# Why NOT to use FreeBSD (What strengths do other OS have over FreeBSD)?



## frooyo (Dec 22, 2011)

When would it be appropriate to NOT use FreeBSD over another BDS or Linux?

*In other words, what strengths do other BSD or Linux have over FreeBSD.*

The only reason I can think of to not use FreeBSD is:

- Desktop: want a more focus OS on the end user desktop experience. In which case, you can use PC-BSD.

- Multi Platform Support: need more hardware / platform support - in which case you can use NetBSD.

I am having a hard time understanding why anyone would ever use Linux.

I'm also having a hard time in understanding why anyone would even use OpenBSD, given that in all reality FreeBSD is just as secure as OpenBSD (which is the #1 cited reason to use OpenBSD).

*Please don't make this forum thread into vague "because it's better" statements.*


----------



## vermaden (Dec 22, 2011)

frooyo said:
			
		

> *In other words, what strengths do other BSD or Linux have over FreeBSD.*



NetBSD supports Xen dom0 which is not possible on FreeBSD.

OpenBSD sometimes have a lot better wireless drivers and have a WORKING suspend-resume solution.



			
				frooyo said:
			
		

> I am having a hard time understanding why anyone would ever use Linux.



When You need software that is certified to run on some OS, Linux Oracle database, SAP or IBM TSM (Tivoli Storage Manager), in that case You would use Red Hat Linux, because its certified to run these above.

From what I know its also not technically possible to run these on FreeBSD, well, some Oracle 8 or 9 works on FreeBSD, but we currently have Oracle 11.2 ...

Support for hardware, especially that 'high end' like IBM X series servers with QLogic HBAs for SAN etc.

I also havent found a FreeBSD Handbook chapter about clustering ...

Basic active/passive clustering can be done by CARP/uCARP, heartbeat 2.1.4 is also available in Ports, but there is no distributed/shared/clustered filesystem (like GFS/OCFS) available for FreeBSD, You will have to use NFS for that.

HAST is a project with good direction towards clustering, so at least we have a basic DRBD now 



			
				frooyo said:
			
		

> I'm also having a hard time in understanding why anyone would even use OpenBSD, given that in all reality FreeBSD is just as secure as OpenBSD (which is the #1 cited reason to use OpenBSD).



Newer version of PF can be desired, a very secure shell account server and if someone feels/knows OpenBSD better, then it will be wiser choice for him.


----------



## fluca1978 (Dec 22, 2011)

Well, the topic itself is quite vague and easy to flame....
By the way, when I choose the OS to use I usually start with the services I need. If I need a particular service that can run only on a not-FreeBSD system, I have to choose the other operating system. If I can, I will virtualize it on FreeBSD, otherwise I have to go to the bare metal. The second choice is about certification. I don't trust certification at all, since usually they refer to software that is obsolete, but when your clients require certification than it is the vendor that is choosing the OS (and the stack).
Last is the administrator of the system. Sometimes I prepare systems I will not administer, so the capabilities, skills, knowledge of the client are fundamental. If the client feels better using Linux-distro-x I can only try to explain advantages of using FreeBSD over it, not force him to switch.
So, summarizing:


```
if( hardwareSupported && stackSupported && ( me || goodAdmin ) ){
     sysinstall;
} else{
     cry-and-install-something-else;
}
```


----------



## funky (Dec 22, 2011)

fluca1978 said:
			
		

> ```
> if( hardwareSupported && stackSupported && ( me || goodAdmin ) ){
> sysinstall;
> } else{
> ...


Thanks for the code, it worked pretty well for me, however it does not support installing newer versions of FreeBSD, so I have written a patch:

```
--- bsd_old	2011-12-22 09:02:25.246052213 +0100
+++ bsd_new	2011-12-22 09:20:09.311026256 +0100
@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
 if( hardwareSupported && stackSupported && ( me || goodAdmin ) ){
-     sysinstall;
+     if( wantedVersion >= 9.0 ) {
+          bsdinstall;
+     } else{
+          sysinstall;
+     }
 } else{
      cry-and-install-something-else;
 }
```


----------



## adamk (Dec 22, 2011)

frooyo said:
			
		

> I am having a hard time understanding why anyone would ever use Linux.
> 
> I'm also having a hard time in understanding why anyone would even use OpenBSD, given that in all reality FreeBSD is just as secure as OpenBSD (which is the #1 cited reason to use OpenBSD).
> 
> *Please don't make this forum thread into vague "because it's better" statements.*



Hardware support can be a big issue.

My HD4850 performs *much* better in Linux, without any visual glitches.  It performs as well on OpenBSD as on FreeBSD (not as well as on Linux) but also does it without any visual glitches.  The newer Intel HD GPUs are supported under OpenBSD and Linux, but not yet on FreeBSD without patching the base system.

Adam


----------



## TroN-0074 (Dec 22, 2011)

No everything works out of the box after installing FreeBSD, some face to face support while editing and tweaking text files is hard to get. Wireless is hard to manage without installing some Linux tools like WICD, and sometimes you find out the hardware you have has no support.

So to answer your question why no to use FreeBSD I'd say is when you have no supported hardware and when you have no time nor interest in learning something different.

Why so much negativity toward Linux among BSD users?


----------



## fluca1978 (Dec 22, 2011)

TroN-0074 said:
			
		

> Why so much negativity toward Linux among BSD users?



Linux is a great system, this is my opinion of course. However, BSD is a much more coherent and full-sense operating system, while Linux is sometime something that seems compound by a set of packages that somehow work together in a distro and not in another. I use both BSD and Linux, when as stated I'm forced to avoid BSD.


----------



## roddierod (Dec 22, 2011)

I use FreeBSD primarily for the desktop since I started using it in 1999, and I have had only 2 cases where I had issues getting the hardware to work:

was a quad cpu pentium pro Compaq server that had a special RAID card that was not supported by the generic kernel, but there was driver available, so I had to use another BSD machine to build a boot floppy with support for that card, then all was well. That was in the 4.x series.
was that the current machine that is my home workstation and has been since 2006 would not boot with FreeBSD 5.x or 6.x but would with 7-current, so I had to run the bleeding edge for a year 

On the other hand, I've always had trouble getting hardware support for any workstation machine I have tried to run a Linux on.



			
				frooyo said:
			
		

> I'm also having a hard time in understanding why anyone would even use OpenBSD, given that in all reality FreeBSD is just as secure as OpenBSD (which is the #1 cited reason to use OpenBSD).



I've found that OpenBSD wireless support was better that FreeBSD and easier to get working. It also seems to me that the fact that they have Xenocara would seem that they have a bit more focus on the desktop. Also there package adding is the way to go for people that don't want to ever build from source. So if their politics don't bother you, in many OpenBSD seems easier to use and maintain than FreeBSD, despite the somewhat elitist attitude they seem to project.


----------



## SNK (Dec 22, 2011)

The following is on desktop usage.

Hardware support I suppose. But then I would buy hardware that is compatible with FreeBSD rather than pick an OS based on the hardware that I have.

The time it takes to configure FreeBSD is not really an issue IMO:
1. The time it takes to install and configure a minimal FreeBSD install is insignificant to the many hours that you will use the OS.
2. The install and configuration process will teach you a lot. This will result in faster subsequent installs and a clean and lean computer.


----------



## frooyo (Dec 22, 2011)

@Everyone

To summarize, this is what I've heard as why to NOT use FreeBSD:

- *Hardware support*: rarely an issue this days but when it happens, you're forced to use another OS.

- *Commercial software support*: many commercial software packages won't run on FreeBSD but instead are certified on RedHat Linux.

- *Clustering*: _is this really an OS issue or an application issue_? Seems like an application issue to me.

Did I miss any other major points as to why FreeBSD wouldn't be a good choice over another BSD or Linux?


----------



## adamk (Dec 22, 2011)

Hardware support may be a bigger issue than you seem to think, especially when it comes to laptops. Personally, I have yet to use a laptop that could resume from suspend in FreeBSD.

Adam


----------



## gkontos (Dec 22, 2011)

frooyo said:
			
		

> Did I miss any other major points as to why FreeBSD wouldn't be a good choice over another BSD or Linux?



Virtualization. FreeBSD can run virtualbox-ose headless but IMHO Linux KVM is a much better option.


----------



## anomie (Dec 22, 2011)

frooyo said:
			
		

> *Hardware support*: rarely an issue this days but when it happens, you're forced to use another OS.



Depends on context. For large enterprise shops, hardware support may be a primary concern. 

Why do I not use FreeBSD on all my servers? 

 Hardware support. (Specifically, better SAN / multipathing support. And manager types like to see "Foo OS Certified" before shelling out US$200K for a storage device.) 
 Software support. (Think mega-popular crud like Oracle DB, and any of IBM's many offerings. Companies like that release "Product support matrixes". RHEL is always on the list. FreeBSD almost never is. Tough sell to manager types, who don't want to lose their jobs.)


----------



## ronaldlees (Dec 22, 2011)

I use FreeBSD because it's the first Unix-like OS that I started using after I came back to Unix about ten years ago.  For a while I shifted to using Ubuntu Linux - which is nice because it has a quicker installation time - important for someone who re-formats every week or so. (So, how long should one wear undergarments before washing?)   I came back to FreeBSD because my Ubuntu 8 (still under gipple-II) is a little dated, and the new Ubuntu is gipple-III. I don't think any other poster brought up the license issue.  Very important.

I like the idea of Clang.  I'm typing this on FreeBSD 8.2 / Firefox 7.  Nice.

Probably will always will be that Macromedia Flash problem since the binary for the plugin will (probably) always be Linux.  Other than that - FreeBSD rocks.  The security/race condition gaff a couple years ago really shook me up, but I think they have that under control.  Go FreeBSD!


----------



## fonz (Dec 23, 2011)

ronaldlees said:
			
		

> Probably will always will be that Macromedia Flash problem



Nah. Flash is being phased out and the Internet will soon be A Better Place (tm).

Fonz


----------



## frooyo (Dec 23, 2011)

@Everyone

Since a lot of people have mentioned *virtualization*, where does FreeBSD fit into the picture.

For web development, Xen has a strong hold over the "virtual private server" market but as many have pointed out, Xen appears to be dying to Linux KVM.

As such, will FreeBSD be able to be hosted by Linux LVM?


----------



## grigorovl (Dec 23, 2011)

OpenBSD was attractive to me due to working suspend/resume for i386 machines and better wireless, which made it a better choice for my old laptops. I don't like the attitude in the OpenBSD community, however, nor the lack of official forum (I do read mail lists, but sometimes I prefer forums).

FreeBSD, however, has native NVIDIA binary drivers, more ports, and of the few apps that support more than Win/OSX/Linux, it is usually FreeBSD. I rarely see anything for OpenBSD software-wise unless it's ported.

GNU/Linux I would up to a recent point recommend to new users (over Windows and OS X), but with the ever-improving version of PC-BSD coming out, I will start recommending PC-BSD. GNU/Linux has one big limitation, and that is it's license. Thus, companies are forced to sell "support licenses" rather than sell the software itself, which in the end is stupid, because you pay to use the software anyway (RHEL, Oracle Linux, etc.). The other big problem is the kernel has become one large piece of bloatware, witch each "distro" modifying it and very few supporting or encouraging compilation of own kernel.

After weighing all these, I believe FreeBSD wins out in the end. I don't require 16-core CPU to browse the internet and read email, so I do not care for bleeding-edge hardware, nor do I have the money for it. Most wireless is now supported, there is an official NVIDIA driver, there are quite some many ports, the community is very responsive (both mail lists and forums), and PC-BSD pretty much takes care of the "long install/customization" and "x" problems.


----------



## phoenix (Dec 23, 2011)

frooyo said:
			
		

> @Everyone
> 
> Since a lot of people have mentioned *virtualization*, where does FreeBSD fit into the picture.
> 
> ...



FreeBSD runs fine in a Linux-KVM virtual machine.  There are no properly working/released virtio drivers for FreeBSD, so you have to use emulated I/O (NIC/disk) drivers (e1000, SCSI).  But, other than that, it runs just fine.


----------



## Slurp (Dec 24, 2011)

SNK said:
			
		

> The time it takes to configure FreeBSD is not really an issue IMO:
> 1. The time it takes to install and configure a minimal FreeBSD install is insignificant to the many hours that you will use the OS.


How much time does having a lean OS save you? It runs faster, so it is something, but at most a couple of seconds / day.
The first installation for a *nix noob is a matter of days to get everything needed. And likely numerous things will end up misconfigured, so the result is expected to be buggy, which costs time too.
So I don't agree that the installation costs are low compared to the long term benefits.
Learning? Certainly. But number of things to learn is huge for me anyway and leaving the less important ones for later is crucial. I guess that if I came from other *nix, this part would be much easier and it's possible that I would decide not to skip the installation though. For now - PC-BSD is the way for me.


> - *Clustering*: _is this really an OS issue or an application issue_? Seems like an application issue to me.


What-applications-are-available-for-OS-_ is and OS issue....


----------



## copypaiste (Dec 24, 2011)

gpatrick said:
			
		

> RedHat Linux is a joke.  They sell commercial support, but at my company with over 2000 RHEL servers we usually find an answer ourselves because Red Hat support sucks.
> 
> In fact, RHEL itself sucks.  To find out why, read on...
> [snip]



Enough said. But I'd like to mention that _every _ modern OS sucks in it's own way  You guys can't imagine what troubles we've had with recent upgrades of Solaris 10 on Oracle midrange platforms. The hardware and software QA is below any reasonable level (with their price tags and enterprise market orientation in mind). 
IMO what FreeBSD really lacks is the enterprise-level support from major hardware/software vendors.


----------



## amilojko (Dec 26, 2011)

The problem with FreeBSD is mainly hardware support. You have to read the hardware support, then buy the hardware. You can't just go and buy a server hoping it will run FreeBSD. If you do that basic homework, everything that runs on FreeBSD, runs well.


----------



## vermaden (Dec 26, 2011)

@gpatrick

So true ...


----------



## gkontos (Dec 27, 2011)

phoenix said:
			
		

> FreeBSD runs fine in a Linux-KVM virtual machine.  There are no properly working/released virtio drivers for FreeBSD, so you have to use emulated I/O (NIC/disk) drivers (e1000, SCSI).  But, other than that, it runs just fine.



I haven't done any benchmarking tests but I have noticed that FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE and FreeBSD 9.0-RC3 runs "better" on Linux KVM than on ESXi 5. 
Better disk I/O performance on similar hardware hosts with similar guest settings. 

As a matter of fact KVM is the only reason why I still use Linux (Ubuntu Server). I only wish there was a similar implementation for FreeBSD. That would give me one more reason to toss Linux for good!

Regarding gpatrick's comments about RedHat. I couldn't agree more. RedHat is following a Microsoft strategy and IMHO they are driving a lot of experienced sys admins away. Unfortunately, I see similar signs with Oracle.


----------



## vermaden (Dec 27, 2011)

gkontos said:
			
		

> As a matter of fact KVM is the only reason why I still use Linux (Ubuntu Server). I only wish there was a similar implementation for FreeBSD. That would give me one more reason to toss Linux for good!



There is even better one, just in early stage of development, *BHyVe*: http://wiki.freebsd.org/BHyVe


----------



## bbzz (Dec 27, 2011)

I like the idea of security oriented OS. The reason that stops me from using more OpenBSD instead of FreeBSD is ZFS. ZFS is just so good that going back to UFS would be like getting back into this, after enjoying a ride in this.
Also I'm forced to run at least one version of Windows on my laptop in VirtualBox, and I'm not sure if it's even possible to run it as OpenBSD host.


----------



## vermaden (Dec 27, 2011)

bbzz said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if it's even possible to run it as OpenBSD host.


You will be able to do that using QEMU, but its a lot slower then VirtualBox since its emulation, not virtualization.


----------



## fluca1978 (Dec 30, 2011)

Well, this story leads to the opposite of the thread subject, but I guess it is worth telling you. I have installed three Linux servers, same distro (not saying which one here, I don't want a pure flame!) in three different releases. Same configuration, same programs, but three different way to get OpenLDAP working on all the machines. Moreover, the official distro guide is broken for one of the version I installed. 
So I guess Linux flexibility can turn into mess very easily.


----------

