat penguin called Tux  P In fact, feel free to do a quick image search for girls dressed like either the Linux or BSD mascot and do your own math  :h



+1 to this. Let the Mascot War begin.  §e


----------



## ctaranotte (Jun 2, 2014)

Linus was not here (a.k.a. his holographic avatar was not seen around bashing, cursing, kicking, underrating, smearing, exiling, demoting etc.).

NB: Hi Linus, you know I love you.


----------



## owemeacent (Jun 2, 2014)

One might also argue the following points in favor of Linux:

Linux has much more hardware support, it has been tested on countless machines and ported to many architectures.
The GPL is more opensource friendly that the BSD license, due to the users being required to contribute code back to the community.
The kernel itself is so much more modular than the kBSD one, it can turn on and off modules willingly, while the kBSD follows very traditional monolothic kernel practices.
The Arch and Gentoo wiki's alone provide enough documentation for _[a? -- mod.]_ distribution out there.
Even though there might be countless Linux distributions, they all are still using the same userland, GCC on Arch and Gentoo will be the same, GNOME, KDE, nano, vim, gparted, Firefox, GIMP and VirtualBox are all the same, it's just how to the distributions choose to package them.
The amount of Linux developers and users are many more times the amount of BSD users, resulting in better almost everything.


----------



## noeyx (Jun 2, 2014)

A lot of high profile corporations support the development of the Linux kernel which can mean better hardware support than FreeBSD. I can only think of a few corporations and businesses that use and maybe* contribute to FreeBSD such as Apple, Cisco, iXSystems, WeChat, Sony (PlayStation), and NetFlix.

* -- The FreeBSD license does not require you to open-source your modifications/improvements to the OS.

Compare:
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/members
https://www.freebsdfoundation.org/donate/sponsors


----------



## jdonaghy (Jun 2, 2014)

Who knows. I just migrated over for a slight change of environment. I do prefer the license. And after hopping through about a hundred Linux distributions, the integration and lack of variants is something of a relief. Of course, I love Linux. Arch, Fedora, and Debian in particular. But BSD has been working beautifully for my needs. As least as beautifully as Linux does. Switching things up is a habit of mine, though, and most Linux distributions are samey. FreeBSD has actually been an opportunity to try something different underneath.


----------



## beastDemian (Jun 2, 2014)

> 4. The Arch and Gentoo wiki's alone provide en enough documentation for distro out there.



Which is not nearly as good as the one found on FreeBSD. Take it from a former Gentoo user    (Funtoo actually, but its a distinction without a difference since I got all the information I needed from the Gentoo Wiki). 



> 5. Even though there might be countless linux distros, they all are still using the same userland, gcc on arch and gentoo will be the same, gnome, kde, nano, vim, gparted, firefox, gimp and virtualbox are all the same, it's just how to the distro's choose to package them.



That's not exactly true. If you want to run the Steam client in anything that's neither Ubuntu nor Debian you basically have to jump through hoops. This is what happens when the Linux distributions do not even agree on which package manager to use. 



> 6. The amount of linux developers and users are many more times the amount of BSD users, resulting in better almost everything.



That one is an absolutely laughable claim. Have you had any experience whatsoever with software development?  More developers doesn't mean more quality by any stretch of imagination.


----------



## owemeacent (Jun 2, 2014)

Is it a more Unix experience? What kind of person would BSD suit? And what kind of person would Linux suit?


----------



## SirDice (Jun 2, 2014)

viewtopic.php?&t=9294


----------



## Crivens (Jun 2, 2014)

noeyx said:
			
		

> +1 to this. Let the Mascot War begin.  §e


Preferable in some muddy environment, doing some wrestling? Hmmmmm.....   :beergrin

Regarding the original question: I think the difference is that Linux is more driven by evolution. They push all kinds of stuff around and let the user decide what he wants. This is good for progress, not so good for stability. And it is (as evoluton) prone to dead ends. *BSD is (IMHO) more about engineering, doing things right the first time and keeping things stable over a long time. And since *BSD is both, kernel and user land, this makes for a much better and more consistent user experience than what goes on in Linux. There, you can keep the kernel interface stable as you want when distributions decide to push some new thing down the throat of its user base and the user base decides to vote on this by downloading some other distribution instead. If they can be buggered enough to do so.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jun 2, 2014)

This is the second or third thread, lately, where a newcomer's first questions or two is this topic which makes me suspicious.



			
				owemeacent said:
			
		

> One might also argue the following points in favor of Linux:
> Linux has much more hardware support, it has been tested on countless machines and ported to many architectures.


You only need one piece of hardware to make it work, not thousands, and chances are good that it will work with FreeBSD, too. In any case, you can get hardware easily that will do the job.


> [*]The kernel itself is so much more modular than the kBSD one, it can turn on and off modules willingly, while the kBSD follows very traditional monolothic kernel practices.


kBSD? Is that a Linux distribution? Or do you mean the kernel? If you mean the kernel, then you're pointing to a disadvantage of Linux which causes all the fragmentation.


> [*]The Arch and Gentoo wiki's alone provide enough documentation for _[a? -- mod.]_ distribution out there.


You can't beat FreeBSD man pages.


> [*]Even though there might be countless Linux distributions, they all are still using the same userland, GCC on Arch and Gentoo will be the same, GNOME, KDE, nano, vim, gparted, Firefox, GIMP and VirtualBox are all the same, it's just how to the distributions choose to package them.


So does FreeBSD so no advantage to Linux.


> [*]The amount of Linux developers and users are many more times the amount of BSD users, resulting in better almost everything.[/list]


That makes it less nimble but, from what I read, it seems it's all run by a handful of people.


----------



## fonz (Jun 2, 2014)

drhowarddrfine said:
			
		

> kBSD? Is that a Linux distribution? Or do you mean the kernel? If you mean the kernel, then you're pointing to a disadvantage of Linux which causes all the fragmentation.


I suspect @owemeacent is referring to Debian GNU/kFreeBSD. In case you care, from the PC-BSD DesktopBSD FreeNAS NAS4Free m0N0WALL pfSense ArchBSD topic:


			
				DutchDaemon said:
			
		

> Debian GNU/kFreeBSD is not a FreeBSD derivative, it is a FreeBSD kernel with GNU/Linux userland.


Which actually makes @owemeacent's statement about monolithic kernels wildly inaccurate, or at least outdated.


----------



## owemeacent (Jun 2, 2014)

By kBSD I mean the BSD kernels.


----------



## fonz (Jun 2, 2014)

owemeacent said:
			
		

> By kBSD I mean the BSD kernels.


In that case: I don't know about the other ones, but FreeBSD moved from a mostly monolithic design to a modular design ages ago.


----------



## fonz (Jun 2, 2014)

To reinterpret a known classic (click for a larger version):


----------



## owemeacent (Jun 2, 2014)

Apparently, according to this post, the Linux kernel is faster than the BSD kernel:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=n ... px=MTM4NzQ


----------



## SirDice (Jun 2, 2014)

owemeacent said:
			
		

> Apparently, by this post, the Linux kernel faster than the BSD kernel
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=n ... px=MTM4NzQ


Not a very good comparison as they're using Debian/kFreeBSD. kFreeBSD is a modified version of the, now unsupported, 9.0 kernel. And because none of the userland binaries are written specifically for the FreeBSD kernel (as the FreeBSD userland is) I would expect lousy performance.


----------



## kpa (Jun 2, 2014)

fonz said:
			
		

> owemeacent said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Depends on what you mean by modular design. Loadable modules alone do not turn a monolithic kernel into a modular one. Use of kernel threads (for example) that execute mostly in user space to implement services like NFS on the other hand is modular design.


----------



## protocelt (Jun 2, 2014)

owemeacent said:
			
		

> /* The last thing I want to do is start a flame war, but if this post does make it happen, let it commence, but I'm not on either side. */
> 
> Why do some people use BSD instead of Linux? Why do some people use Linux instead of BSD? What are the major differences that make you choose your side?



Is Coke or Pepsi better, and why?   

Many FreeBSD/forum users here use FreeBSD and Linux for both professional as well as personal use depending on requirements, familiarity, knowledge, and experience. Both are excellent operating systems in their own right and each has their strengths and weaknesses.

What is your opinion on the question you've asked and why did you come to that conclusion?


----------



## fonz (Jun 2, 2014)

owemeacent said:
			
		

> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTM4NzQ


Warning: don't start with that Phoronix crap. It's misguided, misinformed, biased and basically just troll-bait.


----------



## owemeacent (Jun 2, 2014)

But wouldn't someone also argue that the BSD source code is very old? And that it is outdated due to most opensource developers working on *L*inux?


----------



## ljboiler (Jun 2, 2014)

I guess next you'd be trying to convince everyone that the Great Pyramids in Egypt are irrelevant now that there is a newer, fancier one made of glass and steel out in the Nevada desert of the U.S.A.


----------



## ralphbsz (Jun 2, 2014)

protocelt said:
			
		

> Is Coke or Pepsi better, and why?



That's exactly the correct way to look at it.

Comparing FreeBSD and Linux (and MacOS and OpenBSD and Windows and HP-UX and various embedded OSes and AIX and Solaris and...) is more like asking: Is pizza or beer better?  How about Boeuf Stroganoff, grass (if you are a cow), Cabernet, or linguini alfredo?

I happen to run FreeBSD on my home server, for (what I hope are) good reasons.  It used to run OpenBSD and moved, for some specific reasons that should not reflect badly on OpenBSD in general, but only mean that there was a slight incompatibility between OpenBSD and my intended use.  I'm typing this text on a Mac laptop.  I could also type it on a Windows laptop, or a few iOS and Chrome devices that are floating around the house.  In the office, there are lots of Linux machines I use and like, plus lots of Mac and Windows desktops I have access to, and even some more unusual commercial operating systems on servers.  They each have their place.

In such a comparison, questions like kernel performance, loadable modules, GNU licenses, and having older source code are input facts, which can turn out to be positive or negative, depending on the desired use case.  For example, I happen to think that having many open source developers working on a project is a BAD thing, and that important pieces of code should be worked on by a small number of highly competent people, who are averse to changing things if they don't need to be changed.  Other people might come to the opposite conclusion, because they correctly think that a large number of open source developers means that you always get the shiniest and newest toys.

The two operating systems I most ENJOY using are OpenBSD and MacOS.  That's because they seem to be the most carefully crafted, with attention to detail.  This doesn't mean that they are always the most appropriate for a particular use, but they tend to be the ones that annoy me the least, and where I can best understand the philosophy and design (even if I sometimes disagree with it).


----------



## owemeacent (Jun 2, 2014)

But isn't Mac closed source? Doesn't that kind of defeat the whole reason to use open source software?


----------



## ralphbsz (Jun 2, 2014)

I don't use computers because I want to use open source software.  I use computers to get something done.  For example posting on a forum.  Or crunching numbers.  Or squishing bytes.  Or storing cute baby pictures.  Or serving Argentine tangos played on accordions to all music devices in the house.  Or building most amazing computing devices, which are so good that my employer is willing to give me a rather large paycheck.  If open source is the appropriate technology for that (meaning cost-efficient, reliable, easy to use and manage, and many other requirements that very with the task at hand), I'm happy to use open source software.  It is remarkably often the appropriate technology, but not always.

If I wanted to use computers for religious activism, then maybe I would join the open source religion.  But I'm not interested in religious activism.


----------



## fonz (Jun 2, 2014)

owemeacent said:
			
		

> But isn't Mac closed source? Doesn't that kind of defeat the whole reason to use open source software?


You've already asked that before.


----------



## ucsdboy (Jun 3, 2014)

Personally, I think BSD is easier for me to configure and manage than most Linux distributions; all user software is in /usr/local, all user source is in /usr/ports, the number of configuration files I've needed to remember is very small, and where you'd expect them to be. By comparison, I believe Linux configuration files are greater in number, spread around a little more, and most significantly, can change between distributions.

I don't believe the above is a big deal for a lot of IT-people, who might enjoy keeping tabs on that sort of thing, and might even make a living doing it. As a developer, I loved picking up on all the intricacies of C++; that doesn't mean the people who stayed with C, flocked to Java, or went scripting were wrong. 

For my purposes, I also love the level of documentation, the robustness of the software, ZFS, and the licensing. Sometimes, I'll miss not having the latest and greatest version of some software package immediately available (LXQT comes to mind), but it's a worthwhile trade-off.


----------



## wblock@ (Jun 3, 2014)

owemeacent said:
			
		

> /* The last thing I want to do is start a flame war, but if this post does make it happen, let it commence, but I'm not on either side. */



Your questions are increasingly inflammatory, yet people have given serious, well-considered answers anyway.  Thread closed.


----------

