# Why did you choose to stay with FreeBSD?



## sossego (Feb 24, 2010)

Performance was a big decision for me.


----------



## Ruler2112 (Feb 24, 2010)

First and foremost, stability.  The ports system is also a big plus.


----------



## SirDice (Feb 24, 2010)

stability, performance, ports, yep, that pretty much sums it up :e

And I love the fact I can build everything from the ground up


----------



## respite (Feb 24, 2010)

Organization. Separation of the base system and 3rd party applications. A core system developed as a system, instead of a hodge-podge of things thrown together. Simple package systems.


----------



## anomie (Feb 25, 2010)

I've said it before, I will say it again: 

 Jails
 An easy, well-supported base system upgrade path

(I am administrating a FreeBSD host for a peer department; FBSD itself is running in a VM, and each of its services runs within a jail. I need something that I don't have to fuss with a lot.)


----------



## Beastie (Feb 25, 2010)

All that has been mentioned so far + easy and fast installation process + customizability and flexibility of applications + quality and high availability of documentation.


----------



## robvas (Feb 25, 2010)

Organized, documented, stable, great community.


----------



## SageRaven (Feb 25, 2010)

Stability, ports, jails, GEOM, and now ZFS.

I'm a convert from Linux.  I changed jobs from where the primary in-house platform was Linux (Redhat, mostly) to one using FreeBSD (4.x and 5.x).  I always like to "eat my own cooking" (as the saying goes), so I like to run my primary home and work machines using the prevalent OS.  I went from Fedora to FreeBSD.  This was mid 2005 or so.


After the typical growing pains of learning a new system, I fell totally in love with it.  The entire system is very tight and stable, including the ports (which is what keeps me from switching -- no, portage just doesn't do it for me).

FreeBSD has a few annoyances, like lack of good 3D acceleration (I hate using proprietary binary blobs, never mind the current lack of amd64 support from vendors) and inability to use Wine under amd64.  But overall, these aren't things that interrupt my productivity, so I can't really complain too loudly.  Now that we've got a solid, working version of VirtualBox, the lack of WINE isn't a huge deal for me (though it would be nice to have), and I'm not really a huge gamer anyway and my recent experience w/ the new Radeon code is very encouraging.

I've been tempted over the years to go back to Linux, mostly for stupid things like wanting VMware (now irrelevant due to Vbox), Flash (it sucks, but hey, I like to indulge in Hulu or Youtube), WINE, or inability to run Compiz (now possible w/ open source 3D drivers, I assume).  But the things that were lacking in the past are now available, and even when they weren't, I just couldn't bear the thought of giving up ports, jails, GEOM, and ZFS.

I really can't imagine ever going back to Linux.  Now don't get me wrong; Linux is awesome in its own right.  I think both platforms have their place.  However, I prefer it personally on the desktop for my own needs, and I prefer it in the server room for my professional needs.


----------



## ZappyDaemon (Feb 25, 2010)

I am using FreeBSD+GNOME as my primary desktop OS for many years. 
Why FreeBSD? Performance? In desktop Windows has pretty good graphics (2D/3D) than FreeBSD (and Linux). So, it is not the only reason.
I just love BSD philosophy, it's truely free! it's a whole OS (not just kernel)! it's developing in managed (core team)!
It's my primary desktop OS! I use Windows while required (government and bank sites require Windows+IE in Taiwan).

BTW, FreeBSD needs more desktop support! Like webcam support (cheese, pidgin...)


----------



## ckester (Feb 25, 2010)

Yeah, everything that's already been mentioned.

Stay on FreeBSD, as opposed to what?  I haven't seen anything out there that's compelling enough to get me to switch.  

OS X is pretty, but Apple's getting more and more totalitarian every day.

Plan 9 is a more elegant implementation of the ideas that inspired Unix.  But it's not much use except as a research tool.

OpenBSD?  Maybe if I were running a mission-critical server where security was all-important.  But I'm not.  These are just my home machines.

NetBSD?  Maybe if I were running on exotic hardware, but I'm not.  (I do, however, have a long-standing intention to install it on an old Vadem Clio I have stuffed in a drawer somewhere...)

PC-BSD?  Text-mode installers don't bother me. My current favorite window manager is musca, not whatever PC-BSD has chosen for me.

Linux?  Too much GNUish cruft and too many Windows expats trying to make things just like they were back where they came from.   GPL doesn't affect me directly, since I'm retired and am not in the business of selling software, but it still offends me somehow.


----------



## klanger (Feb 25, 2010)

Yeap, Apple way of doing stuff pushed me to open source (I do use mac os x on macbook, it is a good os for a macbook) but on eeepc I do have FreeBSD installed.

FBSD is more or less "idiot" proof - just like os x (no problem after hard shutdown . 
Since I could call my self an OS "idiot", FBSD is perfect for me 

Stability and speed (it rocks on 900 MHz netbook!) is also a +.
Oh, and I just love FreeBSD logo...

Once again - great job FBSD devs!


----------



## vermaden (Feb 25, 2010)

I have tried many OSes, but FreeBSD seems less fscked up from all the others, something like _'jack of all trades'_.

I started with Linux but all this mess was pain in the ass, too many daemons, hald, udev, modprobe.d, various arguments to loaded modules (!?) configuration spread across all files under /etc, package management ...

Then I used FreeBSD for a long time, but after switching to newer hardware (not new ...) FreeBSD became unstable, panics, was not able to burn cd/dvd, so I decided to look around and tried some others, like OpenSolaris.

I run OpenSolaris mostly on my laptop, I liked native flash and virtualbox, but suffered from VERY small amount of packages ... then IPS thingy came out, some repositories showed up ... but number of packages (these that I needed not overall) was still small. Also various problems with adding packages ... The SVC with XML configs scripts was also pretty fscked up, especially ehn you look all those enabled services, you do not really know what they do or what will you break when you disable some of them ... No virtual consoles also at that point, so X11 or console ...

I also tried OSX on PC, worked quite nice, but ... I felt so limited and retarded using OSX interface, also package management ... what package management ... everything you want to add/install is not freeware/open they want you to pay for all little tiny shit that does something ... at least on Windows it was easy to find a crack/serial, well not here. If you use your box for very casual things, then OSX may be nice, but when you want to do something that Apple did not want you to do or they did not thought that someone would want to do taht, then you are fscked up.

So I tried Linux again, Ubuntu to be precisely ... worked quite nice for some short time, then I stopped to care about system state, some random updates/upgrades etc, sound was broken from the install, thru all updates till the end, creator of ALSA/PulseShit should be sitting back to back with Hans Reiser in Jail at least ... problems with modules, non existed modules (after deinstallation of apps taht I did not used any more), problems with versions of modules (after updates), generally one big mess of shit.

So I thought, FreeBSD 8.x seems nice, viirtualbox should work, flash 10 should work, lets try again ... and that was best decision to date, to come back. Now I have pure order on my boxes, I know what is going on everywhere, clean setup with ZFS, moved to openbox (really nice MW), all needed packages are available, almost everything works, generally now the OS does not come into my way, I just use it as documentation says and everything works.

I will have to be really drunk to think about switch to any other OS at that point ...


----------



## achix (Feb 25, 2010)

I use FreeBSD as a workstation and/or (home) server since 2.2.7 (IIRC). I was using FreeBSD (at home) in parallel with RH Linux (at work) till (IIRC) 2004, when one day i discovered that free RedHat packages from rpmfind were no longer available. The shortest path for me was to go with FreeBSD. Have never regretted it. Had many many many dark times with it, but it *always* went well in the end, due to the sophisticated, intelligent, professional, soulful FreeBSD community.
In short i stay with FreeBSD because i want and because i can!
To say "Thank you FreeBSD" is nothing in comparison with what i got.


----------



## Alt (Feb 25, 2010)

Cus of graceful order and true freedom.


----------



## wnsi-m2 (Feb 25, 2010)

Raised on Dual Vaxes running BSD. FreeBSD made more sense in my head then NetBSD. Had my first taste when a friend installed 0.9 on a hard drive and gave it to me. Never saw a reason to switch. I like things that work as advertised, even if you have to dig for the advertisement.


----------



## ckester (Feb 25, 2010)

I remember reading the 386BSD articles in Dr Dobbs, but I didn't try the software on my own machine because it seemed extremely pre-alpha.  (I went with a commercial Unix instead, Interactive 386/ix.)  

I kinda lost track of the project after that, and only came back to it after buying an iBook in 2003 and learning that OS X draws a lot of its internals from FreeBSD.  That eventually led me to install FreeBSD on one of my PC's -- which had also been a testbed for several flavors of Linux.  I usually wiped the machine soon after getting Linux installed and running, because it never felt like something I would actually use.  FreeBSD was different, and never got wiped from the machine.  Only upgraded.  

So let me add my thanks to the developers and everyone else in the FreeBSD community,  for keeping it going all these years.  If only I'd known what that Dr Dobbs article was starting!


----------



## Oxyd (Feb 25, 2010)

FreeBSD does all I need, and it does it well.  That's it, actually -- my needs are simple.

It's a system I don't have to fight -- there's very few bugs, so I don't need to hack-around stuff.  If I need to tune something, I just look it up and do it.  It doesn't try to be smart and tell me what it thinks that I want -- it simply does what it is told, nothing more, nothing less.

Oh yeah, and Beastie is just cute, and I like the red-white visual style of the homepage.


----------



## gkontos (Feb 25, 2010)

Because it works in my way 

George


----------



## oliverh (Feb 25, 2010)

Because of "evolution" 

SGI Irix -> Slackware -> FreeBSD/OpenBSD (from the early 90s until now)

I can get anything I want in Slack too, but Volkerding cannot fix a lousy kernel. So FreeBSD is my favorite since 5.0. Well have used many Apples since System 7 (68k) until now, but I've never considered MacOS X as something UNIX-like. It's just some toy for rich people without any real needs.


----------



## klanger (Feb 25, 2010)

oliverh said:
			
		

> I've never considered MacOS X as something UNIX-like. It's just some toy for rich people without any real needs.



Macs are not always that expensive. 
Few years ago 13' macbook was the cheapest laptop I could buy with such small screen (before netbooks).


----------



## fronclynne (Feb 25, 2010)

respite said:
			
		

> Organization. Separation of the base system and 3rd party applications. A core system developed as a system, instead of a hodge-podge of things thrown together. Simple package systems.



Exactly this plus the relatively small, but functional base install.  Super useful and easy.


----------



## Business_Woman (Feb 27, 2010)

I use windows ME on all production servers.


----------



## sossego (Feb 27, 2010)

And I still use Linux; but, I keep a working version of FreeBSD somewhere.


----------



## saxon3049 (Feb 27, 2010)

Well I use FreeBSD where I can and love it, the main reason is *consistent * well written documentation and also the support forums I manage a lot of production machines and if i have to ask a question on say the Ubuntu forms about a legacy machine that has to be kept online without getting the stock answer of "upgrade to X before we go any further" etc.

Another is the licence, this is a big one for me for my own reasons.

Stability of code, this is a must for me I run my businesses web server, firewall and other bit's of network infrastructure soaly on freebsd because  it's stability.

Security is another, the FreeBSD security team are quick off the mark to fix any problems and notify end users faster than most other teams I can think of.

There is a few thing's i am not a fan off but they are minor personal gripes because that is the way of the world I am not a fan of text based installers (they have a place certainly)but I would prefair a GUI installer, and perhaps a little more amd64 compatibility but that is just a personal thing. But I have noticed that I get more bang for my buck on a 32bit freebsd machine than I do on linux or windows.


----------



## oliverh (Feb 28, 2010)

klanger said:
			
		

> Macs are not always that expensive.
> Few years ago 13' macbook was the cheapest laptop I could buy with such small screen (before netbooks).



"Expensive" in terms of hardware/software compared to competitors. I don't see any real use in Apple Hardware/Software. I could beat for example the first Macbook with Intel hardware in 2006 with any competitor in price and quality. There were certain nice products of Apple, especially my Quadra AV or my first PowerPC 601, I was even happy with the first iMac despite the low quality built-in screen.


----------



## gkontos (Mar 1, 2010)

Business_Woman said:
			
		

> I use windows ME on all production servers.


Any good ? I want to upgrade my win 98 production servers :e


----------



## paean (Mar 1, 2010)

Not in any particular order:

1. Detailed and readable documentation.
2. Homogeneous base OS. Not a kernel + incongruous userland.
3. Big decisions for OS changes are decided by a group, not a single, iconic figure.
4. Stability.
5. Prompt response from the security team when vulnerabilities are discovered.
6. Free
7. Easy upgrade path.

I have not found another OS that meets all the above "needs" I have.


----------



## tangram (Mar 2, 2010)

Started my computing experience with Windows 98 but every once in a while I'd check out the Linux distros (Mandriva, OpenSuse and latter on Mandrake). But I had no experience when it came to the *nix like world so having a command prompt in my front lead to chaos. One day I tried out Windows Vista and I really disliked which further strengthened my will to give Linux another try, this time with Ubuntu.

From then on I spent over 1 year messing around with tons of Linux distros always building more knowledge and wanting to know how things worked and were glued together. This lead me to Gentoo and its documentation. However much the same way I was curious of Linux when using Windows I became curious of the BSD world.

I loved FreeBSD's website and its Handbook the moment I came across it. Man I really loved (and love) all that clear and complete documentation. There was a feel of cleanness, of old (*nix) and at the same time of new. Eventually I toyed around with FreeBSD 6.2 while reading the Handbook.

However I couldn't get Enemy Territory running on FreeBSD, so for a time I was using Gentoo as the desktop. Eventually I came across BSD books such as Building a Server with FreeBSD 7 which further cemented my knowledge when it came to server related subjects. 

At some point I got an ancient 266Mhz Celeron in which oddly enough the only thing I managed to install was FreeBSD. FreeBSD ran marvellously on it and further focused my interest in the OS. 

Soon after I got Enemy Territory to run and from then on FreeBSD is everywhere in my computing.

Now other operating systems seem odd and unwelcoming which leads me to seek FreeBSD specific things like how building ports (customized and expanded 2 ports, half way through creating one and have plans to update/create a few).

To sum up, there's nothing like:

```
% uname
FreeBSD
```


----------



## efrat (Mar 2, 2010)

ports jails and docs


----------



## PseudoCylon (Mar 4, 2010)

Red Hot Beastie chicks!

Jail, MAC, Vinum made me switch to FreeBSD from linux distr. It's been 2-3 years since. And, I haven't found a single reason to leave. Of course, there are some glitches and hiccups, but usually FreeBSD works. So, I can be happy, rather than screaming and yelling.

And, I cannot make red hot beasie chicks cry by leaving FreeBSD behind.


----------



## Caliante (Apr 14, 2010)

An intense respect for the developers, a way out of Windows for those who don't want to go on the Apple nor Linux road


----------



## Matty (Apr 21, 2010)

started with linux suse back in 2000, tried redhat after that but there was always something wrong with it. Never really worked and then I installed freebsd 4.4 or 4.6 dont remember but what I do remember was the computer booting it the first time and I didn't had the lag on the login prompt I was used on linux.  
After that I run my first install via port -> just worked no problems what so ever.
Read the handbook which referenced files that were really there 
And I still love the overall speed of the system.

Today I use it purely on my server (ZFS NAS for backup of windows/osx and serving vids to my htpc) 
Workstation is a hackintosh. Just to give Jobs the finger with his overpriced hardware.


----------



## aragon (Apr 21, 2010)

Just reminded myself why I stick to FreeBSD.  I installed linux.  Can't believe people willingly subject themselves to this rubbish, let alone advocate it.


----------



## ckester (Apr 22, 2010)

aragon said:
			
		

> Just reminded myself why I stick to FreeBSD.  I installed linux.  Can't believe people willingly subject themselves to this rubbish, let alone advocate it.



Come to think of it, it's been a while since I installed a Linux distro.  I probably should take a look just so I can speak from recent experience rather than fading memories.

I see some people saying Arch is the most BSD-like Linux.  Others say Crux.  Neither Arch nor Crux is aimed at the "Windows expat" crowd, which is a plus in my mind.  They also have ports/packages systems that are similar to FreeBSD's, but with some differences that might be interesting to explore.  

I don't expect to switch to either of them permanently, because I trust the engineering that's gone into the BSD kernel more than Linux's  (there you have my #1 reason for staying!), but it might be nice to take a look at them in a tourist-y kind of way.  

Maybe later this year, when I free up some money for another cheap Atom-based machine...


----------



## vermaden (Apr 22, 2010)

ckester said:
			
		

> I see some people saying Arch is the most BSD-like Linux.  Others say Crux.



The most BSD-like Linux distribution was Draco Linux (but its probably dead already): http://dracolinux.org/

It incorporated *pkgsrc* for package management and *OSSv4* by default instead of ALSA shit, BSD init scripts (like in Arch), all configuration at /etc/rc.conf ...


----------



## robbak (Apr 22, 2010)

I type this on a notebook running Ubuntu, but that's just lazyness. I am reminded of the cost of the idleness whenever I have to change a setting - I'm sure there's a config file somewhere.... and a log file somewhere else...

Oh, and you can have wine on amd64. It's largely a matter of force installing i386 .pkg files.


----------



## SPlissken (Apr 25, 2010)

True Unix, cleaner than Linux.
Nvidia driver support unlike other xBSD
Ports are great
More package than any other BSD


----------



## semi-ambivalent (Apr 25, 2010)

*Pola!*

From the moment I installed 4.2 (maybe it was 4.6) on an AST Bravo 486, via anonymous ftp, I was hooked. Shocked and delighted by the orderliness and logic of the layout and especially by the way the release team stayed true to that order and logic.

The Linux World, in spite of their constant chatter about clarity, tends to shove files just everywhere, almost as badly as does Windows. And although Linux is more stable than Windows, the Linux philosophy appears to be, as I saw posted once, 'all the latest stuff right away' even if it's not ready for serious use. Of course, you can always get *real* stability by staying well behind the bleeding edge, but then you're exactly where they condemn the BSDs for being. As a complement to the above, the same poster had added: 'FreeBSD, when it absolutely has to work, every time'. My experience has been exactly that.


----------



## crsd (Apr 28, 2010)

Mascot. Does anyone really need any other reason? :e


----------



## Erratus (Apr 28, 2010)

*Why I'm stuck with FreeBSD?*

You want to know the real reason? The real real reason? 
I could not make a decision which penguin I should hunt for.
Then learnd about good old UNIX is still alive in the BSDs.
Now the choice shrink to FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD.
NetBSD was my favorite, but FreeBSD offered the better 
documentation to a bleeding newbee. So it wasn't really a choice.
After all this forum kept my efforts alive when it did start.


----------



## carlton_draught (Apr 29, 2010)

Why I chose FreeBSD - I wanted something supremely reliable and secure. I would have chosen OpenBSD if a ZFS port was in the works. Having a way to know that data wasn't being silently corrupted was huge, as important as reducing the possibility of being hacked. Surely they are on a par - it's all about confidence in your systems. If you can put OpenBSD on the periphery, you should gain a lot of the same benefits anyway I would think.

Of course, now I've started using it I do appreciate many other facets also noted here - ports, jails, *order* - a place for everything and everything in its place, reputation for reliability, reputation for security, the history, the documentation.


----------



## sk8harddiefast (May 10, 2010)

Because i love unix


----------



## harishankar (May 10, 2010)

Just a little from a Linux user of 7 years who recently switched to FreeBSD.

I think the point about FreeBSD I really like is the base system and the way the hardware, system configuration and system level daemons are setup. I also like the handbook (which is not comprehensive but at least a good starting guide). People who have used FreeBSD for years like to compliment the handbook, but I don't think it's something extraordinary and it's what I would expect of an OS like *BSD.

The things I dislike are:

* Lack of certain hardware drivers, especially peripherals like webcams and also for not-so-common devices like USB pen tablet (WizardPen for instance).

* For a productive desktop with a lot of heavyweight apps installed, ports is a very difficult way to keep installing software. Compile times - I cannot get around it. If the package management system was well organized and kept on the same level as ports, I wouldn't mind so much, but there are few "package-only" tools in FreeBSD and the ones that provide binary-only package support are rudimentary.

* For a music enthusiast like me, the lack of tools that utilize JACK/OSS is a big letdown. Most of the good open source music composition programs like rosegarden are tied down to ALSA. ALSA is required for even software-synth support for these applications. 

On the whole I love FreeBSD a lot for its base system, but I am not a fan of ports. Too much compiling to do and the minutes can add up into hours and days. The  is no coherent "feel" about the package management. For instance, instead of checking the local version of packages installed with the remote version, the pkg_add tool simply downloads from the mirror blindly.


----------



## oliverh (May 10, 2010)

>especially peripherals like webcams

http://www.freshports.org/multimedia/webcamd/

Even DVB-T/S etc. is possible.

>If the package management system was well organized and kept on the same level as ports

Well it's easy to sponsor some people.

http://dougbarton.us/portmaster.html


----------



## nekoexmachina (May 11, 2010)

First it was no linux-bugs (iowait, 'random' hdd numering for my sata-controller[e.g. like sata0 could become sda, or sdb, or sde randomly, so goes for ide0 and all other satas], some minor problems with fat32).
Now i choose it over linux on all of my hardware because of speed, ports-system and updating mechanism.


----------



## kpedersen (May 11, 2010)

harishankar,

The package system is one of the many bonuses you get when using FreeBSD.

If you just stick to 8.0-RELEASE packages, it is just a simple case of 

*pkg_fetch -R whatever*, and then this will download recursively all required packages to a folder so that you can install them offline at your leisure 

No need to rely on a repository with some complex indexing applied to it. The simplicity of the FreeBSD packages is awesome.

And if you do need to compile something up, the ports system effectively gives you taylor made sources that are almost guarenteed to build. Infact most software is not nearly as likely to compile on linux even though that is what the software was usually coded for


----------



## harishankar (May 12, 2010)

No the package system is not great - it's more an afterthought to ports and even using tools like pkg_upgrade etc. are not guaranteed to be 100% all right because of ports dependencies. 

Also upgrading using only packages is a pain because the ports-* tools tend to use the ports version and not the packages versions as I found out. So naturally that option is gone. Also many ports are not available as packages in -STABLE or -RELEASE so installing one port means upgrading all the related ports as well and eventually switching entirely to ports as version dependencies can get clobbered by mixing ports with packages. 

I found a lot of stuff I need locked up in ports and to upgrade to a new port, I need to upgrade the whole system using the ports tree to prevent dependency breakage.

I really love the base system of FreeBSD and its organization, but ports is only for those who can wait for long compile times. I prefer using applications to compiling them.

People on these forums might say Linux is rubbish, but for a laptop/desktop user stuff just works fine. Even my webcam works out of the box. I've already gone back to Debian currently, but I regret having to move back. Sadly I cannot deal with the compile time for ports and to say that packages is a decent alternative is misleading. It isn't by a long shot.

Apologies for the plain speak though. I know I will get flamed for this, but I cannot help being honest about my opinion. Hopefully one day I will go back to FreeBSD by the PC BSD route. When hardware support is even more improved.


----------



## cajunman4life (May 12, 2010)

I certainly can understand the sentiment by those who don't wish to wait while their ports compile. Heck, I'm not even brave enough to attempt an OpenOffice.org build again. But we don't have to get into that right now.

Personally, I'm quite fond of the ports system. While I have a certain fondness for Debian that I don't have for Linux in general, I still keep on FreeBSD. I experimented with various Linux's, but didn't seriously use *nix until someone gave me an old IBM pc with FreeBSD loaded. I've been in love ever since, and while I can certainly use other systems, I never quite feel "comfortable" on them. While that's all subjective I suppose, that's my reason for staying with *BSD and in particular, FreeBSD.


----------



## vermaden (May 12, 2010)

@harishankar

You have just chosen a system that better suits your needs and even argumented it, You will not get bashed for that, I remeber your problems with MIDI.

I also _'suffer'_ because of packages/ports problem, lack of packages that for some ports (while Debian does not have problems creating them), after using portaudit I will have to rebuild a lot of ports because packages are not updated for RELEASE (not very good for profuction environment), but maybe things will get better in the future.

It would be nice to have a 'thing' like yum -y update, but at the same time, its easy to yell, its a lot harder to implement it.


----------



## harishankar (May 12, 2010)

Thanks. Yes, I don't believe in bashing any OS. If I cannot do something with it, I choose another.

Also I wish more people showed interest in projects like Debian GNU/kFreeBSD. Definitely something that makes package management up to scratch with the ports system.

I am a fan of *nix type OSes for almost a decade. So FreeBSD is a delight for me.


----------



## Zare (May 12, 2010)

It's a matter of compile farm. 

FreeBSD packages are compiled when RELEASE comes out, and that's it. For apt/yum stuff you need your farm laying eggs constantly.

Regarding MIDI, a lot needs to be done, however i also feel that FreeBSD lacks usable MIDI scoring/editing/playback tool, so i decided to start a project of my own. Feel free to contribute.


----------



## harishankar (May 12, 2010)

Zare said:
			
		

> It's a matter of compile farm.
> 
> FreeBSD packages are compiled when RELEASE comes out, and that's it. For apt/yum stuff you need your farm laying eggs constantly.
> 
> Regarding MIDI, a lot needs to be done, however i also feel that FreeBSD lacks usable MIDI scoring/editing/playback tool, so i decided to start a project of my own. Feel free to contribute.


Is there a link to your project? Does it use a soft-synth or have you integrated the soft-synth inside your project?


----------



## Zare (May 12, 2010)

It will be a TSE3 based thing with embedded FluidSynth. 

There is no project page, i just started the whole thing. Right now i'm running some proof of concept tests. I plan to do a Steinberg style routing, where MIDI track routes to physical interface or in-program synthesizer based on FluidSynth. That way, you can insert a hi-res multilayered sf2 with only one program inside it, lets say "synth pad", and route your track to that instance of virtual synth.

It eliminates memory usage and stuff. I never found a decent *nix sf2 editor, not that i looked much, because freeware Synthfont Viena for win32 emulates just fine.

Currently occupied with effective delivery of MIDI events between TSE3 and FluidSynth engine shared inside a program. After those proof of concept tests are done, i'll go GUI crafting and app building which will surely take a few months before anything usable is out.

So if someone wants to lend a hand...


----------



## harishankar (May 12, 2010)

I'm interested. If you put up a project page, let me know. I'm not too familiar with the technical details of MIDI myself, but once my examinations are over next month I can look into this.

I'm also looking to create a simple MIDI GUI application which will interface with Fluidsynth.


----------



## nekoexmachina (May 12, 2010)

> FreeBSD packages are compiled when RELEASE comes out, and that's it.


Your are a little bit wrong: packages/version-_stable_ on most mirrors contain most up-to-date packages (e.g. current ports version of them), compiled on -RELEASE.
And you do not need to download it by-hand, just set PACKAGESITE to ftp://my.mirror.here/path/ports/arch/packages-8-stable or something.


----------



## Zare (May 12, 2010)

Ok, i'll soon pack some initial backend code + scribblings and put them on the web.

@nekoexmachina, thx, i didn't know that


----------



## vermaden (May 12, 2010)

nekoexmachina said:
			
		

> Your are a little bit wrong: packages/version-_stable_ on most mirrors contain most up-to-date packages (e.g. current ports version of them), compiled on -RELEASE.
> And you do not need to download it by-hand, just set PACKAGESITE to ftp://my.mirror.here/path/ports/arch/packages-8-stable or something.



That does not solve things at all since any packages that incorporate kernel modules (like virtualbox) are not compatible with RELEASE.


----------



## xa (May 20, 2010)

I choose to stay with FreeBSD because i like ports system and it can do all what i need on my desktop perfect.


----------



## Blackbird (May 25, 2010)

*Why do you prefer FreeBSD over Linux?*

Hey guys,

sorry if someone here is annoyed by this question 
I'd like to know for what reasons you prefer FreeBSD over Linux! If you do.

It's because I've used Gentoo so far, and want to give FreeBSD a try soon.
I know, I will have to make my own experiences with it anyway, so I'm asking for your personal reasons.

I'm simply interested.


----------



## SirDice (May 25, 2010)

This horse has been beaten to death on numerous occasions already.


----------



## vermaden (May 25, 2010)

@Blackbird

Check this thread mate: http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=11642



			
				Blackbird said:
			
		

> It's because I've used Gentoo so far, and want to give FreeBSD a try soon.
> I know, I will have to make my own experiences with it anyway, so I'm asking for your personal reasons.



Funny, I came here the same road (Slackware --> Gentoo --> FreeBSD) 

Read in all places that 'this thingy' in Gentoo is based o 'that thingy' from FreeBSD so on and on, so I decided to try the source itself, beginnings were hard (do not treat FreeBSD as just another distro, You will have to learn new operating system).


----------



## DutchDaemon (May 25, 2010)

[ threads merged ]


----------



## Blackbird (May 25, 2010)

SirDice said:
			
		

> This horse has been beaten to death on numerous occasions already.



Sure. But I didn't find the corpse! :\

Thanx vermaden for the link, I didn't find it


----------



## mickey (May 25, 2010)

Blackbird said:
			
		

> Sure. But I didn't find the corpse! :\



Probably because it has been buried on numerous occasions, too :e


----------



## funkfisk (May 28, 2010)

I really don't know.  After a course at uni where we were to code a shell application on Unix, I just felt like home. So I installed FreeBSD as firewall and server, and during this i fell in love with FreeBSD and didn't see any reason to continue using Windows on my desktop computer... Have a background with Slackware during the 90ies, but, FreeBSD does give an order and structure that I've not seen anywhere. (and double plus good to the ports-system)

If love is the reason, then love it is :stud


----------



## falkman (May 29, 2010)

ports and kqueue()

I feel practically 'dirty' when I'm using epoll() or select(), yuck.

-Falkman


----------



## magickan (Jun 2, 2010)

I like the little daemon dude.


----------



## piggy (Jun 2, 2010)

harishankar said:
			
		

> No the package system is not great - it's more an afterthought to ports and even using tools like pkg_upgrade etc. are not guaranteed to be 100% all right because of ports dependencies.
> 
> Also upgrading using only packages is a pain because the ports-* tools tend to use the ports version and not the packages versions as I found out. So naturally that option is gone. Also many ports are not available as packages in -STABLE or -RELEASE so installing one port means upgrading all the related ports as well and eventually switching entirely to ports as version dependencies can get clobbered by mixing ports with packages.
> 
> ...


I do completely agree with this post. I like ports, then they should be an option for people in need of optimizing them system using compiled code. For generic system use a working binary package system update should be a must and something that can give Freebsd even more appeal. Then a user can choose what to do: binary packages or ports. It could also be possible decide to always compile base system update and have packages for graphics like KDE/gnome for example.

BTW, I discovered Freebsd like in 2002 (version 4.1 if memory serve me well) and abandoned it becouse - yes it was and it is a lot stable and reliable - then really time consuming in administration.

I discovered it again with the release of version 8 and the need to replace an old Linux Red Hat 7.1 firewall/internet gateway/file server on my personal/family LAN. I built a machine with some spare parts hardware and it works just fine with little memory (768 on a AMD Athlon machine). Even if not many packages are installed (mostly base system/network tools/samba/ssh/jails for my personal web server and nmap scanner, some lightweit Gnome Light install, it is time consuming to be constantly updated and sometimes reboot it is also needed to fix updates problems. I know, if I want I could avoid to update the base system, maybe just look for port audit problems, then I tend to like updated system so this Freebsd - very very stable - is rebooted a lot more compared to my old Red Hat 7.1 box.

Just to become even more familiar I also installed a couple of virtual machines under VMware Workstation on my main desktop system, one is Freebsd and the other PCBSD): they are mainly virtual box then they are loaded with pretty much everything and have all this updated is a nightmare (on Freebsd 8 box; obviously PCBSD is different and not so often updated). Example: I just finished to compile 4.3.3_1 (if memory serve me well) KDE and I can see 4.4.4 out. I'm here in the process to compile it :-((( Using ports is a true nightmare on a desktop system in need to always be up to date. There is also the risk to broke stuff, I think I've been able to resolve a lot of things (gettex, apache and so on) in the process of the last big update done in middle May, then - for example - vmware tools are still broken (I know vmware tools is not Freebsd then I need that software).


----------



## teckk (Jun 2, 2010)

Been with FreeBSD since 5.1. It was just what I was looking for. I've had no need to look back. I came to it from Centos. I also tried other various flavors of the Penguin.

It's open source, makes for very good tutor, also makes you lean how it works,
Rock solid stability, 
Very good handbook, 
Security, comes with ports, access, and privileges fairly locked down, you have to give permission for it to work, so you should know about the vulnerability,
Ports and packages in a central reliable repository, 
Lots of ports/packages that cover most needs. For others there is wine which works well now, the Linux compat layer which runs Linux apps as well as Linux does perhaps, several virtual machine environments, look into changing ELF and you may be able to compile a Linux app on your box,
I appreciate the thousands of hours that goes into compiling all of those packages and maintaining all of those ports, 
A knowledgeable community, 
A complete OS, not a kernel with userland and other pieces stuck on it, 
Jails, Network tools, Shells with interpreters built in, an update mechanism that works, even if it could still use some work, working acpi, updated scheduler, etc.
A first class effort by all of the contributors for a first class work in progress.

As for Flash, Photoshop, Modules for some hardware, NTFS support, printer support, etc. It is a work in progress. I think they are doing a dang good job.


----------



## pprocacci (Jun 2, 2010)

Been using FreeBSD since the early 90's.  For a server environment assuming you don't need Oracle it's great!  For a desktop environment it's lacking and stick with winbloze...less hassle (and I get free licences through my company).  Once FreeBSD has good support for a webcam, wine and skype or a good variant that's adopted by lots of people I converse with I'll most likely be sold completely.

With the above said, the things I like about FreeBSD are:

- Extensive documentation
- Easy Upgrade Paths
- Great Community
- Great Package Management
- Solid Performance all around

Things I don't like:

- Desktop support (read: webcam/skype/wine/etc)
- Hardware support (ok if you use old hardware)
- zfs (yeah yeah, just an opinion, but I don't like it, and am not forced to use it).

In closing, I use FreeBSD and have used it on about 95%+ of the machines I roll out, 4% of those machines get Oracle on a flavor of LINUX, and 1% of those machines winbloze.


----------



## aragon (Jun 3, 2010)

pprocacci said:
			
		

> Once FreeBSD has good support for a webcam, wine and skype


Take a look at webcamd.  Works pretty well.

Apparently Wine has seen some FreeBSD specific advancements recently too.

As for Skype, well, it's in ports so I assume it Just Works.  Have you tried it?


----------



## pprocacci (Jun 3, 2010)

aragon said:
			
		

> Take a look at webcamd.  Works pretty well.



Yes, I tried it, and it worked ok.  This was back 2 months ago now I think.  It would hang on close which I see looked like to be fixed now.



> Apparently Wine has seen some FreeBSD specific advancements recently too.



I'll wait until it works on amd64 archs.  I've tried the whole chroot'd 32bit wine, and while it works, it was sloppy IMHO.



> As for Skype, well, it's in ports so I assume it Just Works.  Have you tried it?



Audio and Text work.  Video is broken.  The skype port doesn't see /dev/video0 (via webcamd).  Again this was about two months ago when I gave it a go on FreeBSD-Stable.

I should probably try other OSS solutions that run on winbloze and FreeBSD for video related communications (that work with webcamd) similar to skype and convince those people I converse with to move away from skype.  That would certainly get rid of 2 of the 3 requirements I have.  Have any good solutions?


----------



## piggy (Jun 3, 2010)

pprocacci said:
			
		

> Yes, I tried it, and it worked ok.
> Audio and Text work.  Video is broken.  The skype port doesn't see /dev/video0 (via webcamd).  Again this was about two months ago when I gave it a go on FreeBSD-Stable.
> I should probably try other OSS solutions that run on winbloze and FreeBSD for video related communications (that work with webcamd) similar to skype and convince those people I converse with to move away from skype.  That would certainly get rid of 2 of the 3 requirements I have.  Have any good solutions?


I run Skype with video too on my virtual PCPSD box and it works just fine. BTW, why call Windows Windoze? Whats the sense? Windows is actually a very good OS and don't deserve jokes. I do prefer Open Source and free OS then I do own Windows licenses and I do appreciate the good job they did on Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008. This is the reason becouse I'm happy to have my main desktop under a 64 bit version of Windows 7 like I'm proud to run Freebsd 8-stable as my firewall/internet gateway/file server for my LAN. No flame, just my point of view.


----------



## pprocacci (Jun 3, 2010)

Winbloze/Windoze is all at of habit actually (albeit a bad one).  I do currently run Windows* 7 64-bit without problems and I do enjoy it, but I do (or would at least like to) move completely to BSD.  When you say PCPSD, I assume you meant PC-BSD?  Would you mind clarifying?  I happen to run FreeBSD as my firewall/internet gateway/file server (nas) as well.  ;P


----------



## piggy (Jun 3, 2010)

pprocacci said:
			
		

> Winbloze/Windoze is all at of habit actually (albeit a bad one).  I do currently run Windows* 7 64-bit without problems and I do enjoy it, but I do (or would at least like to) move completely to BSD.  When you say PCPSD, I assume you meant PC-BSD?  Would you mind clarifying?  I happen to run FreeBSD as my firewall/internet gateway/file server (nas) as well.  ;P


PC-BSD 8, yes. Just installed the Skype binary via the PC-BSD install tool and it worked out of the box.


----------



## aragon (Jun 3, 2010)

pprocacci said:
			
		

> Audio and Text work.  Video is broken.  The skype port doesn't see /dev/video0 (via webcamd).


Probably not the place to troubleshoot this, but my first guess is that a second devfs instance needs to be mounted at /usr/compat/linux/dev.


----------



## pprocacci (Jun 3, 2010)

aragon said:
			
		

> Probably not the place to troubleshoot this, but my first guess is that a second devfs instance needs to be mounted at /usr/compat/linux/dev.



I agree, and this'll be my last comment regarding the matter.  An instance was there, but still didn't work.  I'm in the middle of giving PC-BSD a whirl considering piggy claims that it worked.  Assuming it does work in PC-BSD, I will then try FreeBSD to get it working in there.  Cheers everyone!  Sorry for the thread hijacking.


----------



## purgatori (Jun 4, 2010)

I suppose you could say that I'm not _technically_ using FreeBSD, but rather, PCBSD -- although I have stripped out a lot of the stuff that comes with PCBSD (such as KDE) and custmoized userland stuff quite a bit. Anyway, the reason I am staying with PC/FreeBSD is the same reason I moved to PC/FreeBSD in the first place: stability. There was a major bug with the xorg-vide-intel driver and/or Linux kernel that seems to be extremely widespread across distributions, and which causes X to either freeze, or crash at ostensibly 'random' intervals (see: link. After suffering with this problem for months without a fix being released (nor was I able to fix it myself, despite trying dozens of solutions/workarounds), I decided to make the transition to BSD. 

I was a little intimidated at first, because I only have one machine and I was afraid of being dumped at the console without X or an internet connection post-setup, and that is why I opted for PCBSD instead of FreeBSD. Despite a few hiccups encountered along the way, I found that PC/FreeBSD was generally _much_ more stable than Ubuntu ever had been, and that most things 'just work[ed]', and where they didn't, it was almost invariably due to my not configuring them correctly. Most importantly, the bug described in the above was gone, and I was able to resume my work without being constantly interrupted by X deciding to crash/freeze. 

But it isn't just stability... I _really_ love the ports system, and the beautiful integration of core components in the FreeBSD base system. As a long-time user of 'apt', it's so nice to be able to actually choose how I want a particular application to be configured, rather than being stuck with the not-always-satisfactory selections made by the Ubuntu/Debian packagers (e.g: not enabling 256 color support for rxvt). It also seems to be a lot kinder on my old hardware, but I haven't performed any benchmarks to confirm this, so that remains a purely subjective observation at this point. 

Another big advantage for me is that setting up my system the way that I want it under PC/FreeBSD has meant that I've had to learn a lot more about how things actually work and fit together. Not having everything pre-configured to the nth-degree means that I often find myself having to read up about the individual components and resources used by various applications, and work out how to set them up properly so that they all play nice together. I realize that if I had installed FreeBSD proper, I would have learned a lot more in terms of how everything works, but assignment deadlines were fast approaching, and I could not afford to spend days learning how to properly set everything up (even though I may have overestimated how difficult that would be) -- I needed a usable system that I could use to conduct research and write reports/essays straight away.


----------



## carlton_draught (Jun 4, 2010)

purgatori said:
			
		

> I was a little intimidated at first, because I only have one machine and I was afraid of being dumped at the console without X or an internet connection post-setup


If you can't get even a second hand old computer for free, even an extra HDD is valuable just to have that safety net of being able to plug it in when things foul up. It's difficult to overestimate the utility of having two computers (even two operating systems on different HDDs) in terms of being able to experiment. If you don't feel the freedom to try new stuff, it's very difficult to learn things. I'd attribute my failure to "take" to linux back in university to this reason as much as any (there was no shortage of applications I could have run for engineering or CS classes on linux). It's also now much easier to find cheap or free hardware these days, of superior performance.

Oh well, it's funny how each time you try to familiarize yourself with unix, a little bit more sticks and makes the next time easier.


----------



## piggy (Jun 4, 2010)

purgatori said:
			
		

> I suppose you could say that I'm not _technically_ using FreeBSD, but rather, PCBSD -- although I have stripped out a lot of the stuff that comes with PCBSD (such as KDE) and custmoized userland stuff quite a bit.


I understand your reasons, then PC-BSD was not your right choice. It is made to be like it is, to offer a stable desktop with a simple package management. Yes, u still can compile and build ports at your own risk (for this, it is much better a plain Freebsd) or better experiments under portsconsole to avoid to broke base system. So, IMHO, the right choice for u is Freebsd and u've been lucky enough to have a working system considering u made changes to the PC-BSD base install (for example KDE is definitely an IMPORTANT part of PC-BSD OS and the proper interface to load packages and configure the whole OS).

Related with the fact u just own a single computer: well, in this times life is expensive everywhere, we got recession, then there is something really low in prices and really easy to afford: hardware parts, cheap computers and on this maybe a bit outdated computers and spare parts, BSD flowers works really really well. So I will advise u to get a new computer (build one if u are able to, it is really cheap) and experiment with one of this and let the other to be like your main machine, especially as u said, using the computer is part of your job.


----------



## purgatori (Jun 4, 2010)

carlton_draught said:
			
		

> If you can't get even a second hand old computer for free, even an extra HDD is valuable just to have that safety net of being able to plug it in when things foul up. It's difficult to overestimate the utility of having two computers (even two operating systems on different HDDs) in terms of being able to experiment. If you don't feel the freedom to try new stuff, it's very difficult to learn things. I'd attribute my failure to "take" to linux back in university to this reason as much as any (there was no shortage of applications I could have run for engineering or CS classes on linux). It's also now much easier to find cheap or free hardware these days, of superior performance.
> 
> Oh well, it's funny how each time you try to familiarize yourself with unix, a little bit more sticks and makes the next time easier.



I've had more than 1 computer in the past -- at one time, I had 4 -- but they all ended up dying, and now I'm down to one. I do eventually plan on getting another one, but space is a limitation, so I'm not exactly rushing into it. You're point is definitely well taken, though.



			
				piggy said:
			
		

> I understand your reasons, then PC-BSD was not your right choice. It is made to be like it is, to offer a stable desktop with a simple package management. Yes, u still can compile and build ports at your own risk (for this, it is much better a plain Freebsd) or better experiments under portsconsole to avoid to broke base system. So, IMHO, the right choice for u is Freebsd and u've been lucky enough to have a working system considering u made changes to the PC-BSD base install (for example KDE is definitely an IMPORTANT part of PC-BSD OS and the proper interface to load packages and configure the whole OS).
> 
> Related with the fact u just own a single computer: well, in this times life is expensive everywhere, we got recession, then there is something really low in prices and really easy to afford: hardware parts, cheap computers and on this maybe a bit outdated computers and spare parts, BSD flowers works really really well. So I will advise u to get a new computer (build one if u are able to, it is really cheap) and experiment with one of this and let the other to be like your main machine, especially as u said, using the computer is part of your job.



Hmmm, I'm not sure I agree with you. Everything runs just fine after removing KDE (except some of the core components), and it seems to me that the worst thing that can happen (and this was confirmed by one of the PCBSD devs themselves) is that you lose access to the default PCBSD desktop/package management system, and instead have to use the port tree.... which is what I wanted to do anyway  After you remove the custom PCBSD stuff (the desktop, some tools), it pretty much runs like:


```
mrgnash@pcbsd-3396 ~ % uname                                     <6:34>
FreeBSD
```


----------



## vigolcom (Dec 25, 2010)

* Ports Collection System
* BSD Licence


----------



## UNIXgod (Dec 25, 2010)

in jeff bridges' hippy v0ice

Advanced Server OS.... man!
Security and Jails... man!
handbook and complete man pages... man
logical file system hierarchy... man!
It's UNIX....... man!
Awesome userbase doctrine... man!
Licensed to empower the user... man!

Seriously I never left. But for those whom have migrated...
I welcome thee.... man​


----------



## Orum (Dec 25, 2010)

*It's obvious...*

Let's see, to boil it down...


Ease of use, in general.
Ports!  Ports are awesome, easy to use, and make it easy to patch things.
pf & altq support.
Awesome, well documented API (namely kqueue and friends), 1:1 threading (unlike OBSD's N:1).  Also, fairly close to NetBSD's API which is nice.
Stability (FBSD 5.x doesn't count ).
Security & virtualization, most importantly, jails!  What would I do without them...
Responsiveness of the team to PRs/feedback.
Hardware support.  Okay, this isn't perfect, but it's always getting better, and they support unusual things like VIA Padlock.
Ease of installation.  Okay, I know sysinstall sucks--but at least it lets you set FBSD up in many different roles, e.g. development machine, server machine, desktop machine.  Try finding all those options on just one linux distro.
Ease of compiling a custom kernel.
Ease of updating!
Did I mention ease of use?


----------



## gore (Jan 2, 2011)

oliverh said:
			
		

> Because of "evolution"
> 
> SGI Irix -> Slackware -> FreeBSD/OpenBSD (from the early 90s until now)
> 
> I can get anything I want in Slack too, but Volkerding cannot fix a lousy kernel. So FreeBSD is my favorite since 5.0. Well have used many Apples since System 7 (68k) until now, but I've never considered MacOS X as something UNIX-like. It's just some toy for rich people without any real needs.



OMG...You had an SGI machine running IRIX and even bothered with Linux? That is literally the machine I'd buy if I won the Lotto here. It's sort of funny because about two days ago my Mom came to me saying "If I win the Lotto..." and I said "Yea, well, if I win, once my bills are paid off, I'm upgrading the "tech room" I have in this House and adding some Sun Workstations to make my Wife Happy, and, a couple SGI machine, for me".

I've checked Ebay because I want an SGI running IRIX so badly but I really can't afford anything right now. I lost my job so anything extra like that is out of the question. To me, an SGI is like the ultimate Computer.

I don't want one running Linux, because I have Linux here, I want one with IRIX because it's amazing. And the cases.... Any PC user who thinks Alienware has the coolest looking cases, or Mac user who thinks THEY are the Kings of Multimedia, has never heard of SGI. They look cooler than ANY Computer, and when it comes to media... Well, heh, before The Matrix people said they used FreeBSD clusters, people assumed SGI.

------------
Now, on topic after drooling over SGI as geek pron:

I use BSD for a lot of the same reasons people have mentioned already. It's probably one of the more Stable OSs available at any cost, it's awesome, and in particular, I've ALWAYS been biased towards FreeBSD. I have NetBSD, but don't use it, ever... I don't have OpenBSD because I can't stand Theo's attitude problem, and, well, Marshal Kirk McKusic, has more or less chosen FreeBSD as HIS BSD... If THAT guy puts his stamp of approval on something, I listen.

One thing I will say I didn't see anyone else say, is this:

FreeBSD has History. I LOVE that History. BSD in general, is cool, and the History behind it is not only interesting but outright awesome. From the war with which TCP/IP was going to be used where Berkeley said "We don't like your decision, we're not doing it" to "Look, we made Vi" to one member founding Sun... That's interesting.

The History of BSD actually makes me want to use it. Even the History of FreeBSD does. I mean Walnut Creek gave a machine and a high speed Net Connection to the original 3 or so people who started FreeBSD from Bill Jolitz's project, and made it work.


----------



## ckester (Jan 2, 2011)

gore said:
			
		

> FreeBSD has History. I LOVE that History. BSD in general, is cool, and the History behind it is not only interesting but outright awesome. From the war with which TCP/IP was going to be used where Berkeley said "We don't like your decision, we're not doing it" to "Look, we made Vi" to one member founding Sun... That's interesting.
> 
> The History of BSD actually makes me want to use it. Even the History of FreeBSD does. I mean Walnut Creek gave a machine and a high speed Net Connection to the original 3 or so people who started FreeBSD from Bill Jolitz's project, and made it work.



Yeah, I feel that way too.  

But it's not just the history, it's the continuity.  As I just commented on a thread welcoming a newcomer to FreeBSD, I have books about Unix and BSD that were printed in the 1980's and they're still useful.  All of the MS-DOS and Windows books I bought around the same time have long since gone into the trash.  (I wasn't using Macs back then, but I also doubt that anything published about MacOs back then would still be worth keeping for anything but antiquarian interest.)

The obsolescence or non-obsolescence of those books also applies to the knowledge in your head.  Someone who learned how to use vi, ctags, lint and similar Unix tools twenty years ago can still make productive use of what he learned back then. Does MS-DOS's edlin even still exist?  How about the elegant *m* editor that shipped with Microsoft C 5.x, before they switched to their Programmer's Workbench and then later on to the Visual C++ GUI?


----------



## sk8harddiefast (Jan 2, 2011)

10 + 1 reasons

1) Have no default Gui.
2) I love the way that flags work.
3) I love ports and the way they work.
4) You must not be genius to write a port.
5) I love that I can compile from source.
6) Is not so bad with hardware. At least on my computer, see everything.
7) Have a great community.
8) Is really stable and secure.
9) You can build it with ZFS.
10) A lot of ports for everything you want.
11) You must not be genius to make it run with custom kernel.

Well. After a year, using FreeBSD, I am very happy, that I made this step. I really love FreeBSD.


----------



## FRANCOIS (Jan 3, 2011)

harishankar said:
			
		

> The things I dislike are:
> 
> * Lack of certain hardware drivers, especially peripherals like webcams and also for not-so-common devices like USB pen tablet (WizardPen for instance).
> 
> * For a productive desktop with a lot of heavyweight apps installed, ports is a very difficult way to keep installing software. Compile times - I cannot get around it. If the package management system was well organized and kept on the same level as ports, I wouldn't mind so much, but there are few "package-only" tools in FreeBSD and the ones that provide binary-only package support are rudimentary.



I have been using FreeBSD for 5 years now and OpenBSD for 3 (still do and probably always will!); exept for the camera thing (and I would add scanner too) I totally second that.

That aside FreeBSD is a great Os!!


----------



## expl (Jan 3, 2011)

UNIXgod said:
			
		

> ...
> It's UNIX....... man!
> ...



It is _not_ UNIXÂ®.

Not a flame bait, just stating a fact.


----------



## vermaden (Jan 3, 2011)

expl said:
			
		

> It is _not_ UNIXÂ®.
> 
> Not a flame bait, just stating a fact.



Its UNIX, but its not allowed to use UNIX TRADEMARK which is owned by OpenGroup.


----------



## nixbsd (Jan 13, 2011)

endorsed by DARPA =]


----------



## hansivers (Jan 13, 2011)

Got a few minutes to spend.. I count the various reasons in this thread. Here the top 10 so far :

1. The Ports system (so far, 22 persons mentionned it)
2. Stability of FreeBSD (18)
3. Documentation (15)
4. Clean organisation (base vs ports) (10)
5. True UNIX / history (9)
6. Jails (8)
7. Performance / security / integration of the core system (each reason had 7 votes)
8. Easy binary upgrade of base (6)
9. Community / forum (5)
10. FreeBSD mascot and logo / licence / ZFS (each reason had 4 votes)


----------



## UNIXgod (Jan 14, 2011)

expl said:
			
		

> It is _not_ UNIXÂ®.
> 
> Not a flame bait, just stating a fact.



Your right. It's Berkeley UNIX....man! =P

Oh looky here... what do I see here at the wayback machine????

http://web.archive.org/web/19980208090201/http://freebsd.org/

Feb 08, 1998 on http://freebsd.org/
"FreeBSD *is* an advanced BSD *UNIX* operating system for "PC-compatible" computers, developed and maintained by a large team of individuals. "

Now about those facts? Would you like to discuss in detail the lawsuit as well? It might be funny if we discuss the finer points of truth and fact with jeff bridges hippy voice.... MAN! =)


----------

