# Advantages of using FreeBSD (compared to Linux)



## Spartrekus (Jun 29, 2017)

Hello,

I am very happy of using FreeBSD on several servers, and more and more machines for graphical desktop users. For me, the complete satisfaction


There might be quoted:
*FreeBSD v. Linux:* This is a closer call. We really have nothing against Linux. In fact, we like it. We just happen to like FreeBSD more. Although both are similar on the surface, under the hood they are two very different operating systems. FreeBSD is based on UNIX--it was born out of BSD UNIX. Proprietary AT&T code has been removed, but FreeBSD can trace its roots back into the 1970s. The Linux kernel, on the other hand, was written by Linus Torvalds as a UNIX-clone or UNIX-like system at the beginning of the 1990s. Lineage isn't everything, however. The main reason why we prefer FreeBSD over Linux is performance. FreeBSD feels significantly faster and more responsive than the several major Linux distros (including Red Hat Fedora, Gentoo, Debian, and Ubuntu) we've tested on the same hardware. (We're not claiming to have performed professional benchmarking tests--however, running the same versions of the same applications on each system demonstrated a considerable performance advantage of FreeBSD over the Linux distros we tried). Added to the performance advantage FreeBSD has over Linux is its stability advantage. Those are enough to make us choose FreeBSD over Linux. There are also usage variations--FreeBSD just "feels" nicer than Linux when we use and administer it. On the other hand, the majority of popular graphical applications for FreeBSD are originally written for Linux, and some are slower than others in being ported to FreeBSD. If you want the latest version of your favorite app and you want it yesterday, Linux allows you to live life on the bleeding edge moreso than FreeBSD. Still, most major applications make their way to FreeBSD in very little extra time, and most of us using FreeBSD prefer stability over getting the latest new feature immediately.


If you would like to join the list of advantages with your ideas, let's try to list all the possible advantages of using FreeBSD?


----------



## tobik@ (Jun 30, 2017)

Spartrekus said:


> There might be quoted:


Source?


----------



## dclau (Jun 30, 2017)

tobik@ said:


> Source?


https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~reinholz/freebsd/3reasons.html


----------



## scottro (Jun 30, 2017)

Seems pretty old, they're talking about cvsup and such if one clicks the next page.


----------



## tingo (Jun 30, 2017)

so this is another "my car is better than yours" thread. What good do you (OP) think can come of such a discussion?
(hint: saying that "X is better" is always going to cause a negative reaction from those using Y or a different letter...)


----------



## SirDice (Jun 30, 2017)

What I personally like about FreeBSD as compared to Linux is the fact you can easily change defaults. You can base your entire repository on Apache 2.2 instead of 2.4 for example. Or PHP 7.1 instead of PHP 5.6. On most Linux distributions you're basically stuck with whatever they've picked as default. Of course you can install things from source but this quickly becomes utterly unmanageable if you have lots of servers. Sure you can also build your own DEB or RPM packages but building said package isn't quite as easy and straightforward either. On FreeBSD the ports system and various tools like ports-mgmt/synth and ports-mgmt/poudriere make this extremely easy to do.


----------



## Datapanic (Jun 30, 2017)

I don't like penguins.


----------



## ShelLuser (Jun 30, 2017)

Well, given recent discussions and problems I consider it a huge advantage that FreeBSD does not get involved with horror software (personal opinion) such as systemd 

But more seriously...

Most of all I appreciate it's slow and reliable pace. When looking back at when I started using FreeBSD (around FreeBSD 9 I think) and today there's a lot which changed "under the hood" but the interface is still the same I got to know and love so many years ago. Where the only major (more obvious) change I can think of is the package manager. (yes I know we also got ZFS on root and all that, but its use is not mandatory).

Yet even with pkgng you see that continuity is a very important thing. Using the Sun tools you'd use pkg-add (for example). The new environment merely removed the dash and exchanged it for a space: `pkg add`, where the dash comes back to pull up a specific manualpage (pkg-add(8)). I think that's proof of a very well thought out design, which still brings us something new while keeping the impact of the change as low as possible.

It may not be very exciting feature-wise but it is very exciting to me because I value reliability over features.

I also want to re-address what SirDice said: oh so true...  I've used Linux a long time (now also a long time ago) and it never stopped to amaze me that I had to install wireless tools on a server. Simply because other packages relied on it. Sometimes you'd have to pull in totally useless junk because of that. FreeBSD gives you a clear cut choice.

Even on the system level (it's for a good reason why /usr/src is my favorite way to keep my FreeBSD system up to date).


----------



## newcomerFree (Jun 30, 2017)

Spartrekus said:


> advantage of using FreeBSD?



_*N O*_   systemd !


----------



## ralphbsz (Jun 30, 2017)

Datapanic said:


> I don't like penguins.


Then you haven't had them done right: five minutes each side, serve on a bed of rice, with a mushroom and cream sauce.


----------



## aimeec1995 (Jul 8, 2017)

I get a full working OS I can mold into my image with FreeBSD. It just works.
With linux there must be thousands of non robust half completed bad distros out there that are poorely maintained and barely work.


----------



## rufwoof (Jul 9, 2017)

aimeec1995 said:


> I get a full working OS I can mold into my image with FreeBSD. It just works.
> With linux there must be thousands of non robust half completed bad distros out there that are poorely maintained and barely work.


I'm a FreeBSD (desktop) newbie. Currently I have dual boot of Debian Jessie (old stable) and FreeBSD (ufs). What I like about Debian old-stable is that whilst older versions of programs, the whole thing works together as one (Linux + programs/software) and has been threw a extended period of testing (by both developers/testers and then 2 years or so in live/release). It took me a while to realise that Debian 'stable' meant unchanging, not the 'solid' I initially thought it meant. They fix security and critical bugs in stable but otherwise leave it as much unchanged (stable) as possible. When the new Stable comes out and the current stable falls into oldstable - that is still supported (security fixes etc.) and many of the bugs that aren't critical or security issues are documented (known, often with workarounds suggested). I installed Debian using just their MAIN respositories and found that it worked really well (i.e. if you stick to pure Debian its very good).

Whilst there are (too) many Linux offerings out there, a fair comparision is perhaps Debian OldStable contrasted with FreeBSD. Very early days for me but it seems so far that FreeBSD lives up to at least equal comparision in stability (as in solidness). I haven't really managed to figure out how stable FreeBSD updates are yet for myself and currently I'm just using pre-built binaries being installed ... so basically using freebsd-update fetch;freebsd-update install;pkg update type updating (which I think is the thing to do and compares to Debian's apt-get update;apt-get upgrade ???).

So far I haven't really latched onto primarily booting one over the other, if anything still mostly booting Debian Jessie as that is what I've used more in the past (greater famliarity) but I am trying to expand my FreeBSD knowledge. I'd guess that both are pretty equal in many respects and time will tell as to which becomes the predominant boot choice for me in the future. I'd guess that FreeBSD could very well win out overall ... once I gain experience with actually compiling stuff from source. FreeBSD excels in that aspect as far as I can tell from my (very) limited understanding.  The crem dela crem ... being able to run a system where perhaps everything was compiled from source tuned to your own particular hardware/setup.

I'm fortunate in that my hardware works very well with FreeBSD and appreciate that Linux perhaps has the edge with regard to more recent/extensive hardware support. That's less of a issue however if you're pre-aware of such limits before buying newer hardware, as you can simply target the choice of hardware purchased accordingly.

Support/development wise, I guess Debian has the edge (more involved). Many however in the Linux community go on to to their own thing and fragment/duplicate focus. As we move forward with your mobile/smart phone being both more powerful and more capable than desktop PC much of that fragmentation will perhaps have to refocus more towards a common core ... just to keep going (from the desktop PC perspective). Again my feeling is that FreeBSD will do OK as its pretty well already centralised AFAICT.

Its hard to see great futures for either Debian desktop or FreeBSD desktop ... or indeed any desktop. Desktops could very well just transition over to being a display and keyboard that your mobile device/phone wirelessly couples to, purely for the convienience of input/control and display. On the server side my understanding is that many more use Linux than FreeBSD.

I've tried to be impartial and balanced, but due to lack of knowledge may very well have some things wrong. Very generally I'd say 60/40 FreeBSD/Debian oldstable primarily on the basis that whilst both have a central/complete self contained type setup (main kernel and all the programs/software that run), FreeBSD has the edge when it comes to refining and compiling your own binaries.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jul 9, 2017)

rufwoof said:


> That's less of a issue however if you're pre-aware of such limits before buying newer hardware, as you can simply target the choice of hardware purchased accordingly.


A *LOT* of people never think of that and only look at numbers that mean little. Such as "Linux supports 10,000 plugin cards but FreeBSD only supports 9374 so FreeBSD is bad!!!" and other comments of the insane.


rufwoof said:


> On the server side my understanding is that many more use Linux than FreeBSD.


Far more internet traffic runs through FreeBSD servers and software than Linux if you consider Netflix alone (almost 40%).

I can see the average user using mobile and not relying on a desktop or laptop computer. In fact, Google has said search traffic on mobile has now exceeded desktop but I don't see the desktop going away any time soon for office and technical workers.


----------



## rufwoof (Jul 9, 2017)

ShelLuser said:


> Well, given recent discussions and problems I consider it a huge advantage that FreeBSD does not get involved with horror software (personal opinion) such as systemd
> 
> But more seriously...
> 
> Most of all I appreciate it's slow and reliable pace.


For a 'end-user' who primarily just wants a basic desktop that consistently works well as a tool i.e. minimal maintenance effort, what is a appropriate choice/method for FreeBSD?

As a Debian user (FreeBSD newbie) I like running oldstable for my needs. I have no need for the latest programs/hardware, just basically want to word process, spreadsheet and browse the web. Debian oldstable has been through around 2 years of live release and still receives security updates. When you use just their MAIN repository then its all encompassing, with Debian providing both the core system and programs ... that collectively work well together.

Mapping that over to FreeBSD and again a single provider for both system and programs, along with security updates ... but what release should one run and how might that be updated simply in order to maintain security? My current thinking (and first install) is 11.0 RELEASE, with programs being installed using the binaries ... and updates being made by using freebsd-update fetch;freebsd-update install;pkg upgrade. Start with the current RELEASE and stay with that until EOL before upgrading to the then current Release ???

A issue I have with Debian is that it moves the goalposts around so much such that upgrading from one major release to the next can involve having to put a lot of effort in (switching from aufs to overlayfs for example when your setup is primarily based on aufs), or mean taking on something that is relatively new/untested (systemD was a example). In that respect to me FreeBSD seems to have the edge (less unchanging (more thoroughly tested progression)).

The other main appeal of FreeBSD is that the option to compile everything oneself is there, so individual programs can be configured for ones own particular hardware if the need arises, or even the entire installation locally built in a manner that best matches the hardware. Installing pre-build binaries is great for ease and simplicity, however there are isolated cases where being able to configure a particular programs build specifically for ones needs can be extremely useful.


----------



## ralphbsz (Jul 9, 2017)

rufwoof said:


> For a 'end-user' who primarily just wants a basic desktop that consistently works well as a tool i.e. minimal maintenance effort, what is a appropriate choice/method for FreeBSD?


Use a Mac, and don't mess too much with it.  That means you don't have to install the OS (it's already there when you take the machine out of the box), you don't worry about organizing upgrades (they are nearly completely automatic, just occasionally click on the upgrade window, and stop using the computer for 5 or 10 minutes), and everything just works.  If you start messing with it too much and use non-Apple-standard applications (like Chrome or Firefox as a browser instead of Safari, or Acrobat instead of Preview for viewing/modifying PDF document), then it will become less easy.

Actually, Windows machines are similar: Get the hardware it preinstalled with a good antivirus, and then just use it without changing the configuration too much, accept automatic upgrades.  Both the Mac and Windows options give a functioning desktop experience, works fine out of the box for the web, word processing and spreadsheets (just install one of the two or three standard office suites, free or otherwise), and allows running canned software (for example CAD, data analysis, or software development).  Unfortunately, for office suites, Microsoft is still unbeatable in its combination of ease of use, convenience, compatibility, and it works just fine on Mac and Windows.

Clearly, one can use free software (Linux or *BSD) on the desktop, but it is a lot more handholding and work.  I've yet to see any FOSS software that gets anywhere close to the low-hassle user experience on the desktop, particular compared to the Mac.  In terms of desktop convenience, the differences between Debian, Fedora and FreeBSD pale in comparison to the difference between all three and a Mac.

Now, for servers and appliances, the situation is the opposite.  It is technically possible to use a Mac server (Apple even sells server versions of its OS, although that is used very little outside of specialized industries), and Windows actually has some market share in the server market, but it is a hard way to do it.  This is where FOSS (Linux and *BSD) shines.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Jul 17, 2017)

rufwoof said:


> For a 'end-user' who primarily just wants a basic desktop that consistently works well as a tool i.e. minimal maintenance effort, what is a appropriate choice/method for FreeBSD?
> 
> *snip*
> 
> Mapping that over to FreeBSD and again a single provider for both system and programs, along with security updates ... but what release should one run and how might that be updated simply in order to maintain security?



I'd recommend RELEASE. Once you've got it set up maintenance is about as simple as running:


```
portsnap fetch update
pkg audit -F
freebsd-update fetch
```

on a regular basis to ensure you stay up to date. I use ports exclusively and let portmaster do any program updates.

As for security, when I changed ISP they only provided a modem so I ran my laptops connected directly to the net for months without a second thought. I only more recently got a router so I could have more than one online at a time.


----------



## gfx (Jul 18, 2017)

From my point of view, the community is the biggest advantage. Lately, i happen to appreciate old school *nix folks even more; after seeing how the "shiny cool kids" on the block degenerate/ruin the FOSS community. Plus, learning the harder way of doing things from old school guys turns out to be more advantageous and surprisingly practical in the long term.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jul 18, 2017)

gfx said:


> how the "shiny cool kids" on the block degenerate/ruin the FOSS community.


Just the other day, I was looking at a client's workstation using all the "you can't build web sites without it' stuff for non-core things was 25% bigger than any complete web site we have ever created. And a whole collection of "must have tools" we never use.


----------



## SirDice (Jul 18, 2017)

gfx said:


> Plus, learning the harder way of doing things from old school guys turns out to be more advantageous and surprisingly practical in the long term.


If you understand the core principles it's going to be easy to apply that knowledge. Almost everything these days is a culmination of technologies but the core principles are usually still the same. An 8 bit CPU is in essence exactly the same as the latest multi-core Xeons. So if you learned to program that 8 bit CPU you can apply that knowledge when learning about those latest Xeons. The steps you need to take are small compared to someone that needs to learn that complex box from scratch.


----------



## Wozzeck.Live (Jul 18, 2017)

*Performance* : it is difficult to make comparisons. In some cases Linux (but which one ? Because some distros can run better, it depends on compiling options and compilers used) can run faster, and in some other cases FreeBSD is better.

*Stability* : we find a lot of message of professionals migrating from FreeBSD to Linux for stability reasons, and so we also find some users migrating from Linux to FreeBSD for exactly the same reasons.

What is the truth ? THE H A R D W A R E
As far as a given hardware has perfect written drivers, stability is not a problem, on either platform, even Windows.
But... generally speaking Linux has a better drivers deposit, as we can say that Windows has a larger database compared to Linux. You know the reason why... from a commercial point of view hardware makers focuse on Windows and Linux.

So in fact... if you choose FreeBSD, you must first acquire a suitable hardware, but never buy a hardware thinking after that you will manage to make it work with FreeBSD, check first the compatibility list.
*
Desktop* : let be honest.... there is today no possible comparison between FreeBSD and Windows 10 / Mac OS
Microsoft made very great things first with Windows 7 (correcting major Vista issues), and Windows 10 (correcting major issues of Windows 8), nobody can deny that.

Far after Win/Mac comes Linux with advanced GNOME 3 (or Unity in Ubuntu), KDE desktops. And little after comes FreeBSD in PC BSD flavor now TrueOS.
FreeBSD Desktop works and is enough for administrators but not for most end users, and certainly not for common Mac or Windows end users.
FreeBSD is eventually used as a desktop by some Universities, researchers as these people have some UNICES knowledges, and they don't attach too much importance to "cosmetic", they just want stable workstation capable of running very fast some scientific oriented programs.

The situation of FreeBSD desktop may change in the next 10 years. It will largely depends on the development of TrueOS and in particular one of his key component, Lumina desktop, the first desktop natively developed for BSD (except the non free MAC OS desktop). If Lumina addresses some issues as simply automounting an USB key, connecting easily to any NFS, MAC or Samba network .... so OK FreeBSD will be a harder challenger to Linux Desktop.

Anybody will say that if you let a FreeBSD Desktop connected under Gnome, KDE several days, the desktop will crash by itself at a moment.

The reason ? There is generally a hidden "linuxism" mechanism which make turn the things wrong on BSD, and so Lumina could be the first true reliable answer to solve theses kind of issue, but this desktop is young and needs developments to reach the same functionalities as Linux desktops. But as today, Lumina is already a true alternative  for administrators.

So what could be the most TRUE reasons to choose FreeBSD today over Linux ?

- Server, for desktops ideally use Win/Mac or Linux

- FreeBSD implements a Linux emulation. With some patience, an experienced user can get most of Linux applications working on FreeBSD with incredible performances, sometimes as it ran natively. That is not always possible if the application is too much Linux oriented, but as far as I know Linux has no equivalent to "bridge" to BSD, other than hard virtualisation solution which cost a heavy loss of power.

- Jails : I love playing with jails and I guess to be not the only one. FreeBSD Jails are an advanced Chrooted environment.
FreeBSD Jails give some virtualisation advantages, without some disadvantages. Jails have been implemented in NetBSD, but not in OpenBSD, and for this sole reason I will never give a try to OpenBSD even if I could be interested in some aspects of this system.
For example I love OpenBSD Packet Filter firewall far better that FreeBSD IPFW,  and I know that OpenBSD holds the most advanced version, but nothing could let me drop jails as I use them as a basic administration principle of my BSD server.

- Ports : With port system, FreeBSD users can easily custom the compilation process choosing the right options. We can do that in Linux, but it is more difficult. I play a little with Linux Mageia... as far as I know, if you custom compile, this program won't be automatically updated. With FreeBSD ports system, when you get a new bunch of code, just use "portupgrade or portmaster" to recompile.

Now with "PKG " package system, you can also use official pre-compiled programs, or create your own master deposit of pre-compiled programs (so with your own ports options) to update a fleet of workstation.

- Development : FreeBSD develops itself with intelligence. Number of Ubuntu users get disappointed because Ubuntu, as Windows breaks so often the rules to make something new, something more sexy... but this does not always mean something "durable"
A lot of Ubuntu users go back to "Linux roots" with a Debian system. Linux world create a lot of new systems every day... just enumerate the number of file systems, and finally is it always useful ? It creates a lot of confusion. One system appears to be sexy and is largely adopted, but few years after the development is suddenly stopped as insufficiently supported. Just try to figure out what happened to ReiserFS... just because the creator killed his wife, the system is given dead.... oh my god... could you imagine all Windows systems getting down if Steve Balmer or Bill Gate just died ?

As a comparison Microsoft choose to make NTFS evolve, they just created exFAT some years ago to replace the two limited FAT32. For years now, BSD has made the same thing with UFS.
The last major evolution has been to adopt ZFS as a native filesystem, but fortunately UFS still remains and remains the best possible solution for desktop.

ZFS addresses BIG DATA use, so it is suitable for industry scale NAS, but for a personal desktop... frankly ZFS is much more a loss of power, UFS with journaling option is simply better.

FreeBSD will always evolve with intelligence, with transition periods if necessary. FreeBSD does not intend to create something more sexy, they just want to create a more reliable system with greater performance. FreeBSD gives more respect to users.
Some Linux administrators get tired with the number of recent major changes to Linux (SystemD...), and some of them begin to evaluate FreeBSD with its reliable development model.

- Community : long time ago I deliberately choose FreeBSD over Linux (I just hesitated a little time between FreeBSD and OpenBSD, but FreeBSD jails and Linux Emulation made the decision), even if I knew that it would be a "very harder path" as I was switching directly from Windows, with no intermediate step to Linux, because I was so much irritated by the behavior of the Linux community. Linux community wants the death of Microsoft, but also of BSD... the community has the same  supremacy attitude as the hated Microsoft. Linux Boys are so often some stupid boys telling so much stupid things everywhere... this is incredible.

I also hate the extremism of some major directors of the Free Software Foundation, I prefer the BSD, MIT Licenses... which grant, from my point of view, the true liberty. So when I have a possible choice I void any GPL license, what is more theoretical than realisable, as you firstly choose a software for the functionalities.

These are political aspects, not technical, yes I assume that, but all our life is also a "political question".
You choose your religion, sometimes you leave your country to choose democracy.... choosing an OS is also a political choice because you know that a given open source operating system will live with his community. Adopting FreeBSD, and accepting the disadvantages of such choice, makes the community stronger. If the community is stronger, we can expect more interest and hope that some issues will find a solution sooner.


----------



## azathoth (Jul 18, 2017)

drhowarddrfine said:


> A *LOT* of people never think of that and only look at numbers that mean little. Such as "Linux supports 10,000 plugin cards but FreeBSD only supports 9374 so FreeBSD is bad!!!" and other comments of the insane.
> 
> Far more internet traffic runs through FreeBSD servers and software than Linux if you consider Netflix alone (almost 40%).
> 
> I can see the average user using mobile and not relying on a desktop or laptop computer. In fact, Google has said search traffic on mobile has now exceeded desktop but I don't see the desktop going away any time soon for office and technical workers.




its netflix really 40% of net traffic? holy cow


----------



## azathoth (Jul 18, 2017)

A really tuff challenge is archlinux vs freebsd, but now that systemd is here and archlinux removed their gui installer, I dont care enough to move back to archlinux.
I hate doing low level crap so I need another computer to do the installl.  FreeBSD is arguably better now and I enjoy the zfs on root.
From cat-v.org I sometimes think of trying openbsd again, but last few times performance so slow I bounced back to freebsd.
running 11.1-RC3 on my amd 965 6 core 16g ram desktop that needs a quieter fan now.....and icewm gives me simple desktop no worries.
smplayer for vids, deluge for cof coff backups and xfe for gui file stuff....3 usb externals for storage.....zfs all....each its own pool....Im loving life!!

I watch all kinda intersting youtubes and other entertainments.
Obly think linux owuld have currently is pharo.org.....at least until I sweat a little to port it, if that is possible, but pharo runs on windows n mac so has tt be ez...

Freebsd does freak me outsometimes because system will be lagging under big rsync job and top will still show like load avg 2 or 3.......heh
Does freebsd not admit its working hard?
Anyone run a massive database on feebsd and have it come under heavy load?  from everything I hear it handles itself really well...


----------



## SirDice (Jul 18, 2017)

azathoth said:


> Anyone run a massive database on feebsd and have it come under heavy load?


A client of mine has a fairly large MySQL database (a few tables are several GB large). There's also a lot of queries so it really pushes the machine. With databases, in general, IOPS are more important than raw CPU power. The CPUs are mostly idle while the disk controller is fairly busy. But the limitation they're running into is more hardware related than OS related. There's only so much data you can push through a PCIe bus, even if you use multiple lanes. And then there's the limitation of the SAS/SATA buses. So there are plenty of bottlenecks but none of them are related to the OS.


----------



## tankist02 (Jul 18, 2017)

> Freebsd does freak me outsometimes because system will be lagging under big rsync job and top will still show like load avg 2 or 3.......heh

I suspect this is because of ZFS. I also had some performance problems with ZFS which I partially solved using ZIL and L2ARC on a separate SDD drive. Still I think ZFS is an overkill for a regular desktop.


----------



## fnoyanisi (Jul 18, 2017)

There is more than one thing to be honest;

No "this distro is better" talks in the community. I used gnu/linux based systems more than a decade, half of your time is wasted by disto hopping.

One documentation that covers everything

Experienced user base (this does not mean other OSes are flooded by newbies though)
I would rather run a stable system than an OS which is full of fancy cutting edge software many of which have features I would never use. FreeBSD gives me the stability I want (one could argue that Debian Stable is also this kind of OS)
Since the day I installed FreeBSD on my laptop, I have not made another system install, which is great! freebsd-update(8) was enough for me to keep up with the latest version of the OS and pkg(7)does a great job in keeping your 3rd part software up to date.

By the way, Wozzeck.Live I think you are kidding, hey?


Wozzeck.Live said:


> What is the truth ? THE H A R D W A R E
> As far as a given hardware has perfect written drivers, stability is not a problem, on either platform, even Windows.
> But... generally speaking Linux has a better drivers deposit, as we can say that Windows has a larger database compared to Linux. You know the reason why... from a commercial point of view hardware makers focuses on Windows and Linux.



So, in your world, the operating system is composed of device drivers only? No network stack, no memory manager, no scheduler, no file system manager....


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Jul 19, 2017)

rufwoof said:


> A issue I have with Debian is that it moves the goalposts around so much such that upgrading from one major release to the next can involve having to put a lot of effort in (switching from aufs to overlayfs for example when your setup is primarily based on aufs), or mean taking on something that is relatively new/untested (systemD was a example). In that respect to me FreeBSD seems to have the edge (less unchanging (more thoroughly tested progression)).


From what I see this is even more of an issue with MS-Windows, although users familiar with it tend to be in denial about it because they've already acquired the necessary skills over the years. But yes, that is exactly the reason I use FreeBSD for my desktop usage. And also why I'm switching my Linux boxen from Debian to Devuan.

As for hardware support. Gimme a break. There is no reason why any computer sold with a FreeBSD desktop can't use fully supported hardware. As for the rest of us, we can simply chose the hardware we need to suit our purposes.


----------



## azathoth (Jul 19, 2017)

ralphbsz said:


> Then you haven't had them done right: five minutes each side, serve on a bed of rice, with a mushroom and cream sauce.


kek


----------



## scottro (Jul 19, 2017)

FreeBSD is weaker in hardware support than Linux. Saying otherwise, or saying an OS isn't drivers only, just obfuscates the discussion, I think. It depends upon one's purpose. If you want converts, which, indirectly results in more manpower, the old sales adage of promise less than you can deliver, deliver more than you promise, seems the best way to me.  If one just wants to vent anger, it doesn't really matter.

A new laptop, with say, a newer Intel video card and/or an Intel wireless card using the iwm driver doesn't perform as well under FreeBSD as it does Linux.  A bit of a vicious circle, I suppose, this keeps some people from using it, and while the folks here can say, Oh, we didn't want those people anyway, it lessens the pool of potential developers and documentors.

While I'm sure my memory is shaded by confirmation bias, it seems to me that Ubuntu is what really helped get Linux mainstream. While the hard cores were denigrating it, its ease of access brought more people into the fold, resulting in better, clearer documentation, and more people being interested in getting hardware support.

We can shout, NETFLIX USES FREEBSD, and people will say, that's nice, but FreeBSD can't use Netflix, so bottom line is, it doesn't suit my needs.
(And they store their content on Linux, I believe.)

Even documentation, one of our strongest points, now suffers due to lack of manpower, and maybe, if one of those Linux folks had been able to get the same speed from their iwm wireless, they would have been the one to fix some documentation.

Gosh, this sounds like I'm trolling. Folks, I'm just trying to say that we shouldn't create realistic expectations, and furthermore, calling someone dumb goes a long way towards closing their mind.  Operating systems are tools, why do we get so angry?  Yes, they're tools for our jobs, and Linux's popularity making it impossible for you to bring FreeBSD to your workplace directly affects your life, but even there, perhaps, especially there, we don't want to produce unreasonable expectations.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Jul 19, 2017)

The problem isn't the response. The problem is people coming here and questioning the value of FreeBSD and comparing it to Linux and invite such responses and one shouldn't expect less.

Some will say FreeBSD makes a lousy desktop because it's not just like Windows or a Mac when others, who are perfectly happy running i3 as a developer, think FreeBSD makes a great desktop and, therefore, the questioner needs to be educated. So an obvious response to "Is FreeBSD a good file server?" would be "Netflix thinks so!" because it really is an excellent example that FreeBSD makes an excellent file server.

So, unfortunately, these open ended questions vary according to a person's background and needs. FreeBSD is everything I would want a desktop for my needs and will scoff at anyone who thinks highly of Windows.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Aug 3, 2017)

Wozzeck.Live said:


> Anybody will say that if you let a FreeBSD Desktop connected under Gnome, KDE several days, the desktop will crash by itself at a moment.



Does Fluxbox count? Because none of my FreeBSD machines running it have ever crashed in 12 years.



Wozzeck.Live said:


> The reason ? There is generally a hidden "linuxism" mechanism which make turn the things wrong on BSD, and so Lumina could be the first true reliable answer to solve theses kind of issue, but this desktop is young and needs developments to reach the same functionalities as Linux desktops. But as today, Lumina is already a true alternative  for administrators.
> 
> *snip*
> 
> - FreeBSD implements a Linux emulation. With some patience, an experienced user can get most of Linux applications working on FreeBSD with incredible performances, sometimes as it ran natively. That is not always possible if the application is too much Linux oriented, but as far as I know Linux has no equivalent to "bridge" to BSD, other than hard virtualisation solution which cost a heavy loss of power.



I've been running all 3 of my FreeBSD laptops with Linux emulation disabled for the past several days with no problem. I don't any Linux programs or any of the Linux compatibility libraries installed so what's the point in having it enabled?



Wozzeck.Live said:


> So what could be the most TRUE reasons to choose FreeBSD today over Linux ?
> 
> - Server, for desktops ideally use Win/Mac or Linux



I'm going to pretend I didn't see that, in light of my first response.


----------



## Wozzeck.Live (Aug 3, 2017)

Trihexagonal said:


> Does Fluxbox count? Because none of my FreeBSD machines running it have ever crashed in 12 years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




*1) Linux emulation*

The average user won't use the Linux emulation very much, but just imagine some specific business..
Companies across the world, acting in different areas (biology, chemistry, aeronautics....) , universities,  may have a need to use some specifics and critical  softwares developed for Linux, absolutely not the kind of software you find in the FreeBSD /ports/system.

They have IT staff able to "transplant" the Linux on the BSD plateform using the emulation layer
But as I said Linux emulation in FreeBSD is not 100% perfect, there are still some mechanisms too specific, but we can say that one can make work 80% of the Linux programs with an impressive speed.

*2) Linux emulation and Linux adaptation*

Please don't confuse Linux Emulation and Linux program adaptation

In Linux emulation a sub layer attempts to reproduce the Linux mechanisms, so the Linux code ignores as much as possible that it is running on a foreign host, in the same manner that Windows can run on FreeBSD through Virtualbox

But when Gnome 3 is ported to FreeBSD, it is not running on an emulation layer, it runs on the BSD base system, this is completely different. Basically Gnome 3 has been developed for Linux and use some specific mechanisms of Linux, so it took a long time before Gnome 3 became available for FreeBSD because it needed some workaround. KDE 5 Plasma is ready in most of Linux distributions... still not the case for FreeBSD, because unfortunately KDE staff have taken very very bad decisions following Gnome and using massively Linuxisms saying goodbye to *BSD, so now for the staff porting the software this is a headache to create something usable and stable, as for Gnome 3 it will take tong time.

On the contrary the philosophy of Lumina is to use as less as possible "platform dependent" solutions, so portability can be done quickly, and stability can be reached faster. Unfortunately Lumina is a young desktop, and in any case Lumina has no ambition. Lumina aims to be an alternative to LXQT, XFCE.. ok, for some of us it is sufficient, but not for everybody.

*3) Desktop*

We, and all the members of this forum can run FreeBSD as a desktop, this is not the question.

But we are not the average user, an average user wants all the comfort possible that offer Windows 10 or Mac OS.
I deal with some end user clients... I can tell you that even using a KDE desktop is something they will NEVER NEVER NEVER accept, because they want all the comfort of a Windows or Mac OS, they want  beautiful interface... they don't care of the underlying and they don't want to spend 2 seconds to try to understand what's inside. So all must be accessible, pleasant, from this point of view Windows and Mac OS have no serious challengers as today.

The future challenger could be eventually in the coming years (10, 20 years ? or never ....) Canonical with Ubuntu in his home made flavor, today Unity, so I don't speak of Lubuntu or Xunbuntu.

I have begun with a ZX81, followed by an Apple II... ok I am not a C, Java developer but one can understand why I have been able to learn myself FreeBSD as a middle level user now, and why I finally managed to learn the basic of the shell scripting.

But my nephews, my nieces haven't seen that and they are very far from such considerations. This is a modern generation, with smartphones (myself I don't care about smartphone, I run an iPhone 4 a client gave me...), playing a lot with snapchat, something I can't understand, they want something easy, pleasant to use.

Yesterday I was answering to someone forced to use TrueOS due to a graphic card only supported by FreeBSD current, he clearly answered that Lumina couldn't be the desktop he was waiting for.

We are FreeBSD users, and for most of us accessibility, esthetic are minor considerations. We don't care because what we want basically is a powerful, flexible and reliable server. But this is absolutely not the opinion of the average user.

And myself I keep on using Windows for most usual tasks, for leisure, because this is pleasant to use.
If Google and Microsoft track me, I don't really care, I will just take care not to give all to the same.
I use Windows, but mainly Firefox. I use GMAIL and Google engine, but tend to use more and more QWANT which will be probably in the next years a possible challenger to the two giants Google and Bing (Sorry but duck duck go, dogpile... give me no satisfaction, only Qwant seems to be promising but still far from Google)

I use FreeBSD Desktop to administrate with little comfort, my server, and in such case Lumina, LXDE are sufficient not speaking of FLuxbox, OpenBox .....
But in fact most of time I use console simply because one compile faster under console.

I will also try to use FreeBSD Desktop when a computer is too old, my choice will be when possible KDE.
I try to recycle some Archos Tablets, the ancestor of all modern tablets (no Steve Jobs is not the inventor of the tablet, the first tablets ever were Archos and Cowon) by implanting FreeBSD 11  i386, I hope to run Lumina.
The excellent memory management of BSD makes BSD a good solution (only 500 MB of RAM)


*4) Windows manager / Desktop*

Fluxbox is a window manager not a desktop
Generally, problems are  located at an upper level, what we call usually "desktop" is a package suites integrating full tools including a window manager.
Yes I know that many administrators use fluxbox when they need some graphic access.

In fact the most fragile desktops are KDE and GNOME3
Personally I use LXDE... frankly LXDE is very very light.... just a few components compared to the tons of components in Gnome 3 and KDE, so finally LXDE is not so bad, just HAL and gvfs are annoying me, creating sometimes some errors and hangs,  so I will switch to Lumina as soon as this desktop become decent, I want to get rid of HAL and gvfs, using only DEVD based solution.

Last thing....
There is a little hypocrisy in the FreeBSD community of developers, because it is often said (and I have often read on this forum) that FreeBSD developers mostly develop with an... Apple, so they don't fight like most of us with UFS breaking its journal, ZFS looking for an invisible pool....

Ironically I would say : They develop something they don't use, they say to the FreeBSD users "esthetic ? ease of use ? we don't care, YOU are professionals ...".... frankly that makes me laugh and reminds me some dialogs in Quentin Tarentino's films (Pulp fiction or Reservoir dogs ?)


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Aug 3, 2017)

Wozzeck.Live said:


> In Linux emulation a sub layer attempts to reproduce the Linux mechanisms, so the Linux code ignores as much as possible that it is running on a foreign host, in the same manner that Windows can run on FreeBSD through Virtualbox
> 
> But when Gnome 3 is ported to FreeBSD, it is not running on an emulation layer, it runs *on the BSD base system*, this is completely different.



That is apparent from the text that is presented during boot. I was referring to /etc/:


```
linux_enable="NO"
```



Wozzeck.Live said:


> Fluxbox is a window manager not a desktop.



Yes, after running it 12 years, and since it resides in /x11/x11-wm I was aware of that. You did see where I said "Does Fluxbox count?".

I still dispute your assertion that a Gnome or KDE desktop will crash under FreeBSD in 2-3 days, and if so I'd get different hardware. I started out running KDE when I used PC-BSD, which was based on FreeBSD 5.3 at the time IIRC, and it never crashed.



Wozzeck.Live said:


> Ironically I would say : They develop something they don't use, they say to the FreeBSD users "esthetic ? ease of use ? we don't care, YOU are professionals ...".... frankly that's make me laugh and reminds me some words of Quentin Tarentino (Pulp fiction or Reservoi dogs ?)



That's funny, I thought of Taxi Driver. You talkin' to me?


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Aug 3, 2017)

Wozzeck.Live said:


> - Server, for desktops ideally use Win/Mac or Linux


You say that as if you are unaware of what, to some people, makes those operating systems unusable. I won't detail those reasons here as I assume you really are aware of them but prefer to troll.



Wozzeck.Live said:


> let be honest.... there is today no possible comparison between FreeBSD and Windows 10 / Mac OS


Yes there is, and you know it.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Aug 3, 2017)

Trihexagonal said:


> I still dispute your assertion that a Gnome or KDE desktop will crash under FreeBSD in 2-3 days, and if so I'd get different hardware.


I concur. I would say that there have been problems over the (many) years, but never so I couldn't use the system or had to reboot. Problems with crashing would be a very rare case or indicate deliberate incompetence for the purpose of making a point.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Aug 3, 2017)

OJ said:


> I concur. I would say that there have been problems over the (many) years, but never so I couldn't use the system or had to reboot. Problems with crashing would be a very rare case or indicate deliberate incompetence for the purpose of making a point.



Must be the later. All my machina are Win7 vintage or older and solid as a rock. My Sony Vaio came with Vista on it as did my Thinkpad X61 and I leave them running 24/7.


----------



## ralphbsz (Aug 3, 2017)

OJ said:


> You say that as if you are unaware of what, to some people, makes those operating systems unusable. I won't detail those reasons here as I assume you really are aware of them but prefer to troll.


Yes, Windows and MacOS are indeed unusable to some people.  But they are also highly usable to many others, and some people prefer them.  And the people who do prefer them even have very logical reasons.

I have used Windows (since 3.1, including NT) as a desktop, and MacOS (since 8), and Linux (repeatedly, various distributions, usually Fedora), and FreeBSD for a short period, and AIX with DCE, and in old times various other Unixes and VMS.  Every single server that I use has either Linux or FreeBSD on it.  Yet, this forum post is being typed on a Mac.  Matter-of-fact, in our household every single user-facing machine is either Mac or Windows (we have three adult computer users, all of whom are experienced).

Where I agree with you: There is no single "ideal" desktop for everyone.  But for a large fraction of computer users, Windows, Mac, and tablets are a better solution than FOSS software on the desktop.


----------



## rufwoof (Aug 3, 2017)

ralphbsz said:


> There is no single "ideal" desktop for everyone.  But for a large fraction of computer users, Windows, Mac, and tablets are a better solution than FOSS software on the desktop.


As multi-tasking smartphones develop and wireless speeds/bandwidth costs decline/capacities rise, the need for a desktop will tend to decline to being just hookup monitors and keyboard. 

I asked my son the other day what planet that might be in the night sky. A quick snap image on his phone and a few swipes later and he had a complete map of the stars and planet names on his phone. He verbally controls things on that phone, dictating and sending messages, dictating documents, tells him how long before the next bus arrives ... etc.

Having used both now, I'd say Linux and FreeBSD compare equally (such as Debian vs FreeBSD). Both however are way behind alternatives in functionality and convenience and more inclined to be used by the older generation and on older hardware.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Aug 4, 2017)

rufwoof said:


> A quick snap image on his phone and a few swipes later and he had a complete map of the stars and planet names on his phone.


That's probably quite convenient, but is still somewhat tedious compared to how I bring up the same dataset in graphical format on my DOS machine. I set the default opening screen to be realtime, but you can move back in time or into the future by the hour or century as you please. That stuff has been around for very many years and is just getting a a new skin. In case you're interested, I just type `sky` from any directory or drive.

The bottom line is that all operating systems have many capabilities. And even as they evolve over the years, some things get easier and some things get harder. Just pick one based on your personal priorities.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Aug 4, 2017)

rufwoof said:


> more inclined to be used by the older generation and on older hardware.


Perhaps I should have included this in the previous comment.  A lot of older IT professionals will indeed be running *NIX because of familiarity. However _any_ professional of any age will be conversant with Linux on servers or they are unlikely to be working.

As for hardware, what are you talking about? Servers are generally very modern or they don't pull their wight for the space they take up in the rack. On the desktop, you can see what people are running here. First up in that thread is an older box (you were right!) with 2 x 6-core Xeon @ 2.8 ghz. Uh oh, how does that that compare to the android mobiles and little laptops the kids are using? In my case, I'm not, and never have been, a professional. And I'm just an old age pensioner to boot, so don't have a lot of money. So my "older hardware" consists of only a 4 core Intel with SSD and 16GB of ram.  A nice sedate machine suitable for an old fart such as myself. Honestly, making assumptions about who uses what, is not going to take you very far in the non-fiction category.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Aug 4, 2017)

I spend more time fixing people's Windows machines than I do our workstations and servers at work. All of our workstation hardware is bleeding edge, or was when we bought it less than three years ago. We don't use Windows and I have not used Windows for anything for about eight years. I see no value in it and only trouble.


----------



## -Snake- (Aug 4, 2017)

Easy to answer:

1.- Freebsd is a complete system, not a remix called "distribution"
2.- Extremely unix-like, very simple to understand.
3.- Good documentation.
4.- More stable.
5.- The community is not so full of users with no desire to learn or with "religious" fanaticism with licenses, is more about technology.
6.- Base system separated from third party software.
7.- The BSD license is more useful sometimes.
8.- FreeBSD is still FreeBSD, gnu/linux has changed for years adapting to the "novice" user and is no longer interesting so many are migrating from linux to some BSD system.

What advantages does gnu / linux offer regarding FreeBSD?

Same as windows, compatibility with hardware and applications.


----------



## ralphbsz (Aug 4, 2017)

rufwoof said:


> Both however are way behind alternatives in functionality and convenience and more inclined to be used by the older generation and on older hardware.


Actually, older people should logically be using OS/360 or MVS/TSO as a desktop.  Matter-of-fact, I know of a guy who does that: he carries an IBM 3084 in his backpack, and runs MVS/TSO or VM/CMS on it.  Now obviously a real 3084 would not fit into a backpack (it weighs several tons, requires 400Hz high voltage and water cooling); instead he uses a quad-core Raspberry Pi to emulate the 370 instruction set.


----------



## Datapanic (Aug 4, 2017)

As an IT Professional, I don't really care what's better than what or what someone prefers to use - as long as the hardware dies and software bombs out and things reach EOL, I have a paycheck!


----------



## fernandel (Aug 4, 2017)

I am an average user and I use FreeBSD as a desktop but it is not usable for my work (biology-genetics) where I/we use Linux or OS X. Application which we and not just we use are not usable on FreeBSD. I use also OS X for Blender with cycles engine because on FreeBSD doesn't work and in the old time I use also AIX on IBM RISC machine.
OS is the personal choice.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Aug 4, 2017)

OJ said:


> And I'm just an old age pensioner to boot, so don't have a lot of money. So my "older hardware" consists of only a 4 core Intel with SSD and 16GB of ram



I'm no spring chicken. 

Yesterday I bought a business lease return Thinkpad T61 (it was running when they pulled it from service) with an Intel Core 2 Duo T7300 @ 2.0GHz, 4GB RAM and Intel 965GM for under $75 delivered to replace my old T61 the dock murdered. It didn't come with a HDD but I have one with FreeBSD 11.0-RELEASE on it from my old one.

I loved that machine used it every day, much more than I do my Thinkpad W520 with Intel Quad Core i7-2760QM @ 2.40GHz, 8GB RAM and NVIDIA Quadro 1000M with 96 CUDA cores and Optimus, and plan to use it instead of the AMD Triple Core box I'm on now.


----------



## ralphbsz (Aug 4, 2017)

The Thinkpad T2x and T6x were among the best laptops ever; the T4x wasn't as good.  I still have several T20-T22 and a T60p in my spares pile, and they get pressed into service when I need a generic Intel machine (32 or 64 bit).  Matter-of-fact, the way I installed FreeBSD on my server was: I kept the actual server running, grabbed a spare T2x, put a spare SSD into it, installed FreeBSD 11.0, did all the configuring and tweaking to make it the new server, then with just an hour downtime switched the SSD back into the server and started running.

In general, laptops of that generation (roughly 2005 to 2015) seem to be the best ever made.  They have more than enough CPU power and RAM to be fully functional, they have good screens, and they are sturdy: big and heavy enough to actually survive normal use.  This message is being typed on a 2008-vintage MacBook pro 15"; for many years I used 2011 and 2014 MacBook Pro's in the office, and our son now uses a 2015 MacBook pro as his machine.  My wife used a T22 as her home machine for many years, and only recently switched to a 5-year old Dell (don't know the model number).  The newer MacBook air and very flat MacBook pro (the ones with only USB-C connectors) don't tempt me at all; they keyboards and connectivity are just too awful.  I know quite a few colleagues who had the new ultra-flat Lenovo Thinkpad (I think they are called X1), and were very unhappy with their mechanical reliability: Put it down on a desk a bit too hard, and have to ship it for repair right away, because something breaks.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Aug 4, 2017)

Trihexagonal said:


> I'm no spring chicken.


I've found older folk on just about all forums. The assumption that everyone is just a kid (ie under 40 lol) is indeed just an assumption.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Aug 5, 2017)

ralphbsz said:


> The Thinkpad T2x and T6x were among the best laptops ever; the T4x wasn't as good.



I have an X61, too, although the 4:3 screen resolution is more constrained than I am accustomed and took some getting used to. The HDD for the 61 series are interchangeable, I have them with Kodi, Lakka, OpenBSD, FreeBSD and can swap one out in about a minute.



ralphbsz said:


> In general, laptops of that generation (roughly 2005 to 2015) seem to be the best ever made.



Without looking, I remember mine to be made in 2008. My W520 was the last model before they introduced the chicklets keyboard.

With features like the ThinkPad Roll Cage, ThinkVantage Active Protection System, clamshell lid, Ultrabay, etc.it would be hard to find one better constructed. Some models you can spill water on the keyboard and there are holes in the chassis to let it drain without shorting out. Some had Titanium or carbon-fiber composite lids.

That and the fact they are the only laptop accredited for use and to have flown on the Shuttle, MIR and International Space Station. Radiation? Vibration during liftoff? No problem.

https://s1.postimg.org/nmh492373/Space_Pad01.jpg


----------



## rufwoof (Aug 5, 2017)

-Snake- said:


> Easy to answer:
> 
> 1.- Freebsd is a complete system, not a remix called "distribution"
> 2.- Extremely unix-like, very simple to understand.
> ...


Comparing FreeBSD with Debian, as a end desktop user with Debian I follow their oldstable branch, which the current stable version falls into once a new stable version is released ... typically every 2 years. Having been live for 2 years before dropping into oldstable most issues have been fixed and as such updates are relatively infrequent (security fixes). The Debian repository is all encompassing i.e. system and programs (Debian can modify 'packages' specifically to fit in with the complete set). A one stop shop for everything, that is pretty much fixed (system and programs), is watched over by Debian (secure system and programs) and can be used for 2 years before upgrading (to the next oldstable). The downside is that being older versions it may not work with the latest hardware or have all the bells and whistles of the latest versions.

Contrasting that with FreeBSD legacy that is also supported for around 2 years ... that only applies to the system, not the programs ... that could be updated regularly to the latest or relatively new versions (and in so doing potentially induce instability of the 'whole').

I've been using FreeBSD for a little while now pretty regularly (main boot desktop) and like it a lot. However of the two, Debian oldstable has the greater appeal to me as a workhorse that changes relatively little for 2 years at a time.

As a example, forward time under Debian and Jessie (version 8) has recently dropped from being the current stable into oldstable. That system and repository of programs is pretty solid and will continue to receive security updates as and when required. Staying with that as a main boot and pretty much both the system and programs will remain the same for 2 years ... just work. If forward time I adopted Freebsd legacy (10.3, and putting aside the next legacy stepup is in 2018) then whilst the core remains relatively unchanged, the programs when updated for security purposes (pkg upgrade) could pull in new versions of those programs ... that potentially could break the whole end user desktop setup and require having to turn focus away from the task in hand onto having to focus on fixing the tool.

The Debian model is very flexible/comprehensive, and for those that just want a desktop setup that works well, requires little attention other than a 'upgrade' every couple of years but that is security patched quickly as and when needed ... it looks to me that has the edge over FreeBSD at least on that 'stable desktop workhorse' front.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Aug 5, 2017)

rufwoof So you are saying you can pull in new programs into Debian two years from now and you are sure they will work with all the new stuff?

FreeBSD also only puts out security updates "as and when required" so I don't understand what's different. Program updates for security reasons has nothing to do with FreeBSD. Those are third party elements FreeBSD has no control over. Neither does Debian for that matter.


----------



## rufwoof (Aug 5, 2017)

drhowarddrfine said:


> FreeBSD also only puts out security updates "as and when required" so I don't understand what's different. Program updates for security reasons has nothing to do with FreeBSD. Those are third party elements FreeBSD has no control over. Neither does Debian for that matter.


Debian does have control over the third party elements that Debian has in its MAIN repository. Which may be changed by Debian to make them more aligned to the whole and be maintained by Debian. For entry into MAIN the program/package must comply with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (which includes being open/free software); Must not require or recommend a package outside of MAIN for compilation or execution; And must comply with Debian policy. In effect what could perhaps be described as being source code 'owned'/modified/maintained by Debian.

I run my Debian installation using their MAIN repositories only, and as a example following Debian tweaks Nvidia tends to work better via the Debian provided drivers than that provided by Nvidia. Stick with just that Main repository and its very stable and all provided/maintained by Debian.Debian is vastly more than just a Linux kernel and core operating system.

In addition Debian provide access to "contrib" and "non-free" repositories ... that are outside of Debian so-to-speak. And there are the different versions, oldstable, stable, test and unstable (development). And they support 9 different architectures (arm, amd, i386, mips, ppc ... etc.).

Whilst FreeBSD has similar elements/policy, IMO its (considerably) less comprehensive.


----------



## -Snake- (Aug 6, 2017)

rufwoof said:


> Comparing FreeBSD with Debian, as a end desktop user with Debian I follow their oldstable branch, which the current stable version falls into once a new stable version is released ... typically every 2 years. Having been live for 2 years before dropping into oldstable most issues have been fixed and as such updates are relatively infrequent (security fixes). The Debian repository is all encompassing i.e. system and programs (Debian can modify 'packages' specifically to fit in with the complete set). A one stop shop for everything, that is pretty much fixed (system and programs), is watched over by Debian (secure system and programs) and can be used for 2 years before upgrading (to the next oldstable). The downside is that being older versions it may not work with the latest hardware or have all the bells and whistles of the latest versions.
> 
> Contrasting that with FreeBSD legacy that is also supported for around 2 years ... that only applies to the system, not the programs ... that could be updated regularly to the latest or relatively new versions (and in so doing potentially induce instability of the 'whole').
> 
> ...



Debian was one of my favorite gnu/linux distributions, it was simple and extremely stable, now I do not like the latest versions so much, it's too focused on desktop and being "easy" in addition to the latest systemd adoption.

Debian maintains the OS and third-party programs, but it is also managed with apt, so updating means updating everything from the kernel to xfce, for example, in FreeBSD I like to separate the OS from the ports/packages.

Anyway, I understand that gnu/linux on desktop is more "easy" but I no longer feel like using a "quality OS" as before, I remember that Debian 6 was amazing for example.


----------



## Phishfry (Aug 6, 2017)

-Snake- said:


> less with "religious" fanaticism with licenses, is more about technology.


I agree with this. With a lenient license it is like no issue at all on FreeBSD.

GPLv2 vs. GPLv3 can you imagine just that issue alone.


----------



## rufwoof (Aug 6, 2017)

I'm using grub4dos bootloader and have both Debian Jessie and 10.3 FreeBSD (just switched over from 11.1 as I'd rather follow the 2 year extended branch) on the same HDD (obviously different partitions). I also have Puppy Linux as a boot choice (handy for admin and other programs not in either Debian or FreeBSD). Like all of them and whilst predominately booting Debian for the last year or so, more recently FreeBSD has been my primary boot choice. Like it a lot. And in fairness I'd put them equally as good. There are likely cases of one being the better than the other in some areas, vice-versa in other areas. I prefer for instance FreeBSD hierarchy layout - much cleaner than Linux/Debian (icons for instance along can be all over the place). A negative for Linux IMO is that there are way too many distro's/variations. I can only imagine how much better Linux/Debian might be had all of that massive amount of manpower been more commonly focused.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Aug 6, 2017)

Let's see... Advantages of using FreeBSD compared to Linux.

FreeBSD has had 286 vulnerabilities in the last 18 years vs 1895 for Linux and 1128 for Debian in particular.

https://www.cvedetails.com/product/7/Freebsd-Freebsd.html?vendor_id=6

https://www.cvedetails.com/product/47/Linux-Linux-Kernel.html?vendor_id=33

https://www.cvedetails.com/vendor/23/Debian.html

So one of the main advantages would be FreeBSD is a more secure Operating System. And isn't that the most important of all?


----------



## rufwoof (Aug 6, 2017)

Is that not however comparing apples and oranges with respect to the Debian figure. Note for instance how the Debian figures include SQL Injection counts, whereas FreeBSD being counted as just the core operating system has no such counts. Debian is both the core system and all of the programs its absorbed into its MAIN repository (something like 40,000+ programs) ... which is vastly bigger than just the core system alone, and accordingly might be expected to have a much higher vulnerability count.

Fair enough however comparing Linux and FreeBSD, Linux looks to have some major issues.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Aug 6, 2017)

rufwoof 

https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/61446/page-3#post-357021

There is nothing in your post that is any different in FreeBSD than what you play up that Debian does. No difference whatsoever.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Aug 6, 2017)

rufwoof said:


> Is that not however comparing apples and oranges with respect to the Debian figure. Note for instance how the Debian figures include SQL Injection counts, whereas FreeBSD being counted as just the core operating system has no such counts.



Possibly because that's how it's distributed?


----------



## rufwoof (Aug 7, 2017)

drhowarddrfine said:


> rufwoof
> https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/61446/page-3#post-357021
> 
> There is nothing in your post that is any different in FreeBSD than what you play up that Debian does. No difference whatsoever.


I'm new to FreeBSD, so if so ... fine. How then can I follow the FreeBSD branch that has been through development, test, then frozen and tested/fixed further, before then being released to 'live' for two years (which might be considered as a very extensive 'test' across millions of manhours) that I can adopt now and then follow/use that for 2 years whilst receiving security updates/fixes? Oh, and not forgetting the complete set of all (unchanging other than fixes) 40,000+ programs within that set that collectively work well with each other (such as LibreOffice, Openshot, Blender ...etc.). Yes I know older versions of programs ... but for me the stability of the whole is a desirable feature and, for instance, running Libre 4.3.3 (as per the current Debian oldstable (Jessie)) rather than more recent versions is sufficient to fulfill my office (docs/spreadsheets) needs.

I'm pretty certain FreeBSD can't offer me such a branch, at least not on a minimal effort on my behalf basis (end user who wants to use the system as a tool to do things rather than having to expend considerable effort maintaining the tool). So far after having opted to install the RELEASE version, starting with 11-0, within a relatively short period of time I think that kernel has been changed to a later version (11.1), LibreOffice is a nicer newer version ... but has some quirks (doesn't work as I'd expect a release version to work) and the versions of Openshot and Blender for video editing aren't compatible. And the indications are that if I opted for FreeBSD as a workhorse, the versions of programs and system might change relatively frequently ... excepting if I don't apply updates ... in which case I leave myself open to security risks (security updates fixed and published that provides a guide for hackers to attack any systems that haven't applied those security patches).

Basically my requirements are I'd like to have to update the core system relatively infrequently, once every couple of years at most, but receive security fixes during the interim, having access to a repository of a large range of program choices that can be installed/used ... older (extensively) tried and tested versions that collectively work well together (installing x doesn't break y).


----------



## rufwoof (Aug 7, 2017)

Trihexagonal said:


> So one of the main advantages would be FreeBSD is a more secure Operating System. And isn't that the most important of all?


For some. But I run a single user desktop setup ... so I'm both root and user. I run internet facing programs under a severely limited userid ... as good as a sandbox. And that's far from being a oddity, instead its a majority type situation. Nothing is truly secure and even just a single weak link/exploit can be as bad as 10 or 100. Security is a practice, not a product. For instance I also run Puppy Linux where you run everything as root ... gui desktop, browser ...etc. However that can be incredibly secure provided you run it the right way (adopt the correct practice). The Ozzie police/security have even advocated such practice ... for instance for commercial transactions (such as online banking) boot a pristine system from read only medium (CD) into ram and use a pristine/factory fresh browser with no addons, to go direct to your bank nowhere else before or after.


----------



## roddierod (Aug 7, 2017)

rufwoof said:


> Security is a practice, not a product.



This needs to be posted everywhere possible.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Aug 7, 2017)

IMO security is not just a practice, it is job #1 and all things come secondary to it.

I had to set the ignore vulnerability flag to get port-mgmt/portmaster to install graphics/gimp due to a vulnerability in graphics/OpenEXR, but it is not dependent on it and have since removed it so I get a clean bill of health out of `pkg audit -F`.

EDIT: The first thing I do on first boot after a fresh build is make a basic pf ruleset and enable it in /etc, reboot, run `freebsd-update fetch` and go from there.


----------



## rufwoof (Aug 7, 2017)

Auditing and taking steps to protect against KNOWN vulnerabilities still leaves you exposed to unknown vulnerabilities. Most single user systems are like towns, you can take steps to protect the borders and plug known holes, but there's likely still other means to get in that wont get plugged until after the event. Better to encase/protect valuables internally i.e. your invaluable/irreplaceable data (system files are inexpensive and easily replaced). Lock (encrypt) your data into a safe, store disconnected backup copies ...etc. and employ procedures to access/change that data in a secure manner (perhaps only ever decrypting in memory before re-storing in encrypted form back to disk).

If you strive to secure the entire town then that leads to a false sense of security as sooner or later that might be breached ... just too many potential exploits. The only really secure system is one that is locked down with no external contact at all ... in effect useless in all but a very few extreme cases. Reduce security focus down to selective data only and that's considerably simpler/cheaper and with the right practices securer.

I don't use/own a laptop, but if my desktop setup was replicated onto a laptop and I lost that, I wouldn't be concerned as my practices make it pretty much trivial (to me) of the content then available to a third party. My data backup practice also means that the loss would be relatively trivial, the inconvenience of replacing the hardware and system software that would again provide a means to access to my data (copies restored from backups).

I'd guess that for around 99.9%+ of stuff I do on the computer I could use a public/library PC without concern of someone else seeing that activity/content. For <0.1% of activity however and I would be concerned and accordingly use relatively secure methods/practices for that (such as pristine system from a validated good source, and factory-fresh browser with no plug-ins/addons ....etc.). Not that I totally disregard security, I do take reasonable measures even for the 99.9%, just that I don't entirely trust that and keep the risks foremost in mind.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Aug 7, 2017)

rufwoof It is clear to me that you have not read the Handbook or any of the documentation available online or included in an install. Without looking back, have you ever installed FreeBSD at all? Cause your questions about which version to use gives the impression that you haven't.


----------



## rufwoof (Aug 7, 2017)

drhowarddrfine said:


> rufwoof It is clear to me that you have not read the Handbook or any of the documentation available online or included in an install. Without looking back, have you ever installed FreeBSD at all? Cause your questions about which version to use gives the impression that you haven't.


Yes. I installed 11.0 ... and little other choice than having to wade through the manual/handbook (initially couldn't even get it to boot without using a hint ... that had to be discovered (wasn't easily available, a lot of reading around required)). Upgraded to 11.1 when that was released. Downgraded to 10.3. Restored 11.1 again (test of backup/restore). All RELEASE. Still have it as part of a multi-boot set.

Bottom line, compared to running Debian OldStable (Linux based) ... FreeBSD offers no equivalent or more stable choice for single user gui desktop users. Predominately FreeBSD is a command line system, on top of which you can add 'third party' programs of which some (many) have been pre-built, but where the versions and interworkings with each other is far less refined than how Debian manages that aspect. As a for-instance, installing Openshot also requires the installation of Blender and Inkscape to be fully operational, and the FreeBSD pre-built choices of Openshot and Blender do not work together. In Debian they are correctly matched and work as expected/intended.

I take it from your reactions that you're unaware of the Debian offerings structure/layout? At least I've tried having a look for myself by installing/trying FreeBSD (only to discover problems with LibreOffice and the above issues with Video Editing). Nice to see later versions of programs such as Libre ... but not much use if they're flawed operationally as that relegates it to being just eye candy.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Aug 7, 2017)

rufwoof I take it from your problems that you are doing everything wrong and just winging it. You have problems I don't recognize and "fixes" I've never had to do to install a system. You have problems I never have with all the software and then you make statements like this:



> installing Openshot also requires the installation of Blender and Inkscape to be fully operational



which is absolutely false. I've seen a number of your statements which sounded strange to me like that one but didn't take the time to investigate till now. Your inability or struggle to install most things is disturbing and quite questionable.

So I question a lot of things about you and where you get your information from.


----------



## rufwoof (Aug 7, 2017)

drhowarddrfine said:


> rufwoof I take it from your problems that you are doing everything wrong and just winging it. You have problems I don't recognize and "fixes" I've never had to do to install a system. You have problems I never have with all the software and then you make statements like this:
> 
> `installing Openshot also requires the installation of Blender and Inkscape to be fully operational`
> 
> ...


Have a look at the openshot web site, clearly states that for 3D animated titles the dependency upon Blender.







Have you tried 11.1-RELEASE with Openshot and Blender pkg's installed? And if so can you create a 3D animated title?

You did already mention that you were unaware that Blender didn't have a maintainer here Openshot


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Aug 7, 2017)

You don't use openshot to create 3d animated titles. You're trying to use something from the openshot web site to describe how packages are installed on FreeBSD. Bad choice. Use actual FreeBSD documentation.

So this confirms what I said before. You aren't getting proper information about how things work and just grasp at whatever suits you instead of official related documentation. In the openshot case, apparently you can use blender if you want to but *you do not need blender to install openshot.* Or inkscape either for that matter.

But that's a choice the openshot people made and has nothing to do with FreeBSD which you are trying to blame for your issues.


----------



## rufwoof (Aug 7, 2017)

Good grief (not you Trihexagonal)



Trihexagonal said:


> Let's see... Advantages of using FreeBSD compared to Linux.
> 
> FreeBSD has had 286 vulnerabilities in the last 18 years vs 1895 for Linux


Increasingly looking to me like a case of _FreeBSD doesn't have vulnerabilities/bugs_, rather its the user `doing everything wrong and just winging it`, or perhaps just ignoring (not counted).

A menubar option within Openshot is to create a 3D animated title which pops up another dialog that caters for setting values ... that then shows a rendering progress bar when the button is clicked. Blender/python is invoked behind that. 





I did say to be FULLY OPERATIONAL Openshot also needs blender and inkscape. Yes it can be installed such that its 3D animated menu option doesn't work, I guess I could just as equally buy a car without doors. But hey-ho, ostrich head in the sand. I'll respectively bow out (give up).


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Aug 7, 2017)

And, again, you chose not to look at the official documentation and, instead, looked at "options" which you conclude make some software "fully operational" even though those options are not part of the main package. 

Giving up is your best option.


----------



## rufwoof (Aug 8, 2017)

drhowarddrfine said:


> blah blah blah


[redacted]


----------



## SirDice (Aug 8, 2017)

A gentle reminder of rules 2, 3, 4 and 5: FreeBSD Forums Rules


----------



## haywire (Aug 8, 2017)

Greetings FreeBSD forums

I signed up a few hours ago as I need to learn about FreeBSD. I was reading this thread and was wondering if one operating system is better than another. It is all subjective, to familiarity and comfort, in what ever suits you best.

I am using a Raspberry Pi 3 with Raspian as my main desktop and I am getting familiar with it. I also have a Pine A64, on which I have installed FreeBSD, or rather copied using the dd command, the image of RaspBSD,  http://www.raspbsd.org/index.html, to a micro sd with my rpi3. I have a nice 32” HDMI television for my monitor. At first I thought that I had got it wrong somehow, because there was no signal to my monitor. Then going back to the raspbsd website I read “The Graphical Images currently only have a VideoCore kernel modules added to them. In the future a GUI and other tools will be preloaded. The console images do not have the VideoCore image and are designed to be used via serial or completely headless.” Ho! Hum, hardware and driver issue as mentioned earlier in this thread. I know the graphics on the Pine64 can be really good from running Remix OS on it. Remix OS is what it is, or was, as Jide have decided to move on to greener pastures. Never mind.

On another micro sd I installed Ubuntu Mate and it works OK but at present I think the Raspberry Pi 3 has the edge. With a HDMI switch I can go between  Raspian and Ubuntu, at the touch of a button and with the synergy program, I can use the same mouse and keyboard (mostly). Connected by LAN. I have an older Raspberry Pi 512Mb running my private WordPress server.

Luckily I was able to find the ip address of FreeBSD on the Pine64 by logging into my modem-router, and then with ssh into the FreeBSD operating system. I have added a new user and password, but now I seem to be fumbling in the dark, being more used to Debian based operating systems.

I like to use nano as my text editor, just my preference, so I tried pkg install nano. And got back Shared object "libarchive.so.7" not found, required by "pkg".

So here my new adventure begins and any help I can get will be most appreciated.


----------



## scottro (Aug 8, 2017)

I would open a new thread for that pkg issue, with a subject like libarchive.so.7 required by pkg.  (I've not run into that one, and can't really help, but here's an older serverfault post about something similar. (Different versions)
https://serverfault.com/questions/575887/shared-object-libarchive-so-5-not-found-required-by-pkg

You can try using pkg-static, but again, I'd open a new thread rather than tack this onto a 3 page thread that lots of folks have stopped reading as it's turned into a bit of a bikeshed argument.


----------



## fernandel (Aug 8, 2017)

drhowarddrfine said:


> You don't use openshot to create 3d animated titles. You're trying to use something from the openshot web site to describe how packages are installed on FreeBSD. Bad choice. Use actual FreeBSD documentation.
> 
> So this confirms what I said before. You aren't getting proper information about how things work and just grasp at whatever suits you instead of official related documentation. In the openshot case, apparently you can use blender if you want to but *you do not need blender to install openshot.* Or inkscape either for that matter.
> 
> But that's a choice the openshot people made and has nothing to do with FreeBSD which you are trying to blame for your issues.



BTW Blender has a problem to run or better it is unusable to works Cycles Engine as long as we start to update llvm version and finally if you use llvm 3 than xorg doesn't work...I use OS X with Blender more than year and I think the future is not so brilliant too.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Aug 9, 2017)

fernandel Blender in ports is an older version than that posted on Blender's web site. The current version from Blender works on FreeBSD just fine, including Cycles, but you need to build it yourself. There are instructions on how to do that for FreeBSD11 on Blender's site. It takes a long time compiling on a slow machine but, the last time I did it, it wasn't bad on an i7 workstation with lots of memory.

You don't want to use Blender on a slow machine anyway.


----------



## tankist02 (Aug 9, 2017)

A few years ago I ran FreeBSD exclusively. These days I usually install each new release of FreeBSD as my main workstation/server. This is a great system to learn and community is wonderful. But after a few weeks I kind of get tired of reading, manually configuring everything and solving problems. So I get back to Linux (Fedora). Using Linux for me is much easier and trouble free. In the end I ask myself - what's the point to spend time administering system and fighting its quirks when all I need is just a working desktop? FreeBSD is designed and developed as a server platform, using it as a desktop requires too much efforts with mixed results.


----------



## rufwoof (Aug 9, 2017)

fernandel said:


> BTW Blender has a problem to run or better it is unusable to works Cycles Engine as long as we start to update llvm version and finally if you use llvm 3 than xorg doesn't work...I use OS X with Blender more than year and I think the future is not so brilliant too.


11.1 Release using pkg and ... Openshot can't create 3D animated titles. Audacity ... doesn't work. ffmpeg lacks lame, OpenOffice installs sound files that can't be previewed. Debian (Linux) in contrast ... all those packages work fine. Clearly a marked difference between the FreeBSD model and Linux (better package build/maintenance). I guess not that surprising as Debian can pull ahead by around 600 man years/year relative to FreeBSD. But on the other hand being core/popular desktop apps ... might have expected better. Disconcerting that with FBSD pretty much anyone can just package ... again Debian's controls are much more measured.

I haven't seen the OP's "feels faster" either, quite the contrary. Copying large files from one disk to another under ufs2 ... was a lot slower than under Debian. OpenOffice was faster to load first time around (compared to LibreOffice) ... once cached however and subsequent loads are by-eye comparable (quick).


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Aug 9, 2017)

@ tankist02 Not to dispute what you experience with setting up and Administering FreeBSD, but that does not reflect mine.

I'm building FreeBSD 11.1-RELEASE on my 4th running laptop right now. I build all my regular programs from ports before ever invoking X. Once booting to the desktop I access the USB stick I save my /etc folder to so I can copy off files individually instead of editing them manually, tweak my programs (install www/firefox extensions, about:config settings, etc.) and in less than 24 hours, depending on the machine, I am done and no further work on it is required.

I always build each release from scratch instead of upgrading and get a rock solid desktop every time.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Aug 9, 2017)

rufwoof What is your purpose in being here besides spreading FUD about FreeBSD. You give bald faced lies in other threads and now make claims which mask the truth. Are you a Debian Linuxer in disguise only here to disrupt this forum?

You are a liar and have no business disrupting this place with your cheating statements and trumped up advertisements for Debian and Linux. You should be banned as a disgrace.


----------



## rufwoof (Aug 9, 2017)

drhowarddrfine said:


> What is your purpose in being here besides spreading FUD about FreeBSD. You give bald faced lies in other threads and now make claims which mask the truth. Are you a Debian Linuxer in disguise only here to disrupt this forum?
> 
> You are a liar and have no business disrupting this place with your cheating statements and trumped up advertisements for Debian and Linux. You should be banned as a disgrace.


I have made it perfectly clear that I have used Debian as my primary boot for a while now, and accurately compared my observations of that in an appropriate manner (as per this section and title of this thread) to my observations from recent reviewing FreeBSD. Please be more specific in backing up your own libelous accusations.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Aug 9, 2017)

rufwoof I've already pointed out to you in other threads where you talk about things that are not true or you hide behind a veil as you mis-speak the truth. You can't go two sentences without bashing FreeBSD and promoting Debian. Are you getting paid for that? 

One of the rules of this forum is you cannot discuss other operating systems here and you teeter on that line with every post you make.

As far as I'm concerned, you need to be banned for outrageous behavior that only disrupts this forum. In the 14 years I've been on FreeBSD forums, I am shocked you've lasted this long.


----------



## SirDice (Aug 9, 2017)

drhowarddrfine said:


> One of the rules of this forum is you cannot discuss other operating systems here and you teeter on that line with every post you make.


Well, sort of. It's true we don't allow technical and/or support questions for any other OS than FreeBSD. However, it's going to be quite difficult to have any kind of meaningful discussion regarding the differences between FreeBSD and any other OS without being able to mention that other OS. If and when it suits the discussion you are free to mention the merits of that other OS as long as the discussion stays a discussion and not a pissing contest.



> In the 14 years I've been on FreeBSD forums


Judging by your sign up date it's closer to 10. The forums haven't been around for that long.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Aug 9, 2017)

SirDice said:


> Judging by your sign up date it's closer to 10. The forums haven't been around for that long.


I first signed up with bsdforums.org in 2003 or 2004. Then went to daemonforums when bsdforums went all to hell. Then came here when this one was created. I built my first FreeBSD workstation in 2004.

I've long stated that the disadvantage of encouraging anyone to use FreeBSD is you will get the riff raff of reddit like users such as rufwoof and here we are. It's something I've noticed for the last year or two and has drug these forums down as I also notice other long time users from those days rarely visit here anymore but I do see them elsewhere.

Judging by your comment, I see this place is allowing itself to degenerate to such a low class level that I don't wish to participate in such a place anymore. No one will miss me or care but until someone PMs me that rufwoof has been banned from here, I will just leave and stick with places that don't bow to anyone that comes in here and pokes their nose.


----------



## rufwoof (Aug 9, 2017)

Fundamentally I've outlined that FreeBSD core (userspace) ... good. Ports ... good. Packages ... not so good. Intended not as deflamation but as observation. That can either be shouted out in which case those issues will just continue, or be taken on board and addressed. I have even given specific examples, for instance mismatch of Openshot and Blender, Audacity, ffmpeg ... where with relatively little effort a path could be laid toward such pkg based improvements. I might even have taken such cases onboard myself, however I'll spare the admins and self impose my own FreeBSD ban. I did try to contribute to FreeBSD despite in-familiarity ... such as https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/61881/ and https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/61886/ Perhaps little for old hands, but I would hope perhaps beneficial in some way for other neubs.

I thank those that were helpful and informative ... especially Trihexagonal and SirDice, whose guidance has helped me set up two FreeBSD boot partitions (primary work/gui partition, secondary cli admin) alongside the two Debian partitions I have installed. Immediately after posting this however I'll wipe those two FreeBSD partitions as a incentive to maintain a self imposed FreeBSD ban. Best regards to all-bar-one.


----------



## SirDice (Aug 9, 2017)

Everybody is, of course, free to come and go as they please. 

And with that I'm going to close the thread.


----------

