# Why FreeBSD over Linux for desktop?



## kuroneko (Aug 15, 2017)

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


----------



## fernandel (Aug 15, 2017)

kuroneko said:


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



Search on the forum and read a handbook.


----------



## Russ Perkins (Aug 15, 2017)

fernandel said:


> Search on the forum and read a handbook.



+1!


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Aug 15, 2017)

kuroneko said:


> I would like to know why would FreeBSD be a better choice than Linux.


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



> I currently have Linux (Debian).


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


----------



## teo (Aug 15, 2017)

OJ said:
			
		

> Because it's my favorite. I can't think of a better reason than that.
> 
> I too run Debian (actually now Devuan) on some secondary boxen. I find it best to use multiple computers. To me the world is not "this or that". I prefer to have it *all*.


You use the FreeBSD system in  graphical desktop for their things for the day-to-day as a main system in the laptop? I thought only the used FreeBSD for servers. 
 I quite like FreeBSD, due to lack of hardware support for laptop and had to try another Linux system as Devuan that do not have systemd.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Aug 15, 2017)

teo said:


> due to lack of hardware support for laptop and had to try another Linux system as Devuan that do not have systemd.


Funny you should mention that. Last night somebody talked me into trying some fancy video conferencing software. Since I don't have camera or microphone on my desktop computer, I thought I'd try a new *Devuan* laptop installation. Camera, microphone, everything worked like a charm. 

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


----------



## teo (Aug 15, 2017)

OJ said:
			
		

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


It was the lack of support for the card wireless of this laptop and also something related with the battery power-manager, some time ago I opened a topic and none served.

https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/60589/
https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/61543/


----------



## ShelLuser (Aug 15, 2017)

kuroneko said:


> So I would like to know what are the benefits of using FreeBSD as a desktop over Linux.


Well, for starters I consider the absence of systemd to be a major benefit 

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


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Aug 15, 2017)

kuroneko said:


> So I would like to know what are the benefits of using FreeBSD as a desktop over Linux.



For one thing you get a custom desktop with FreeBSD, built from the ground up and set up by you with only the 3rd party programs you choose to install on it.



teo said:


> You use the FreeBSD system in  graphical desktop for their things for the day-to-day as a main system in the laptop? I thought only the used FreeBSD for servers.



Everyday graphical desktop tasks are exactly what I use FreeBSD for. All I have are FreeBSD or OpenBSD boxen and I use x11-wm/fluxbox on all of them. 

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

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

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

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


----------



## jb_fvwm2 (Aug 15, 2017)

kuroneko said:


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


  Because FreeBSD needs programmers, coders, and though maybe behind in some hardware support for now, in the long run your investment could, not WOULD, but COULD, advance your skills with more direct top-down involvement.


----------



## Deleted member 48958 (Aug 15, 2017)

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


----------



## Luboslav (Aug 15, 2017)

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


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Aug 15, 2017)

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

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


----------



## French Fries (Aug 16, 2017)

This is not a joke, I migrated from Debian GNU/linux to FreeBSD only a few days ago :

a few Beaglebone black (used for security)
a server (Supermicro) 

some PC Engines toys (APU).
I remain on Debian on my laptop (at present). Here is why:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## teo (Aug 16, 2017)

ILUXA said:
			
		

> On my home PC and laptop, FreeBSD — is the only one operating system, that I use, and I really love it.


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


			
				Luboslav said:
			
		

> Only thing, that I sometimes need and I have no alternative in BSD world is Microsoft Lync / Skype for Bussines. Some of calls or confs which I need to attend are provided in this environment.


You can use gnu-Ring replacement for skype.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Aug 16, 2017)

Trihexagonal said:


> For one thing you get a custom desktop with FreeBSD, built from the ground up and set up by you with only the 3rd party programs you choose to install on it.


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


----------



## rufwoof (Aug 16, 2017)

OJ said:


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


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


----------



## French Fries (Aug 16, 2017)

teo said:


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



Exactly. Debian is still ahead for laptops and "graphical" display/design.
I don't want to sell you FreeBSD. 

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


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Aug 16, 2017)

rufwoof said:


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



Interesting. I've never seen anything like that on any Linux install disk, Debian or otherwise. Are you suggesting I rewrite the CD before installing?


----------



## rufwoof (Aug 16, 2017)

French Fries said:


> systemd. Very difficult to set-up (you need to be Debian or Ubuntu, really difficult).


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

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

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


----------



## rufwoof (Aug 16, 2017)

OJ said:


> Interesting. I've never seen anything like that on any Linux install disk, Debian or otherwise. Are you suggesting I rewrite the CD before installing?


Crikey, the DVD installation approach is something like 3 DVD's. Many prefer to net boot install or debootstrap and 'cut their own' where only exactly what you ask for is built, ready to be written to CD or whatever and used to install. For instance I built a minimalist <100MB cli/net connected Debian that I use a base ... and my preference is to add xorg, jwm, pcmanfm to that for a basic desktop (i.e. pcmanfm provides both file manager and desktop icon management). Thereafter add libre, firefox ... etc. as desired. Locale's take up a lot of space and more often most aren't used, localepurge, a unofficial tool can make significant savings there ... a bit like Puppy Linux 'trim the fat' if you're in anyway familiar with that. Personally I don't use that myself as I stick to 100% Debian Main repositories only (all open source and maintained/version controlled by Debian (security updates etc.)). As I see it FreeBSD doesn't offer the same level of pkg/port version control/integration (consideration of the effect of the potential version update of any one upon all others/the-whole).


----------



## Deleted member 48958 (Aug 16, 2017)

teo said:


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


Choose hardware, that should work with your operating system, and not an operating system, that should work with your hardware.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Aug 16, 2017)

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


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Aug 16, 2017)

ILUXA said:


> Choose hardware, that should work with your operating system, and not an operating system, that should work with your hardware.



Unfortunately, that's rocket science. (it seems)


----------



## Loala (Aug 16, 2017)

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


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Aug 16, 2017)

rufwoof said:


> OP has posted 3 times, two recent, 1 in Jan 2016 !!!



Your point being? Or just a point of contention?

I'm sure they had their reasons and maybe will stick around a while this time. I just returned from a hiatus of several years last month and am more active than ever.




rufwoof said:


> But asks a question about the comparison of a kernel (Linux) with a OS (FreeBSD).



Yes, that's another plus. FreeBSD is a full fledged Operating System, with a small but dedicated team of developers all working toward one goal, that can directly trace its roots to Research UNIX and Berkeley Software Development UNIX proper.

Linux is a kernel developed by Linus Torvalds with applications piled on top and no coherent direction or goal.




rufwoof said:


> Must already know that the base Debian provision is far far larger/more extensive than the FreeBSD base (that unlike NetBSD doesn't even include X)...



A plus I already pointed out. The basic FreeBSD build comes with the base system and a terminal. I get to build it from the ground up with only the programs I choose to install resulting in a custom desktop unlike any other out there.




rufwoof said:


> ... and that packages provided outside of that are far more rigorously managed/maintained compared to FreeBSD. Some effort has gone towards improving that deficiency [_Mod: Link to troll site removed_] .... https://wiki.freebsd.org/FreeBSD-ng ... but still a long way to go yet. for instance
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Have you actually read the Porters Handbook? You make it sound like anybody can submit a port and have it published to the ports tree for anyone to compile. That is not the case:



> Being a ports committer is not enough to commit to an arbitrary port. Remember that ports usually have maintainers, must be respected.



https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/security-fix.html

There is a long and arduous process to go through before a port ever hits the ports tree.



> Checking ports in the PR database will both make it faster for us to commit them, and prove that you know what you are doing.



https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/porting-dads.html

So either you have not read the whole Porters Handbook or are quoting bits and pieces of it to back up a flawed argument and making the case of  drhowarddrfine for him.

Edit: Posting that same out of context quote to the profile page of Loala is propaganda, FUD and trolling at best



rufwoof said:


> Compare Freebsd base with linux kernel and a similar base cli os ... and generally freebsd likely comes out ahead on the stability front subject to the choice of kernel/os blending (but is less flexible i.e. choice of kernel and os blend).



Another flawed argument. You clearly state that in comparison FreeBSD "comes out ahead on the stability front subject to the choice of kernel/os blending" yet you bemoan there is not more choice of kernel and OS blending?




rufwoof said:


> Beyond that ... adding third party programs ... and freebsd falls behind. So as a predominately cli server type setup ... freebsd. For a desktop ... other choices are better. The ideal desktop might perhaps be freebsd base + debian main repositories ... but that doesn't work (other than in a very limited manner) and that gap is widening as more upstream program providers will tend to link in more systemd.




FreeBSD was designed as a server Operating System. Hence the motto "The Power To Serve" associated with it. Other choices being better is opinion only, one I do not share.

If it's a continued debate over the merits of systemD you're after I suggest you take it to a Linux forum where you will find a vast number of Linux users opposed to it to present your case to.




rufwoof said:


> Popularity can be a indicator of relative measure ... and distrowatch suggests that some choices of desktop setup/system are better than others, according to a form of voting by feet.



Popularity of something being associated with many undefined variables, including fad, laziness, ignorance, and fear of the unknown. Being "better" a matter of opinion only, yet you continue to interject it as if it had substance,

Of the 100 listed, half of the total number of Linux distros, at a glance I see 7 that are BSD related including FreeNAS and firewall oriented implementations like pfSense.

The rest are all Linux distros and back up my assertion that Linux has no coherency or general goal, and with the introduction of Lennart Pottering and systemD into the mix it's become more fragmented than ever with more infighting existing in the Linux community than you will ever see among members of the BSD community.


rufwoof, you are trolling here and risk your "self-imposed ban" becoming official. If you find Debian more suited for your needs your "feet" know how get there. I see you are a member of that forum...


----------



## Phishfry (Aug 16, 2017)

rufwoof said:


> than the FreeBSD base (that unlike NetBSD doesn't even include X)


 Thank goodness it doesn't. I am building NanoBSD images that are only 175MB. Can you imagine what it would look like with X...


----------



## Minbari (Aug 16, 2017)

OJ said:


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



You should try Arch GNU/Linux it does not come with that bloatware like others GNU/Linux distribution does, or Crux who it's also minimalistic like FreeBSD and the init is rc not systemd like that in Arch GNU/Linux.


----------



## forquare (Aug 16, 2017)

Why FreeBSD over Linux?  Portability, or rather that it has reminded me that portability is important.  I came from a Mac desktop with Solaris and Linux experience, as GPLv3 came along and GNU tools started falling behind with shipped versions of non-Linux based systems I found it increasingly difficult to keep new scripts working.  Switching to FreeBSD has kept me towing the POSIX line, my scripts generally work without tweeking across *BSD, macOS, Solaris, and Illumos.  Linux may require some workarounds when they deviate from standards.

FreeBSD has good support for ZFS, and I use it on my desktop and laptop.  That includes inside a VM with 4GB RAM.  It doesn't bloat my system, infinitely hogging RAM, but gives me data integrity, snapshotting, cloning, and generally more flexability than most other systems I've used.

FreeBSD Ports repository is extensive enough _for me_, and the couple of exceptions I've found (www/gohugo and sysutils/zfs-snap-diff) have been easy enough to create Ports for.

I trust FreeBSD and the developers.  From what I have seen they are good engineers with understanding of the consequences of their actions.  I know the Linux ecosystem is bigger, but the drama that comes with Linus and other high-up devs doesn't amuse me, and I have a hard time trusting them.  I've seen integration issues that comes from tools being developed in isolation or alongside specific distros, selfishness that seems to exist just to prevent tools being adopted by other systems, and an unwillingness to take good examples of engineering from other projects thus blindly reinventing the wheel.

FreeBSD works for me, its philosophies harmonise with my own.  That is why I choose FreeBSD over Linux for personal servers and desktops alike.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Aug 16, 2017)

Minbari of course I'm familiar with all those.  Who isn't?  The trouble is that I got used to Debian about 14 years ago. I don't want to spend time learning the quirks of a dozen different distributions. To my way of life, that's a complete and utter waste of time and in some ways even counter productive. I don't want to be an IT expert or some kind of nerd. I respect other people's choices in that regard, but my own preference has led me to only putting effort into keeping up with one OS. That is why I now have chosen FreeBSD and have been a user since version 7.

Indeed Arch would probably have been a good choice for me had I spent some time getting to know it better a few years back. Perhaps I bet on the wrong horse when I chose Debian - it certainly didn't turn out to be the conservative and principled choice that I thought it was going to be. Now it is actually just another fashion based distro. Somewhat embarrassing actually. But whatever . . . I can't do everything, and that is the reason I landed with FreeBSD. It still works the same way that it did when I started. That methodology works really well for an amateur like me. And I have a suspicion it works well for professionals as well.


----------



## Maxnix (Aug 16, 2017)

... rufwoof, are you aware that the site about pkgng and apt you are referring to is a very well known troll?



rufwoof said:


> For a desktop ... other choices are better.


This is really subjective.



rufwoof said:


> Popularity can be a indicator of relative measure


Very relative: according to this criterion Windows (since we are talking of desktops) shoud be the non-plus-ultra of OSes.

kuroneko, simply put: because you like it more, or it have tecnologies and features that you like/need having in an OS.


----------



## ShelLuser (Aug 16, 2017)

French Fries said:


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


At the risk of going a little offtopic but I definitely disagree with that. Now, it has been quite a while since I actively used IPTables but I never had issues with logging. It even has limiters in place to prevent a DoS cascading effect. Not to mention that the logging itself is usually handled by syslog.

If Linux users often keep firewall logging turned off then I think that says more about the users/admins than the IPTables system.


----------



## teo (Aug 16, 2017)

OJ said:
			
		

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


Comment of the reality, besides, FreeBSD has 20 years of history, and still in diapers of  start  early systems that were using the console with  methodology old of the time. Look at what happened with Devuan, do not have 3 years of life, and they released their first stable version with a graphical desktop standard and support universal, if you look at the DistroWatch, is located in the rank 32 very close to FreeBSD.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Aug 16, 2017)

teo said:


> Look at what happened with Devuan


All my Debian boxen are changed, or being changed to Devuan.  It was working fine even before their first release. I even stuck it on a new laptop and "all the things" are working out of the box. I'm liking it. My main machine is staying FreeBSD though. 

Edit to add: I just realized that you said "with graphical desktop standard". I must say, that I try to avoid doing that. I install a minimal Devuan and add the GUI stuff to taste later. FreeBSD does it the right way. Installing a GUI as standard is just good for when you're quickly setting something up for a Windows user. Those of us who are familiar with computers, don't benefit from it.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Aug 16, 2017)

teo said:


> Look at what happened with Devuan, do not have 3 years of life, and they released their first stable version with a graphical desktop standard and support universal...



Nobody here that I'm aware of, with the possible exception off Linux proponents, wants a graphical desktop included with the base system.

And if so, which one will be chosen for me? The one you like best? Because I don't want a Desktop Environment at all and prefer a WM.

It's all about choice, and whether to use FreeBSD or some other OS is a choice, too.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Aug 16, 2017)

Trihexagonal said:


> Nobody here that I'm aware of, with the possible exception off Linux proponents, wants a graphical desktop included with the base system.


I would go so far as to say that it's actually a *real nuisance* when a distro comes that way.  I would actually call it primitive.


----------



## teo (Aug 16, 2017)

OJ said:
			
		

> *....*  I would actually call it primitive.


The primitives to the beginnings of systems of the XX century that they made all through the console? ¡Well said!


----------



## rufwoof (Aug 16, 2017)

Maxnix said:


> ... rufwoof, are you aware that the site about pkgng and apt you are referring to is a very well known troll?


I wasn't aware. Thanks.


----------



## rufwoof (Aug 16, 2017)

Trihexagonal said:


> Have you actually read the Porters Handbook? You make it sound like anybody can submit a port and have it published to the ports tree for anyone to compile. That is not the case:
> 
> https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/security-fix.html
> 
> ...


Re read The Porters Handbook introduction for yourself, on its very first page, reproducing in full


> Chapter 1. Introduction
> 
> The FreeBSD Ports Collection is the way almost everyone installs applications ("ports") on FreeBSD. Like everything else about FreeBSD, it is primarily a volunteer effort. It is important to keep this in mind when reading this document.
> 
> In FreeBSD, anyone may submit a new port, or volunteer to maintain an existing unmaintained port. No special commit privilege is needed.


PERIOD. The entire introduction ... Disincentive to read any further and enough to put most opening that document for the first time off from using a system based on that as it portrays ... a bunch of amateurs collective works of programs intended for use in FreeBSD that anyone can change willy-nilly or for ulterior motives. Fair enough you have indicated that is not the case and as such I will revisit the document. My immediate reaction upon having read that was to search around rather than reading through all 17 chapters, (which led me to a article that has been suggested as being a Trolls web site/article) and remove all pkgs/ports and consider whether just the FreeBSD base system might be utilised in isolation ... a cli/ncurses type setup, with just a very limited few additional external programs added (mc, sc-im, vim ...etc.). Such a filemanager, spreadsheet and split screen editor setup however isn't very satisfying as a desktop setup - way too yesteryear.


----------



## SirDice (Aug 16, 2017)

rufwoof said:


> a bunch of amateurs collective works of programs intended for use in FreeBSD that anyone can change willy-nilly or for ulterior motives.


That's not entirely true. While anyone can _submit_ new ports or updates to existing ones there are only a couple of people that can actually _commit_. And those people are bound by various rules and are managed by the ports management team. 

https://www.freebsd.org/portmgr/


----------



## rufwoof (Aug 16, 2017)

Just to clarify I wasn't saying that Sir Dice, just suggesting that the Porters Handbook relatively brief introduction can instill that type of thought.



SirDice said:


> That's not entirely true. While anyone can _submit_ new ports or updates to existing ones there are only a couple of people that can actually _commit_. And those people are bound by various rules and are managed by the ports management team.


Why then does the introduction specifically state otherwise? (rhetorical). Its pretty limited in what it does say, odd choice of specifics.

What about programs that are no longer developed/supported by the third party(s), or the 20% (or whatever the more recent figure is) of ports/packages that have no maintainers? (Again rhetorical, I'll read/investigate that further myself). A security product cannot (should not) have a single weak link. Nice in theory, nigh impossible in practice. Security is a practice ... that requires understanding before a best practice can be defined/adopted.


----------



## SirDice (Aug 16, 2017)

rufwoof said:


> What about programs that are no longer developed/supported by the third party(s)


They are marked for deletion and removed after some time. 



rufwoof said:


> or the 20% (or whatever the more recent figure is) of ports/packages that have no maintainers?


They are "maintained" by the ports team. That's to say, they make sure the port builds and doesn't cause problems with the rest of the tree. It's up to the community to supply the updates, or, preferably, take over responsibility as a port maintainer. They're the so-called "orphaned" ports and are in dire need of someone to adopt them.

https://wiki.freebsd.org/PortsTasks


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Aug 16, 2017)

rufwoof said:


> My immediate reaction upon having read that was to search around rather than reading through all 17 chapters...



I thought as much.




rufwoof said:


> ... a cli/ncurses type setup, with just a very limited few additional external programs added (mc, sc-im, vim ...etc.). Such a filemanager, spreadsheet and split screen editor setup however isn't very satisfying as a desktop setup - way too yesteryear.



That's funny to me because the very first 3rd party program I build is misc/mc.

What you and others in this thread consider "yesteryear" or remnants from the "XX century" I consider old school and hold in high regard.

But then again, you've already stated the primary interest in UNIX is for geeks and nostalgia purposes and care not that FreeBSD can trace its roots back to UNIX proper, so that shows where you're coming from.

Which begs the question, why are you here?


----------



## kuroneko (Aug 21, 2017)

ILUXA said:


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



I agree. For me it was easier to set things up and to know how it works. It wasn't as complicated and as hard to understand as Linux.

By the way, I got it fully installed (or almost, maybe need to set up some little thing here and there) and it works fine and I have a desktop environment and everything it's all working and thanks to the members of the forum I can fix the problems that I don't understand very well. So far I'm happy with it more than I was with Linux.


----------



## rufwoof (Aug 21, 2017)

I suspect its simply familiarity = easy. I have both Debian and FreeBSD dualboot desktops setup up near identically now and booting/using either reveals no obvious operational differences. The only visual clue is that I'm using OpenOffice in FreeBSD, but LibreOffice in Debian, so the tray launcher icon gives it away as to which I'm running.

Broadly, with freebsd you get a base system of just a cli. With Slackware for instance you get a whole lot more included in that base system (KDE, Xfce ..etc.), and with Debian you get a whole lot more on top of that all within the base system. I haven't tried Slackware yet, and as its middle between I have little temptation to do so. I do however like the large base system that's managed/maintained by a single provider; And having become familiar with systemD configuration I personally now find it relatively easy (but it is different so you hit that initial learning curve that makes it seem difficult).

No harm in installing/learning/using both as I have ... and with time one or the another will likely tend to become the dominant boot choice. A handy feature is that you can use the other as a backup/admin type account. I made a squashfs of my sda1 ext3 partition the other day using freebsd and after total erasure of the ext3 partition content and a restore of that squashfs it all worked fine (my understanding is that freebsd can rw to ext3 but does so as ext2 i.e. without journalling).


----------



## RedPhoenix (Aug 21, 2017)

I think each OS has it's pros and cons.....      I think, at least for now, that FreeBSD doesn't support as much Hardware as Linux.....      I could, of course, be VERY wrong about that....      On this Laptop, which had Linux, FreeBSD works dang near as well, so as someone who just started committing to FreeBSD, as well as Linux, I have to say.....   This is one cool OS!.....      Plus, you gotta' love Daemon.....   ;D


----------



## Datapanic (Aug 22, 2017)

I'm having trouble keeping up with all these FreeBSD vs. Linux threads.  Can we consolidate them all into one thread called "Who Cares!?"


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Aug 22, 2017)

Datapanic said:


> I'm having trouble keeping up with all these FreeBSD vs. Linux threads. Can we consolidate them all into one thread called "Who Cares!?"



I must agree they're not quality threads. I'm guessing the underlying problem is that some people either can't make up their own minds or they have some kind of passive aggressive thing going against people who can.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Aug 22, 2017)

OJ said:


> I must agree they're not quality threads. I'm guessing the underlying problem is that some people either can't make up their own minds or they have some kind of passive aggressive thing going against people who can.



With an underlying theme of why can't FreeBSD be more like Linux.


----------



## RedPhoenix (Aug 22, 2017)

OJ said:


> I must agree they're not quality threads. I'm guessing the underlying problem is that some people either can't make up their own minds or they have some kind of passive aggressive thing going against people who can.


As for me, I just like both.....


----------



## RedPhoenix (Aug 22, 2017)

Trihexagonal said:


> With an underlying theme of why can't FreeBSD be more like Linux.


It's bad when someone wants an OS to be a clone of another one.....   :3   Where's the diversity then.....??   :3   That's why I started using FreeBSD....!      Something different!.....      That said, I WOULD like to be able to play Games with Acceleration, but that's just my Laptop and FreeBSD.....


----------



## French Fries (Aug 24, 2017)

I don't know if this Debian tool has an equivalent under FreeBSD (and I am looking for an equivalent).
When looking for vulnerabilities using debsecan in Debian, it returns hundreds of entries:

`debsecan --suite=sid
CVE-2017-11333 libvorbisfile3 (remotely exploitable, low urgency)
CVE-2017-11735 libvorbisfile3 (remotely exploitable, low urgency)
CVE-2016-10317 libgs9-common (remotely exploitable, medium urgency)
CVE-2017-11714 libgs9-common (remotely exploitable, medium urgency)
CVE-2017-9611 libgs9-common (remotely exploitable, medium urgency)
CVE-2017-9612 libgs9-common (remotely exploitable, medium urgency)
CVE-2017-9726 libgs9-common (remotely exploitable, medium urgency)
CVE-2017-9727 libgs9-common (remotely exploitable, medium urgency)
CVE-2017-9739 libgs9-common (remotely exploitable, medium urgency)
CVE-2017-9835 libgs9-common (remotely exploitable, medium urgency)
[...]`

The Linux kernel has only few vulnerabilities.
Most of vulnerabilities are in applications and libraries.
Because GNU/Linux has an unsecure design, it makes a very unsecure environment.

It must be a "breeze" to break-in a GNU/linux system, using dedicated toolkits.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Apr 1, 2018)

French Fries Look at `man pkg-audit`


----------



## Nicola Mingotti (Apr 1, 2018)

fernandel said:


> Search on the forum and read a handbook.



And don't forget man pages, they are quality material you can rely on,
really !


----------



## malco_2001 (Apr 2, 2018)

FreeBSD works okay for some use cases to run Linux based desktops.  It's more compatible than the other BSD's but less it is less compatible than Linux, and can lag behind a little.  It's easy enough to get going, and you get ZFS along with jails.  There are benefits, and it can be more rewarding but it can be  also be more limiting than other Linux options for the desktop use case.  It really just depends on individual wants for hardware, and application compatibility.


----------



## zirias@ (May 8, 2018)

The major reason for me personally is indeed systemd. I just hate this concept, with a passion. But then, trying out FreeBSD brought me to a whole new world. The management tools are just amazing. Being able to build my own packages repository in a clean and automated way with poudriere is perfect. ZFS works great, I can install a new base system to a new dataset and just null-mount this to my jails as needed.

Of course, this doesn't focus on the desktop. But, when I do all that, why not use my own "package repo builder" and install a desktop from that without unnecessary hassle? It just works, and it works great. In a few weeks, my new machine will be ready to distribute software to the machines of other family members, just by exposing the output dir of poudriere on a web server.

As for this "anyone can push any crap to ports" I had to read here: This definitely isn't the case. I'm maintaining two ports myself (and I hope I can work on them now, after a 2 year hiatus because I didn't have a decent internet connection) -- several changes were rejected in the past because they didn't pass the tests. That being said, I really wished FreeBSD would finally switch to git. Subversion is really a thing of the past ... with git, I could maintain the ports much more easily, just having a local branch and pulling updates from mainstream and merging locally. Oh well ....


----------



## tobik@ (May 8, 2018)

Zirias said:


> Subversion is really a thing of the past ... with git, I could maintain the ports much more easily, just having a local branch and pulling updates from mainstream and merging locally. Oh well ....


The official Git mirror for ports (https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-ports) is updated very regularly and you can use it for exactly that purpose.


----------



## Oko (May 9, 2018)

Disclaimer: I do use FreeBSD at work but I have not run FreeBSD desktop since the Spring of 2007. However I have been using OpenBSD exclusively on all my laptops and desktops for the past 12 years. I am familiar with DragonFly BSD desktop as well as major Linux distributions (Red Hat, Ubuntu) which I manage at work both as server and desktop OSs. These are my top 10 reasons why one would not prefer to run BSDs over Linux on the desktop/laptop.

1. Currently Linux kernel have almost 21 millions lines of code. Compare that to a bit under 9 millions of FreeBSD code which have the kernel implementation of ZFS (Solaris kernel re-implemented for all practical purposes)  and just a bit over 2 million lines of code including Xenocara (OpenBSD pseudo-fork of XOrg) in the case of the OpenBSD.

https://www.linuxcounter.net/statistics/kernel

A simple extrapolation will tell us that Linux must have at least 10 times as many bugs as OpenBSD.


2. I concur that having the ability to log each command and keep the track of all sysadmin actions is of paramount importance for the mission critical servers. When one needs such tools they should use AIX because it has SMIT or Solaris 11 because it has Service Management Facility (SMF).

http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/servers-storage-admin/intro-smf-basics-s11-1729181.html

systemd is a big fat joke and Linux guys are 15 years too late for the party. A desktop system with a correct implementation of systemd utility exists and is called OS X (the utility is launchd).


3. Linux lacks usable native file system. XFS is OK but in reality it is the 20th century file system comparing to ZFS, HAMMER, HAMMER2, and APFS (Apple File Sytem).

4. If PF is good enough for OS X, and Solaris than it must be really good. Sorry but I am used to having first rate stateful packet filter on my desktop (PF). IPTables (bastardized step child of FreeBSD IPFW) or whatever Red Hat is calling it now is just not going to cut it.

5. Linux just as any other proprietary OS is full of binary blobs!

6. I really don't want to use drivers with 1.5 million lines of code

https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=152465462030464&w=2



> Most people seem to be interested from the point of view of polaris/vega
> which are not supported in linux 4.4.  Ignoring the parts of the shared
> drm/ttm code that would have to be updated the latest
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd in linux has over 1.5 million lines of code.  Which
> is multiple times larger than the complete OpenBSD kernel source...



7. Canonical I really don't want to sent you any info about my servers and I could care less about you partners. Please stop doing data harvesting on my servers.

8. Because in spite all the turmoils in BSD camps we somehow always find the way to purge people like
Lennart Poettering from our communities (the case of Jordan Hubbard comes to mind). systemd alone would be enough in my book to earn him a life long ban on using computers let alone Avahi daemon, and Pulse Audio.

9. I consider D-Bus harmful and unnecessary for desktop users.

10. I really don't need 300+ Ubuntu based "distros" with custom wallpapers. Actually I not only know how to install wallpaper, I also know how to configure my computers. For everyone else I recommend buying a Mac


----------



## Phishfry (May 9, 2018)

Oko what about the UFS filesystem that the ordinary desktop user might use with FreeBSD.[Your Point 3]
I realize it is a 20th Century filesystem but compared to ext4 how does it rank?
Seems some here have complained about UFS while I have had no problems on over probably 40 builds.
Oldie but goodie or trash?? What filesystem do you format thumbdrives with, when needed.

I had no idea that UFS2 allowed for snapshots. I just saw details about it researching FFS.


----------



## Oko (May 9, 2018)

Phishfry said:


> I had no idea that UFS2 allowed for snapshots. I just saw details about it researching FFS.


If you install XFS on the top of the Logical Volume Manager (LVM2 to be precise as LVM1 is no longer used) you can take snapshots too. However those snapshots are neither efficient and nor very useful. ZFS is much more than version control system built into the file system. What is the use of the snapshot of a degraded file system? Or what is the use of the file system which can't self heal.  I recommend you do some reading. Red Hat is pushing XFS+LVM2 (LVM2 can also do the RAID but I like most old school Linux guys prefer mdadm when I have to do Soft RAID on Linux) as "alternative to ZFS". BS which comes out of their public relations office is just incredible.


----------



## meine (May 13, 2018)

kuroneko said:


> I would like to know why would FreeBSD be a better choice than Linux.



_Better_ depends on what you are looking for.

For me switching from Fedora (10-26) to FreeBSD was because:

control over what software is installed -- I wanted a lean and distractionless system using CLI in the first and GUI in the 238th place. lean means speed and stability;
renewed adventure in personal computing -- plug and play is too comfy and less fun;
my computer should do its job, so the operating system should be a stable environment.

I'm too low-tech for running away on systemd and alike issues. I didn't encounter any trouble, but am not interested in such dilemma's either. I liked the Fedora Forum over *buntu/Mint forums, but have --by far-- the best experience here at FreeBSD. People are really helpful and documentation is good.

I mostly work on texts reading, writing and editing. Vim, a decent web browser, mail, pdf viewer and a file manager is basicaly all I need.


----------



## Sensucht94 (May 15, 2018)

My reason no.1:

FreeBSD: 66 security vulnerabilities since 12/1999 between 5-5.99 CVSS score, no vulnerability equal or above 6

- Linux: 566 vulnerabilities with CVSS score between 7-7.99 since 12/1999


----------



## drhowarddrfine (May 15, 2018)

There's an electronics shop in town that I go to often. When I'm there, I'll sometimes overhear conversations from others about their computer. I heard the same conversations elsewhere, too. It's not usually Windows but Linux (if not some embedded stuff). My first inclination is to think "bumbling amateur hobbyist" and some kid with his toy and I'm usually right. The very few times I've had one say they were using BSD it was always a professional in the field or a very highly effective hobbyist who could probably work for me if he wished. 

That is not the reason I started using FreeBSD. It's an indicator of why I stay with FreeBSD.


----------



## ronaldlees (May 15, 2018)

I agree that you're much more likely to encounter Linux talk in a electronics/computer shop, especially one that does custom builds for people.  These shops are under stress tho.  With the university's switch-over to the Windows/Apple world, the young ones get pre-implanted with a supposedly "correct" world view - one that usually doesn't include alternative operating systems.  So, I see the local PC shops in decline, and it's not just Amazon that's doing them in.  Regardless of cause - soon, we will have only the internet for custom built hardware parts sources here.  So, if they're talking Linux in the shops, it's OK with me.  Beats the alternative.

I can tell the shops are under stress by the inventory they're holding:  it get's weaker all the time, and caters more and more to commercial stuff, especially smartphone, etc.

With desktop Linux I feel like I'm overdressed with winter clothes in the hot summer, when the lower layers don't seem very clean to me.  Any full blown Linux install will de-power my machine to the point of its developing an annoying lag via the desktop environment's cycle wasting. I then always have to wonder "what it's doing".

However; overdressed Linux is a distro problem.  I run a built-from-scratch Gentoo with an i3 window manager and the hated lag isn't any more than on FreeBSD with the same configuration.  I still prefer FreeBSD tho - it has fewer layers of clothing, and the BSD undergarments seem to itch less in the hot summer sun.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (May 15, 2018)

OT: It's an interesting electronics only shop that doesn't do any PC building and the people behind the counter are more likely to be able to help you build an audio amp from scratch. They've been around forever and every nerd in the region knows of them. If you need some strange, off-the-wall, hard-to-get part, they probably have twelve of them. Both surplus and new.


----------



## ralphbsz (May 15, 2018)

Sensucht94 said:


> My reason no.1:
> 
> FreeBSD: 66 security vulnerabilities since 12/1999 between 5-5.99 CVSS score, no vulnerability equal or above 6
> 
> - Linux: 566 vulnerabilities with CVSS score between 7-7.99 since 12/1999


And what is the number for OpenBSD?  I presume much smaller.

And what would be the number for a computer that I Turned off in November 1999, and have never turned on again?  It would be zero, the best possible one.  The most secure computer is one that doesn't work at all.

What we need to look for is a compromise.  Something that is reasonably useful, yet reasonably secure.  Different people have different weights on these factors; for some people security is incredibly important, and is worth a lot of investment of money and time.  And the definition of "useful" depends on the intended use: desktop, laptop, generic server, network server, and so on.  For my use case and preference, FreeBSD is an excellent server operating system; I do not use either FreeBSD or Linux on the desktop/laptop.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (May 16, 2018)

ralphbsz said:


> Different people have different weights on these factors; for some people security is incredibly important, and is worth a lot of investment of money and time.  And the definition of "useful" depends on the intended use: desktop, laptop, generic server, network server, and so on.  For my use case and preference, FreeBSD is an excellent server operating system; I do not use either FreeBSD or Linux on the desktop/laptop.



Personally I like the fact FreeBSD is primarily thought of and used as a server. It gives me all the pros that come with it and I can still get a fully functional desktop (laptop) out of it that suits my needs.

Though I have learned one thing recently from my observations:

"Root does not a SysAdmin make."


----------



## vermaden (May 16, 2018)

ralphbsz said:


> And what is the number for OpenBSD?  I presume much smaller.



OpenBSD: 161 vulnerabilities ...

... and its *574* for Linux already.


----------



## ShelLuser (May 16, 2018)

Ok, this is a wee bit of a troll so don't take it _too_ seriously 



Sensucht94 said:


> FreeBSD: 66 security vulnerabilities since 12/1999 between 5-5.99 CVSS score, no vulnerability equal or above 6
> 
> - Linux: 566 vulnerabilities with CVSS score between 7-7.99 since 12/1999


See, this means that there's much more fun to be had on Linux. FreeBSD is boring: you install it and keep it updated and things just continue to work. Linux on the other hand actually gives you something to do for those times when you sit bored behind your PC wondering what to do next. Not to worry: there's always a vulnerability to be found somewhere.

I mean... given the massive amount of vulnerabilities of Windows and it's high popularity as a desktop OS (generally speaking) I think it's safe to conclude that a good desktop brings its own fair share of vulnerabilities!

... I'll go get my coffee now and wake myself up a bit


----------



## alx82 (May 17, 2018)

Oko said:


> 9. I consider D-Bus harmful and unnecessary for desktop users.



I do agree on all of your points except this. Probably D-Bus is not mandatory for a desktop environment, but why you consider it harmful?

To me, D-Bus is not perfect, but I see no alternative to it. D-Bus benefits desktop developers by providing a common framework, type-safe messaging, event notification, etc... Of course all those mentioned features can be implemented differently, but having them in a common framework eases thing a lot for developers.

My opinion and experience is very different for shits like Policykit, systemd, and Pulseaudio, enough have been said about those.... But for D-Bus, using it as a developer (also its gio abstraction) have been always a positive experience.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (May 17, 2018)

alx82 said:


> I do agree on all of your points except this. Probably D-Bus is not mandatory for a desktop environment, but why you consider it harmful?



I build from ports using ports-mgmt/portmaster and if memory serves me D-Bus is pulled as a dependency with the graphics/gimp meta port, and I consider that a part of my desktop I use it so much.

sysutils/hal gets in there, too, but I'm not certain what program pulls it in with my build.


----------



## alx82 (May 17, 2018)

Trihexagonal said:


> I build from ports using ports-mgmt/portmaster and if memory serves me D-Bus is pulled as a dependency with the graphics/gimp meta port, and I consider that a part of my desktop I use it so much.



Yes sure, but that depend on the desktop and apps that you use. KDE, Gnome, Xfce use D-Bus, other desktops do not. Although, It is largely used nowadays.


----------



## michael_hackson (May 17, 2018)

ronaldlees said:


> I agree that you're much more likely to encounter Linux talk in a electronics/computer shop, especially one that does custom builds for people.  These shops are under stress tho.  With the university's switch-over to the Windows/Apple world, the young ones get pre-implanted with a supposedly "correct" world view - one that usually doesn't include alternative operating systems.  So, I see the local PC shops in decline, and it's not just Amazon that's doing them in.  Regardless of cause - soon, we will have only the internet for custom built hardware parts sources here.  So, if they're talking Linux in the shops, it's OK with me.  Beats the alternative.



That is a very interesting thing and my generation comes with a Windows domination everywhere. Windows (and MAC OS) was my only connection with what was named "computers" for my whole childhood and youth. That was the reason why I was late into *nix and the only times I heard of *nix was when a friend of mine had "severe problems with his Linux kernel" or "We have one room of Linux-computers in the university, but nobody uses them".

Haven't tried Linux yet but one of the main reason why you should pick FreeBSD over anything is because it really indulges you to start learn about computers. I thought I knew quite a lot about computers, running Windows XP being able to help friends, but I came to realise that it was only an illusion. Windows is like frontend knowledge, if you want something deeper you should go *nix and most appreciatively FreeBSD.

>> The more you get preconfigured, the less you learn, and my feelings for Linux is that it's not as "bare" as FreeBSD for desktoping.


----------



## Beastie7 (May 17, 2018)

michael_hackson said:


> The more you get preconfigured, the less you learn, and my feelings for Linux is that it's not as "bare" as FreeBSD for desktoping.



Ironically, FreeBSD itself is preconfigured; because the base is shipped with kernel/userland defaults that are put into fruition by the developers.

In the context of systems administration or development, you can learn just as much about it with Windows; you just have more abstractions in your way that can hinder learning concepts. You don't really "learn the desktop".

Edit: spelling


----------



## michael_hackson (May 17, 2018)

Beastie7 said:


> Ironically, FreeBSD itself is preconfigured; because the base is shipped with kernel/userland defaults that are put into fruition by the developers.
> 
> In the context of systems administration or development, you can learn just as much about it with Windows; you just have more abstractions in your way that can hinder learning concepts. You don't really "learn the desktop".
> 
> Edit: spelling



Well, you are not wrong in what you are saying, though I would find it a little over the top to restrict myself too much from preconfigurations. I mean, you really really can build everything from scraps but then again you must be very dedicated.

And yes, you can do "same things" with Windows. It's just that I had never seen a computer environment able to take input without having a desktop in front of me, so installing an OS without desktop was a challenge itself. At least I feel that I "learn the desktop" when I set it up with different WMs and binaries. I now got a better understanding of drivers and how programs communicate with eachother and library dependencies. That wasn't something I managed to get with Windows, guess I was blinded by those "abstractions" (distractions).


----------



## Deleted member 54719 (May 20, 2018)

Actually, it's a hard sell for me.  I wrote a "must have" list of features and supported hardware I need in order to be able to break free of the Linux world and I came up too short.  Wish it would have been different, but without better hardware driver support, and better interoperability with existing Linux filesystems and APIs, I cannot justify it.  The simpler init and and sound control (no systemd or pulseaudio) were big selling points in favor of BSD but the lack of ports for specialized software I need, and the non-existent interoperatbility with linux software raid and full disk encryption introduce too much headache to switch.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (May 20, 2018)

tempest766 said:


> I wrote a "must have" list of features and supported hardware I need in order to be able to break free of the Linux world


I'm betting there is equivalent hardware that suits your needs on FreeBSD. 


tempest766 said:


> without better hardware driver support


For what?


tempest766 said:


> better interoperability with existing Linux filesystems and APIs


That's why I won't use Linux. It doesn't have better interoperability with existing FreeBSD filesystems and APIs. Virtually non-existent interoperability with FreeBSD software.


----------



## michael_hackson (May 21, 2018)

drhowarddrfine said:


> I'm betting there is equivalent hardware that suits your needs on FreeBSD.



I second this as a strong point. The ports tree is filled with different programs which may act as equals or even better depending on what you want.


----------



## Deleted member 54719 (May 23, 2018)

michael_hackson said:


> I second this as a strong point. The ports tree is filled with different programs which may act as equals or even better depending on what you want.



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

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

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

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

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

Let the flaming begin!


----------



## zirias@ (May 23, 2018)

tempest766 said:


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


This is an interesting claim (emphasis mine). Your argument against FreeBSD as a desktop driver is your special personal requirements, which is fine, but explicitly doesn't make it a universally valid argument. Still, you disqualify any universal argument for using FreeBSD on a desktop as "religious dogma". Does this really make sense?


tempest766 said:


> Let the flaming begin!


No thanks


----------



## drhowarddrfine (May 23, 2018)

tempest766 Like most Linux users, you confuse operating systems that support hardware with hardware that supports operating systems. You want to blame FreeBSD, which does not write hardware drivers for every piece of hardware out there, but neither does Linux. So your complaints are with the hardware manufacturers, not FreeBSD. Yet you've come here and stayed here looking for help using FreeBSD, including making comments some time later which makes me question why you are here despite all that.



tempest766 said:


> Let the flaming begin!



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


----------



## Π 5C15 (May 23, 2018)

kuroneko said:


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



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


----------



## Π 5C15 (May 23, 2018)

tempest766 said:


> Let the flaming begin!



Are you serious? Because we are. We don't get in in your bad joke.
If you say bs about BSD despite you've asked for help here, I don't know what the heck you're doing here.


----------



## ralphbsz (May 26, 2018)

drhowarddrfine said:


> tempest766 You want to blame FreeBSD, which does not write hardware drivers for every piece of hardware out there, but neither does Linux. So your complaints are with the hardware manufacturers, not FreeBSD.



The question is not about blame.

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

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



> Yet you've come here and stayed here looking for help using FreeBSD, ...


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



> If you are unable and unwilling to make FreeBSD work for you, then ...


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

Criticism is the best thing that can happen.


----------



## Beastie7 (May 27, 2018)

ralphbsz said:


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



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

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

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

edit: clarity


----------



## rufwoof (May 27, 2018)

tempest766 said:


> I simply stated originally that for as much as I'd like to rely more upon freeBSD, it also suffers from problems that will keep it from being more readily accepted and used...at least by me.  Arguments to the contrary are in my most humble opinion, pure religious dogma.
> 
> I can certainly find server uses for freeBSD, but to sell it as a mainstream workstation environment seems a bit disingenuous.
> 
> Let the flaming begin!


I moved to Debian after XP support ended. Approaching a year ago I started dual booting both Debian and BSD. Nowadays I just boot BSD (deleted Debian rather than upgrading it from Jessie to Stretch). For me it works better and is organised in a more standard/consistent manner (with Debian things seemed to be all over the place). Also when I edit videos it doesn't just crash ... better stability and IME the sound is also better. Not arguing to the contrary, or religious dogma, just saying it works best for me and my particular hardware as a daily primary boot desktop. Use whatever works best for you.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (May 27, 2018)

ralphbsz You and the others totally missed my point. He already gave up on FreeBSD but is still here criticizing and complaining and pointing the finger at FreeBSD for its failure to produce hardware drivers. He blames FreeBSD and I'm pointing out he is out of bounds on that. Since he  has moved on because of this, then he should move on and not exist here anymore for that only makes him a troll. There is no point in this common "be nice to everyone" fallacy including trolls.


----------



## rigoletto@ (May 27, 2018)

I guess this is a good moment to have this thread closed.


----------



## Deleted member 54719 (May 27, 2018)

lebarondemerde said:


> I guess this is a good moment to have this thread closed.



Agreed.  No interest in arguing with "group think".


----------



## Crivens (May 27, 2018)

I prefer to be told where I can improve, and that would not have happened when the OP had silently walked away.

Other than that, _your wishes are granted._


----------

