# What are the benifits of FreeBSD over Linux?



## Sol33t303 (Oct 23, 2018)

I'm currently using Gentoo. I feel like trying something new and have always wanted to try one of the BSDs out. The only problem is that I'm having a difficult time  trying to find a good reason to switch. The only bennifit I know of really is that it's considered more stable than Linux, but this is mainly due to it supporting less hardware. I personnally find that Linux is perfectly stable enough for me (in particuler distros like Gentoo or Debian) but the hardware compatibility could be a problem as I tend to be a bit upgrade happy with my PC and often have fairly new hardware in it, and it's already enough of a pain to deal with drivers on Linux (I despise my Nvidia drivers in particular), I can only imagine it's worse here on FreeBSD. The other main problem is the fact that since Linux isn't very well supported by most software I can only imagine that there is effectively zero software available for FreeBSD outside of the FOSS community.

Feel free to correct me on any assumtions I have made and to try and convince me as to why I should install FreeBSD (or if any other BSDs sound good for me tell me about them!).


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Oct 23, 2018)

The benefits of FreeBSD over Linux




Sol33t303 said:


> hardware compatibility could be a problem


I built my current, bleeding edge workstation using all new components, off-the-shelf and had no issues whatsoever. Gigabyte motherboard, Intel drives, nVidia graphics, etc.


----------



## SirDice (Oct 23, 2018)

Sol33t303 said:


> The only bennifit I know of really is that it's considered more stable than Linux, but this is mainly due to it supporting less hardware.


The stability of FreeBSD actually has nothing to do with being able to run continuously without problems. If treated correctly Linux and even Windows are quite capable of that too. The famous stability of FreeBSD has more to do with API/ABI stability and the way the system operates. How I configure my 12.0-BETA1 is essentially the same as I first did on FreeBSD 3.0. This is a stark contrast with Linux for example that seems to have a different system with each release and/or distribution, SysV, upstart, systemd, etc.


----------



## balanga (Oct 23, 2018)

There's a big difference between FreeBSD and Linux. One is a complete operating system. The other is simply a kernel around which are wrapped numerous apps which are bundled together to form a 'distribution'. There are possibly hundreds of different distributions so it's virtually impossible to compare FreeBSD with Linux. You can only really compare FreeBSD with a specific Linux 'distribtion' because (I suspect) each distribution is different.

The great thing about FreeBSD is that you can tailor it to your own needs, but it probably needs more effort (initially) on behalf of the user  to make it do what you want it to, but you have a choice of around 25,000 apps to choose from. And you only have one pkg management system with a single repository unlike Linux where pkg management varies from distro to distro and getting some pkgs installed can involve jumping through several hoops.


----------



## Sol33t303 (Oct 23, 2018)

drhowarddrfine said:


> The benefits of FreeBSD over Linux
> 
> 
> 
> I built my current, bleeding edge workstation using all new components, off-the-shelf and had no issues whatsoever. Gigabyte motherboard, Intel drives, nVidia graphics, etc.



Already searched this up (maybe I should have mentioned it), but to me it seems like the main other argument for FreeBSD is "that it just feels better", due to being led by a single group vs having everybody pulling every which way in terms of development on linux, this isn't really tangible evidence (but I will take it into account). I did also see some claims of higher performance but I'm skeptical of that, esspecially claiming that it is higher performance than Gentoo, that would be a pretty high bar trying to compare FreeBSD (which seems more like an entire OS) against a distro that is bassically a kernel and some tools to compile some software. At most I'd imagine the difference to be negligible.


----------



## ShelLuser (Oct 23, 2018)

Sol33t303 said:


> The only problem is that I'm having a difficult time  trying to find a good reason to switch.


Then why bother?

This is just my personal opinion obviously but a good reason to start using FreeBSD, or any other OS for that matter, is because you want to use FreeBSD (or that other OS). If you don't want to, why bother? In my opinion this holds especially true for hobby projects.

I'm not trying to scare you away, but just being realistic here. We're obviously talking about a hobby project so why bother using something if you don't feel like it? The reason I say this is because I can't help but be convinced that in situations like those you'll be much more tempted to start using the product in the way you were accustomed to. You already mentioned Linux, both FreeBSD and Linux have many similarities, which makes this a very likely scenario to me.

The problem though is that treating FreeBSD as if it were Linux can easily come to haunt you in a bad way, most likely ending up with you blaming the OS for what would basically be your own doing.

In the end using specific software on FreeBSD such as X, KDE or Gnome, Postfix, GPG, or even Nethack (and others) won't be much different from using it on Linux. The installation probably will be and you'd also immediately notice that FreeBSD provides the software as-is. Meaning that in most cases you don't get an easy pre-configured setup as you do with some Linux environments but you merely get what the original developer(s) intended. Which means that most likely you will have to manually configure your stuff before you can start using it.

You mentioned NVidia drivers, I'm convinced that the ones used by FreeBSD are fully the same (from x11/nvidia-driver):

```
These are the official NVidia binary drivers for hardware OpenGL rendering
in X11, using the GLX extensions.

WWW: http://www.nvidia.com/object/unix.html
```
The set up was pretty easy for me though.

Anyway, benefits...  These obviously differ per person and of course you risk bias to get involved. Still... for me personally it boils down to:

*Full control*

I don't enjoy seeing wireless support (or any other unused stuff) getting pulled onto my system, especially if my system is a server. On FreeBSD I don't have to worry about this because it's pretty easy to remove components which I don't want to use. Keep well in mind that I'm talking about FreeBSD, so the base system, and not any other 3rd party software which you can install on top of this. Which brings me to...

*Separation between OS & software*

Simply put: when I decide to run `# pkg delete -af` (forcefully remove all installed software) then I won't end up with an unbootable system. So whatever the 3rd party software does on my server will never have a direct effect on how my server functions. I won't risk disrupting server processes by removing the wrong library because they're separated, so upgrading the installed software is a different task than upgrading the actual operating system.

*Sane developers*

You don't see monstrosities such as systemd appearing on FreeBSD in a way where it gets shoved down your throat.


But as with all things: what works for me doesn't have to work for you.


----------



## Sol33t303 (Oct 23, 2018)

balanga said:


> There's a big difference between FreeBSD and Linux. One is a complete operating system. The other is simply a kernel around which are wrapped numerous apps which are bundled together to form a 'distribution'. There are possibly hundreds of different distributions so it's virtually impossible to compare FreeBSD with Linux. You can only really compare FreeBSD with a specific Linux 'distribtion' because (I suspect) each distribution is different.
> 
> The great thing about FreeBSD is that you can tailor it to your own needs, but it probably needs more effort (initially) on behalf of the user  to make it do what you want it to, but you have a choice of around 25,000 apps to choose from. And you only have one pkg management system with a single repository unlike Linux where pkg management varies from distro to distro and getting some pkgs installed can involve jumping through several hoops.



I'm fine with a bit of a challenge when setting up my system (as I said, I'm currently running Gentoo), however, your argument about tailering to your own needs I would say is also applicable to Linux (I'd say thats bassically the reason why Distros like Arch and Gentoo exist). Also your comment about how Linux distros are all different I think is true to a degree, but they all are effectivelly the same base (Linux with GNU userspace), the only REAL difference between them I would argue is probably the package manager, everything else can be completely stripped out of a distro and with enough work you could make it almost identical to any other.


----------



## _martin (Oct 23, 2018)

Sol33t303 said:


> The only problem is that I'm having a difficult time trying to find a good reason to switch


Then don't. Try it out as virtual machine (VM) first. That's (one of) the best way to try something for the first time without messing up the old setup. You have plenty of virtualization options on Linux (VMware, VirtualBox, XEN, qemu..). 
This way you can either forget about it, or if you like it you can try it out on the actual HW.


----------



## balanga (Oct 23, 2018)

Sol33t303 said:


> but they all are effectivelly the same base (Linux with GNU userspace),



That reminds about one huge difference between FreeBSD and Linux and that is the GNU license Vs the BSD license.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Oct 23, 2018)

Sol33t303 said:


> to me it seems like the main other argument for FreeBSD is "that it just feels better", due to being led by a single group vs having everybody pulling every which way in terms of development on linux


It is significant and much talked about all over the web. Not to mention far better documentation and better man pages.


> I did also see some claims of higher performance but I'm skeptical of that


Application software seems to be neck-and-neck but a slight performance advantage to Linux. When it comes to network performance, FreeBSD has the edge and is one of the reasons Netflix uses it to serve all their videos around the world and why FreeBSD is used in so many data centers, network switches, and internet hubs. FreeBSD is pretty good out of the box with little need for tuning, though, if one wants max performance, tuning can be done to get more.

The reason I did not use Linux when I started my company, long ago, was because Linux seemed to be undefined in their direction. It felt like a cousin who was somewhat misguided but I was close to them anyway. Nowadays I feel Linux is a mess of childish nonsense infatuated with game playing and pretty fireworks. I feel I made the wise choice.


----------



## shepper (Oct 23, 2018)

drhowarddrfine said:


> The reason I did not use Linux when I started my company, long ago, was because Linux seemed to be undefined in their direction.


This was the thesis for Eric Raymond's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar".

Top Down, Cathedral directed development vs A Bazaar of development directions.  Each has a place.


----------



## ProphetOfDoom (Oct 23, 2018)

I just installed FreeBSD as my desktop because
1) It seems cool and 
2) It’s an interesting challenge
As a hobbyist who needs more reasons? I suspect you think the same.


----------



## SirDice (Oct 23, 2018)

One really big benefit from using FreeBSD for servers is that it's perfectly acceptable to have a 12.0-BETA1 system running PHP 5.6 and a 10.4 system with PHP 7.1. The versions of third party software (Apache, MySQL, MariaDB, PHP, etc) is not tied to any specific FreeBSD version as is common on most Linux distributions. All supported FreeBSD versions and architectures use the exact same ports tree and thus have the exact same software and versions available to them[*].

[*] There are some exceptions to this rule but on 35000+ packages/ports it's only a handful that actually require specific architectures (i386 only for example).


----------



## blackhaz (Oct 23, 2018)

I'll do a quickie:

- Filesystem hierarchy, clear separation of the base OS and the user-installed software and configs  
- You have the same FreeBSD on all your machines, no need to remember myriads of distributions    
- Things aren't moving around much with versions, if compared to Linux
- Documentation (FreeBSD Handbook, manpages, etc)
- BSD License: develop and sell your commercial appliances without GPL in the way
- Community
- pf syntax  
- Base install is clean and tidy: mold it into anything (desktop/laptop, server, embedded machine)
- Although I am happy with UFS, lots of people enjoy ZFS
- BSD preserves the Unix philosophy more than Linux, which is important in the long-term run  
- It gets you into the mindset of exploring how the OS itself works, which is useful for computer literacy   
- It's just cool. You are running a descendant of BSD Unix. The more Unices there are, the merrier!

Why not to run it:

- Hardware support: you have to pick hardware that is supported by FreeBSD
- Some software is not available, the free world is getting too Linux-centric.

The scales have tipped heavily towards BSD for me.


----------



## rufwoof (Oct 23, 2018)

Sol33t303 said:


> or if any other BSDs sound good for me tell me about them!


Initially after trying FreeBSD (from Linux), I found OpenBSD to be a easier step onto the learning curve as it came pretty much pre-configured out of the box with sensible defaults. Good for just base + chromium as a start point setup/desktop, excepting setting/using cwm as the window manager (the default fvwm is a older version). And then progress as you see fit thereafter. A great start point for FreeBSD is *Trihexagonal's *https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/...-set-up-a-freebsd-desktop-from-scratch.61659/

Being more advanced/familiar however you might opine you could skip or skip through the above.


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Oct 24, 2018)

Sol33t303 said:


> I'm currently using Gentoo. …



No experience with Gentoo (sorry).

I was a Mac user for twenty-something years, in a predominantly Windows environment. IT support as part of my role. When I chose to switch away from Apple:

Windows was out of the question (too many annoyances)
I liked Linux for its breadth of support (including Bluetooth, and so on).
For what I wanted: FreeBSD-based systems were in many ways significantly inferior to Linux. For a while (a few weeks?) my preferred FreeBSD-based system was unusable and I enjoyed the smoothness of Kubuntu but it wasn't _quite_ smooth enough for me. I abandoned Kubuntu and preferred the more difficult system, with its limitations … eventually I switched to FreeBSD itself (-CURRENT, which is not discussed in The FreeBSD Forums). A few days ago I switched to STABLE.

Why prefer a system that's limited and more difficult? For me, with decades of Mac background, I felt much more *comfortable at the command line* with FreeBSD than with Linux. That's not the only reason  but when I'm in a difficult situation it's important to *not* add discomfort to the difficulty. If that makes sense.

I do _occasionally_ turn to Kubuntu – when, for example, I need to compare behaviours of Firefox in Tier-1 and Tier-3 environments. And I happily support colleagues' uses of Linux, and so on, but for myself I have no plan to switch again.

Postscript: the Firefox thing is a bit of a lie, because I rarely touch it. I prefer Waterfox, but preferring a deleted port can't be classed as a benefit of FreeBSD `;-)`



ShelLuser said:


> … Simply put: when I decide to run  # pkg delete -af (forcefully remove all installed software) then I won't end up with an unbootable system. …



Will that feeling of simplicity, for that command, be true for PkgBase? I see "… The kernel pkg will be marked as vital …" so I _am_ confident that a system will never become un-bootable, but I don't yet have a sense of how deep I might dig myself into a hole if I'm careless/ruthless.


----------



## Beastie7 (Oct 24, 2018)

Read this and liberate yourself. Gentoo was modeled after FreeBSD anyway - so why not use the real thing?


----------



## max21 (Oct 24, 2018)

Sol33t303 said:


> I'm currently using Gentoo. I feel like trying something new and have always wanted to try one of the BSDs out. The only problem is that I'm having a difficult time  trying to find a good reason to switch. .



First of all anyone who took the time to get to _knows_ Gentoo should keep it by his side forever.  Linux and windows will always be faster because they use the processor registers while FreeBSD use the stack.  I accept the performance decrease because FreeBSD gives me the option to configure every aspect of the system including the kernel.  I think Gentoo would be the ONLY runner up Linux wise to near match that.     Another great thing is FreeBSD has jails, which is faster then any virtualization system.  It’s a form of FreeBSD virtualization to protect itself.   Anytime you hear of a person switching from the All Mighty MAC to FreeBSD you know something more educational/hands on is going on.   As far as software FreeBSD got what you need unless you running a game machine or building a sound-system.  In that case use Linux for that.  Every now and then, you will find something difficult to install, nonetheless as a Gentoo person you’ll beat that easily.

Just like programming, you don’t learn just one and think it’s going to do everything under the sun.  Same thing goes for operating systems.  Just choose FreeBSD as hosts for Virtualbox or whatever and throw another FreeBSD in the mix as guest with your other VM’s that you like to keep an eye on.  Worries over!  I'm sure you'll find yourself using FreeBSD more often then Gentoo when all is said and done.  Good luck!


----------



## max21 (Oct 24, 2018)

Beastie7 said:


> Read this and liberate yourself. Gentoo was modeled after FreeBSD anyway - so why not use the real thing?


I knew it was something special about Gentoo.  I do recall reading something about the relationship between the two and that was just before I chose FreeBSD.  Bottom line; OP got it made!

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_FreeBSD

I think the blogs or comments I read was before this.


----------



## recluce (Oct 24, 2018)

SirDice said:


> The stability of FreeBSD actually has nothing to do with being able to run continuously without problems. If treated correctly Linux and even Windows are quite capable of that too. The famous stability of FreeBSD has more to do with API/ABI stability and the way the system operates. How I configure my 12.0-BETA1 is essentially the same as I first did on FreeBSD 3.0. This is a stark contrast with Linux for example that seems to have a different system with each release and/or distribution, SysV, upstart, systemd, etc.



I still am in contact with my old employer, a small ISP and security service provider that spun up its ISP business on FreeBSD-based servers in the mid to late 90s - FreeBSD is still the main operating system today. While I agree that Windows and especially Linux can be made to run quite stable (as in continuous operation without crashes / malfunction), the FreeBSD machines have always outperformed the other operating systems.

Back when security patches were not as much of a concern as they are today, the rule was:

1.) Windows Servers are stable for many weeks without reboot
2.) Linux servers are stable for many months without reboot
3.) FreeBSD servers are stable without reboot until the hardware fails

While this can no longer be verified due to patch cycles, the FreeBSD machines are still the most stable servers in the shop ;-)

Minimal maintenance effort when upgrading to a new major version of the OS:

1.) Windows: install from scratch, often with new hardware required, major project
2.) Linux: rolling distros are not stable enough for production, point release distros may or may not upgrade successfully. So mostly a reinstall, but somewhat easier than Windows.
3.) FreeBSD: just follow the regular upgrade process and whatever special instructions (UPDATING in  /usr/src) may apply. Continue to use older versions of important applications, unless they reach end of life - or use half a dozen different versions if required (through jails)

Bottom line: in my experience both API / architecture stability and continuous operational stability are best with FreeBSD.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Oct 24, 2018)

max21 said:


> Linux and windows will always be faster because they use the processor registers while FreeBSD use the stack


This isn't what you think it is. By responding I now have to remember or find my notes but this is a naive statement that isn't true in practice (that it's slower). The reality is different from the headline.


----------



## mrredeyeflight (Oct 24, 2018)

I have Freebsd 11.2 release p4 running. I am really thrtilled with it. It has exceded my expectations over my Ubuntu based system.


----------



## grahamperrin@ (Oct 24, 2018)

FreeBSD Status Reports – worth reading two or three, if you haven't already done so. 

Normally quarterly but it seems that the next will be annual. For the quarter ending September 2017, the report appeared on Christmas day so I guess that there'll be a two-month wait (from now) for the report for the year ending September 2018.


----------



## Crivens (Oct 24, 2018)

max21 said:


> Linux and windows will always be faster because they use the processor registers while FreeBSD use the stack.


Ehrr... no. Not much difference there between all of these.


----------



## mark_j (Oct 24, 2018)

balanga said:


> That reminds about one huge difference between FreeBSD and Linux and that is the GNU license Vs the BSD license.


Oh yes, THIS!


----------



## mark_j (Oct 24, 2018)

Sol33t303 said:


> I'm fine with a bit of a challenge when setting up my system (as I said, I'm currently running Gentoo),


I have to say I experimented with gentoo back in the day. I liken it to pulling out your toe-nails then trying to put them back in so you can pull them out again. It's a facetious analog but I don't have the patience to read hundreds of lines of instructions to get the stages installed.


Sol33t303 said:


> however, your argument about tailering to your own needs I would say is also applicable to Linux (I'd say thats bassically the reason why Distros like Arch and Gentoo exist). Also your comment about how Linux distros are all different I think is true to a degree, but they all are effectivelly the same base (Linux with GNU userspace), the only REAL difference between them I would argue is probably the package manager, everything else can be completely stripped out of a distro and with enough work you could make it almost identical to any other.



While the libs etc might be GNU for MOST it's not for all, the various OS combinations are so varied they might as well not have a common library and utilities from GNU. You're free to locate them anywhere (eg Busybox). You can use different device managers etc.
The key, and major, difference is the init system. Apart from that abomination known as systemd, there's upstart, sysvinit etc. Then there's package managers as you state, which can vary in command structure, ie, pacman or apt-get or the myriad of others.

I think that's what makes *BSDs attractive, as it's the entire OS, not just the kernel with blobs of junk attached to make it an OS. Don't get me wrong I use MX Linux on my laptop exclusively and run Devuan on Arm and iMX devices BUT if you want to swap from Mint to MX the learning curve is quite steep in some ways especially for a novice.

If you're unconcerned about how the system is configured and just want an OS to install and use, then the variants of GNU-Linux like Ubuntu (et al), MX, Mint etc would do just as well as GhostBSD etc.


----------



## ShelLuser (Oct 24, 2018)

max21 said:


> Linux and windows will always be faster because they use the processor registers while FreeBSD use the stack.


This comment is just too absurd not to comment on. Sorry but it makes no sense _what. so. ever_.

Process registers are used as "parameters" for specific calls. By setting value to a register and then using a specific call you basically tell the system what to do. Although they can be used for extra storage this is not often done; there are much easier ways.

The stack is a different beast entirely because you basically use this to temporarily store a value. You push something onto the stack to store it, only to pop it out at a later time.

_Fun fact_: This methodology mostly originates from the x86 family of processors and even back then it was a pure myth that one method was faster (or slower) than the other. Even more funnier: the stack was actually considered to be the faster of the two methods.

Thing is: if you wanted your program to actually 'do' something you'd be depending on both methods anyway because although one was a good way to store values (stack), you still needed the other to actually make the system 'do' something (registers).

As mentioned: this is focusing on x86, 64 bit seriously changed the rules of the game, including timing.

And then there's the issue that most of FreeBSD is programmed using C, the assembly parts are pretty small.


----------



## max21 (Oct 24, 2018)

ShelLuser said:


> This comment is just too absurd not to comment on. Sorry but it makes no sense _what. so. ever_.
> 
> Process registers are used as "parameters" for specific calls. By setting value to a register and then using a specific call you basically tell the system what to do. Although they can be used for extra storage this is not often done; there are much easier ways.
> 
> ...




```
Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2450M CPU @ 2.50GHz
71 ms for push 8, pop eax
35 ms for mov eax, 8

74 ms for push 8, pop eax
33 ms for mov eax, 8

79 ms for push 8, pop eax
33 ms for mov eax, 8

79 ms for push 8, pop eax
33 ms for mov eax, 8

77 ms for push 8, pop eax
33 ms for mov eax, 8

79 ms for push 8, pop eax
34 ms for mov eax, 8

79 ms for push 8, pop eax
33 ms for mov eax, 8

79 ms for push 8, pop eax
33 ms for mov eax, 8

79 ms for push 8, pop eax
33 ms for mov eax, 8

77 ms for push 8, pop eax
33 ms for mov eax, 8

Results are for 100 Million iterations
```
Newer hardware is faster but push/pop will forever remain slower no matter what.

IIRC push and pop is like for example LEA:


```
lea  esi, [ebp-30],
```

It has to do a heck of a lot more under the hood.  But using push/pop for FreeBSD is the best way to go.  If you use the registers (if you know what I mean) it does not increase preformance because the kernel itself has to make special perperation that cost time and branded code has to go thru something also, so you back to less than C speed anyway.  Might as well stick to C.  I think the handbook tell you all about it,  if not you have to get lucky, just google.  I not good at tech talk I just code it.


hutch - -  at masm32


> The push/pop is slower, its useful for memory to memory copy in non critical operations but direct register write is faster for a couple of reasons, its a single opcode and one memory operation is faster than two.



All the testing I done back in the day, hutch -- was right again, there is nothing faster then *mov*.


btw, there is no such thing as stack being faster than use of registers.  I read that story in the old FreeBSD manual.  It might be true for FreeBSD which is why it is slow and buckey in certain areas, but the way its written one would think it apply to all OS's which it don't.   Just because FreeBSD is my number-1 OS don’t mean I believe every thing that they want to add in the game of who’s the best and why.. Sometimes you have to think ouside the box or be fooled for life.


----------



## Crivens (Oct 24, 2018)

max21 maybe you should spend some time with a reassembler, a good book on cpu design (hennesy&patterson comes to mind) and learn from other people.
Also, things like MIPS have no stack build in, it's only a convention there.


----------



## sidetone (Oct 24, 2018)

There are none. I'm using WindowsTM. 

That the base system of FreeBSD is not bloated, is professional, and the ports is far less bloated than Linux distributions' packages or builds.


----------



## max21 (Oct 24, 2018)

There is no place I been since 1997 that said that pushing the  stack is faster then directly using registers the way Windows and Linux does.   That is what I was speaking on and nothing more.  As far as opcode, I once benchmarked all of them just to learn what to use and not to use.  Maybe what I am saying is the opposite of what you guys are talking about.   I use FreeBSD all day long for over 10 years; but I’m not going to lie for FreeBSD.  I use Windows-XP to surf the nets and I use FreeBSD for everthing else.

However, your idea sounds interesting.  I check it out today.  In the mean time could you guys prove what you say … Show the benchmarks!

Now that I think about it.  Why do I have to explain what I say, wasting all this space.  Anywhere else, my comment would have been token to mean responsiveness.  Nothing more, nothing less. Back-to-back ... What's up with all of this guys?  You want to bring up stuff that I know nothing about. or not really related.   Why is that?


----------



## Crivens (Oct 24, 2018)

Well, you blow a horn sounding awfully similar to a user who had been complimented out, repeatedly. You make claims with no base (FreeBSD using the stack more, which is false btw). 
You were not attacked for that.
But if you continue with XP on the internet, I see one royal spanking coming your way


----------



## max21 (Oct 24, 2018)

> Well, you blow a horn sounding awfully similar to a user who had been complimented out, repeatedly. You make claims with no base (FreeBSD using the stack more, which is false btw).


I thought I read many years ago that BSD4 stack based.  So it was about Stack-oriented programming and Network Stack was what they were talking about.   However it could not have been that difficult to know I was refering to  responsiveness of each OS itself, such as how quick it does something.  I'm not going to back-down from what I said about speed-responsiveness.  Who care if I got twisted up with my comment about ASM.



> You were not attacked for that.


I know!  It was either for telling the OP to keep Gentoo on the side or because I don’t believe everything the Manual say about  ASM?  Other then that, what?



> But if you continue with XP on the internet, I see one royal spanking coming your way


Since 2003 I only installed XP twice … It took me 15 years to find and remove ALL the build-in crap.  It's now more secure than Linux and Win-10.  It’s not what you use it’s how you use it.  I reserve my FreeBSD for better side of the INTERNET world.  My XP can’t be hacked.  I welcome anyone to try.  Hint: I stay connected 24/7.  come-one-come-all.

Anyway this is OP thread, not my..

bye


----------



## Crivens (Oct 24, 2018)

Last time I checked, the one doing the claim had to bring the evidence. And as I said, you are not attacked for your opinion here (or should be) - but you will be attacked with XP facing the internet.


----------



## max21 (Oct 24, 2018)

How am I’m going to get attacked for using XP which I basically NEVER had the problem of get hacked for at least the past 10 years.  I have no worries.


----------



## Datapanic (Oct 24, 2018)

The windows XP POS hack extends support to April 2019.  Everything Microsoft from XP to Windows 10 can get hacked...


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Oct 24, 2018)

max21  As I said earlier, I knew I had read something about this fairly recently. FreeBSD does it the Unix way. Linux does not. However:



> It seems to me that it’s six and half-a-dozen: in the FreeBSD convention, you push to the stack in all cases, in the Linux convention, you push to the stack (or elsewhere) depending on what you’re doing around the call site. You could argue that the Linux convention enables faster code since you can perform all your calculations in registers... As Rob points out however, *on Linux the registers still end up being pushed* (to build the struct pt_regs instance which is used to provide the arguments to the C functions which deal with the system calls), *so the overall cost is greater on the Linux side than on the FreeBSD side*.



Note that this answer is from a Debian developer and former RedHat employee.


----------



## Beastie7 (Oct 24, 2018)

FreeBSD is better mmkay?


----------



## sidetone (Oct 25, 2018)

Crivens, I made a joke about Windows, then XP was brought up soon after. I haven't used that in years, so I thought it was funny to say I was using it, and the joke implying regularly, for having basic knowledge of FreeBSD and being on a FreeBSD forum. I didn't want the discussion to go in that direction.


----------



## DriverBuilder (Oct 25, 2018)

Switched to FreeBSD 3 months ago and now observed following Benifits:
1) My remote terminal wont hang after couple of weeks in FreeBSD.
2) Can install any package without apt-get update each time.
3) Even in not supported older version can easily install applications without any dependency problem, this is not same if you try to install any application in ubuntu 10


----------



## max21 (Oct 25, 2018)

I don’t even know why I included Linux other than I know Gentoo and Arch are the coolest, however, I never used them other then Arch for GRUB - -  so I meant to say:



> WINDOWS may FOREVER be faster (more responsive) OS because it is design to directly or indirectly use the processor registers.  With FreeBSD you must push the arguments onto the stack which cost more no matter what you want to believe.



As far as windows XP POS hack, it’s like the Y2K scare.   I can’t wait for 2019.  _Bring-it oN_!  I need something strong to put my XP to the test.

Since XP have somehow got so much attention … I can tell you, the only thing that is going to kill off XP is when Opera and Firefox stop working for it.  But WTH, you all know my setup.  If not, FreeBSD is the hosts with many FreeBSD versions from 8.2 – 12 Beta and a single Windows XP; all in Virtualbox.  So evidently, to me,  FreeBSD must be better than Linux, and XP is surely faster then both… If there is a con, I’m going to let you know anyway and this one is no big deal.  Today’s processors are getting so fast some things just don’t matter anymore.

drhowarddrfine, I summit your link as Exhibit-1.



> FreeBSD is better mmkay?


It may depend on which Linux you pull out the closet today 

By right I should have never posted anyway, I now realize threw in Linux so to comment about comparison with XP.  The OP did not ask anything about XP.

Sorry Sol33t303

Good luck with your shinny new FreeBSD-12_Beta

It seems that DriverBuilder got good reasons from an overnight experence.


----------



## Sol33t303 (Oct 25, 2018)

max21 said:


> Sorry Sol33t303



All good 

Also, I am still watching over the thread and getting email notifications from it, it's just that it got way bigger than I was expecting. (Just incase people thought I had disappeared)

Also gonna setup FreeBSD in QEMU/KVM today, wish me luck guys, I'll then have a play around and decide where things go from there


----------



## Cthulhux (Oct 25, 2018)

Sol33t303 said:


> I'm currently using Gentoo. I feel like trying something new and have always wanted to try one of the BSDs out.



Ha, awesome, given that Gentoo was a "new" version of FreeBSD's ports system over the Linux kernel initially.

I am currently using Gentoo (and enough other systems) as well and I find that it makes no sense to ask why x is better than y, as this could change any day and nobody can make your own experiences for you.  If you want something _new_, NetBSD might be a more experimental place for you though.


----------



## Phishfry (Oct 25, 2018)

Sol33t303 said:


> it's just that it got way bigger than I was expecting.


Should have been locked from the get go.
Supposedly we are done with these FreeBSD versus Linux threads.
This is supposed to be a technical question place and not some coffee shop asking the same question week after week..


----------



## sidetone (Oct 25, 2018)

FreeBSD without any customizations is faster than any Windows, unless you use a VESA driver to handle your graphics for full screen, possibly KDE desktop or possibly GNOME desktop. There have been other few conditions of ports bloat that can make FreeBSD perform slower when some programs were running, the dependencies of GCC was once one of them. I hear on these forums that there are very few Linux distributions that are fast and efficient.

max21, can you drop it. The topic is not of interest to many of us.


----------



## max21 (Oct 25, 2018)

sidetone said:


> FreeBSD without any customizations is faster than any Windows, unless you use a VESA driver to handle your graphics for full screen, possibly KDE desktop or possibly GNOME desktop. There have been other few conditions of ports bloat that can make FreeBSD perform slower when some programs were running, the dependencies of GCC was once one of them. I hear on these forums that there are very few Linux distributions that are fast and efficient.
> 
> max21, can you drop it. The topic is not of interest to many of us.



I told the OP good luck and I already left...   Why are you keeping it up, my friend?

New people can ask any thing they wish if FreeBSD related.  We all were newbee in the past somewhere before.  Now we want to impose rules +++ --- and change the forum, forgeting where we all came from.

It's not their fault if a member say something another old member don't like.  I did not go to war ... u,u or u did.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Oct 25, 2018)

max21 said:


> It may depend on which Linux you pull out the closet today


It doesn't because all Linux distros use the same kernel.

Your opinion of Windows XP seem to be based on your desktop computer and nothing else. I'm not sure this is an informed opinion.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Oct 25, 2018)

https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/why-is-freebsd-not-more-like.66591/


----------

