# Linux vs. BSD = No real difference?



## fiftyone (Sep 2, 2009)

I hear a lot of people talking about Linux vs BSD but having been using BSD exclusively for a while now I can't honestly say that I have seen a WHOLE lot of difference compared to the various Linux distros. 

99% of all the commands are the same, the interface is nothing shocking that a Linux user would run away from...

It would seem to me that any Linux user should be able to jump into BSD feet first and start running. (& vise-versa)
Other than the ports system and Linux method of spitting out a million & 6 distros I don't see whats so different about BSD that would scare people away from it? Am I missing something?


----------



## vivek (Sep 2, 2009)

Key differences:

FreeBSD full os. Linux is kernel. Linux distribution is os (100+ majro disrtos). 
FreeBSD everything comes form a single source. Linux is like mix of lot of stuff.
BSD License vs GPL
FreeBSD Installer
BSD commands (*ls file -l* will not work) vs GPL command (*ls file -l* will work)
FreeBSD better and updated man pages. 
BSD rc.d style booting vs Linux SysV style init.d booting

However, most commands act and work like any other UNIX variant. Keep in  mind FreeBSD is not Linux.


----------



## Carpetsmoker (Sep 2, 2009)

I assume that with ``BSD`` you mean ``FreeBSD``? As there is also OpenBSD, NetBSD, and DragonFlyBSD (And a wealth of historic BSD's).

I guess FreeBSD and Linux are kind of the same. Just as Windows NT4 and Windows XP are also kind of the same.


----------



## fiftyone (Sep 2, 2009)

vivek said:
			
		

> Key differences:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*>>I know and I prefer BSD, I really like the "Weather" BSD brings with it, that might not make any sence but in Arabic it sounds good  I guess I kinda missed the point of my own question. I guess what I was getting at is that the Os's are SO very similar it is strange that there is any seperation at all.*


----------



## CodeBlock (Sep 2, 2009)

No, they aren't that similar, mainly for the reasons vivek pointed out plus some other things (the bsd community is better than any linux community I've seen... ports, in my opinion, are better than any package manager, etc)..

Might want to read http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php which summarizes the differences of both OS's.. Really though - they are quite different in quite a few areas. BSD (as far as I know) has a better security standpoint (especially OpenBSD), etc.

I have nothing against Linux, but I very much prefer BSD now that I've been using it for a few months.


----------



## roddierod (Sep 2, 2009)

One of the biggest differences is the file system layout. When I've tried Linuxes over they last few years and dropped to the command line, I can't find anything!

I used Debian 12 or 13 years ago for 10 months or so until I found FreeBSD the switch to FreeBSD was much easier than trying to go back because the Linux file system are just a mess. Look up old post by Vermaden on this topic, he pretty much sums it all up.


----------



## fonz (Sep 2, 2009)

roddierod said:
			
		

> When I've tried Linuxes over they last few years and dropped to the command line, I can't find anything!



Second that. Even when I was using Slackware (which is one of the Linux distros closest to BSD-style UNIX) about a year ago, it was still a lot of "where's that file" or "what file is that in" type of searching.

@OP: There's SysV-style UNIX and there's BSD-style UNIX. From a casual (non-admin) user's point of view it's all pretty much the same but under the hood there *are* differences.

Alphons

*Edit:* It's like comparing Ferraris and Porsches. Different styling, handling and brand image but they're both high-performance sports cars (whereas Windows is a moped by comparison)


----------



## ckester (Sep 2, 2009)

fonz said:
			
		

> It's like comparing Ferraris and Porsches. Different styling, handling and brand image but they're both high-performance sports cars (whereas Windows is a moped by comparison)



I've always thought Neal Stephenson got this analogy right when he compared Windows to an old Soviet-style sedan: big, clunky, prone to breakdowns, and you're lucky if you can get the radio to work (not to mention the heater).

Of course, his idea of a sleek, sports car OS was a Mac.  So he wasn't totally enlightened.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Sep 3, 2009)

In both cases, the hood is welded shut ..


----------



## sand_man (Sep 3, 2009)

Not all Linuxes use SysV init.
I come from Arch which uses the BSD style rc.d

Also, I am very new to FreeBSD and I have trouble finding things in the filesystem. Not to say that it's a mess, I'm just not used to it. In Arch, I just know where everything is. The problem is that each distro organises their hierarchy differently.


----------



## anomie (Sep 3, 2009)

CodeBlock said:
			
		

> the bsd community is better than any linux community I've seen...



Apart from the more obvious points -- license, development model, philosophy and implementation -- the end-user community is by far the biggest difference that I've observed between FreeBSD and GNU/Linux communities. (Not quite fair, since all distros are being lumped together, but hear me out.) 

Take this forum, for instance... and a couple FreeBSD forums I belonged to that preceded it. Compare them with some of the more prominent GNU/Linux forums. The signal-to-noise ratio here is _much_ better. I frequently see intelligent questions and technically correct answers here. On certain other (non-FreeBSD) forums, I see a lot of intelligent discussion too, but it's often drowned out by 3,000 questions a day of the calibre: 

 "how to install firefox?"
 "how to increase logical volume?"
 "my log has entries like _sshd: invalid user andre_. what do i do?"

You get the idea. This place (and this community) is definitely a thing to appreciate.


----------



## jb_fvwm2 (Sep 3, 2009)

```
!ncftp...audio[tab] [get port[tab]] {logoff}
pkg_create -b /var/db/pkg/audio_port && pkg_delete -f /var/db/pkg/audio_port && pkg_add audio_port.tbz && yell
..................
```
Does linux do those one-liners after package "get", say if a 
port wont build?


----------



## phospher (Sep 3, 2009)

anomie said:
			
		

> You get the idea. This place (and this community) is definitely a thing to appreciate.




i'll second that.


----------



## graudeejs (Sep 3, 2009)

he he he We got ZFS, linux don't
mua ha ha ha


----------



## Eponasoft (Sep 3, 2009)

FreeBSD is largely POSIX-compliant...Linux distros aren't. That alone can create massive headaches when doing ports, especially things deemed "cross-platform" but are really just entrenched in "Linuxisms". On the surface, Linux and FreeBSD appear similar, and a casual user is unlikely to ever notice the difference. But the two are VERY different "under the hood".


----------



## Alt (Sep 3, 2009)

fiftyone: I think i know FreeBSD well (especially network part). When i searched for job as network sysadmin, i put into my resume word that says i know Linux too=) I thought its same but when i get a job and look Slackware Linux... Now i tell everyone i dont know Linux))) 
So, if we talk about userland, they are completely different in firewalling(i talk about firewall manipulating and philosophy). There is major differences in network stats commands such as netstat/systat/sockstat etc. Modern linux users set up network using `ip` tool, bsd users make ifconfig.. There is many caveats, so dot just say 'i know linux' or 'i know freebsd' when you know other one =)


----------



## SirDice (Sep 3, 2009)

Carpetsmoker said:
			
		

> I guess FreeBSD and Linux are kind of the same. Just as Windows NT4 and Windows XP are also kind of the same.



From a user standpoint the different versions of Windows (NT, 2000, XP etc) have bigger differences than the different 'styles' of unix (solaris, bsd, linux etc) :e


----------



## Henu (Sep 3, 2009)

As a Linux user who has done work with FreeBSD for two months now, I've found one of the most confusing thing the three "package managers."

I can install software using distribution sets from sysinstall, I can use pkg_add and I can use Ports but I'm still not sure which is the best alternative or are some of them the same thing.

Overall, I think FreeBSD is pretty nice. In my opinion fonz had the best point, especially the Windows part of it


----------



## ephemera (Sep 3, 2009)

I use Linux as my primary desktop OS (due to non-availability of some apps.). If you are running a desktop env. there is practically no difference b/w Linux & BSD. Most of the apps. are available for both Linux and BSD and they look & work the same way.

But every time I open a terminal window I am painfully aware of the Linux presence. You can't escape the feeling that Linux is a hackers job. No matter how good Linux gets in performance and scalability or some other metric, IMO it will still kinda suck.

One thing I really like about fbsd is the dev. team - very professional & pragmatic minus the usual OSS BS and it shows in their work.


----------



## aragon (Sep 3, 2009)

ephemera said:
			
		

> I use Linux as my primary desktop OS (due to non-availability of some apps.).


Out of interest, which apps?


----------



## ephemera (Sep 3, 2009)

aragon said:
			
		

> Out of interest, which apps?


The most important one for me is Vmware for running Windows XP.


----------



## vermaden (Sep 3, 2009)

fiftyone said:
			
		

> Linux vs. BSD = No real difference?



No difference?

Then start using BSD, you will notice the differences after some time ...


----------



## Beastie (Sep 3, 2009)

ephemera, why don't you just dual-boot? Is Vmware's emulation performance as good as running Windows "natively"?


----------



## fonz (Sep 3, 2009)

ephemera said:
			
		

> The most important one for me is Vmware for running Windows XP.


Yeah, it's a pity that FreeBSD isn't available as a host OS. But rumour has it that this is in the works, so who knows...

Alphons

P.S. Would it help if we ask for a native FreeBSD version of Maple? I'm currently running Maple 12 through Linux emulation but it's kinda sluggish.


----------



## ephemera (Sep 3, 2009)

Beastie said:
			
		

> ephemera, why don't you just dual-boot? Is Vmware's emulation performance as good as running Windows "natively"?


I do have to reboot for playing games  But for everything else Vmware is perfect for me. I have been dual booting since the time i started using fbsd (4.8 i think) but for me rebooting is not a practical option anymore. Besides, it's not just Windows i also have Solaris installed to try out some things from time to time. 
If Vmware made a fbsd version that would be just fanstastic but i can only wish. I heard VirtualBox is being ported to fbsd, we will have to wait and see how that turns out.


----------



## ephemera (Sep 3, 2009)

fonz said:
			
		

> Yeah, it's a pity that FreeBSD isn't available as a host OS. But rumour has it that this is in the works, so who knows...


I heard a rumor too but a long time back, I hope it's for real this time.


----------



## roddierod (Sep 3, 2009)

ephemera said:
			
		

> I heard VirtualBox is being ported to fbsd, we will have to wait and see how that turns out.



VirtualBox is in the ports. I have it running XP, but I haven't had success running solaris or anything else.


----------



## fiftyone (Sep 3, 2009)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by ephemera View Post
> I heard VirtualBox is being ported to fbsd, we will have to wait and see how that turns out.
> VirtualBox is in the ports. I have it running XP, but I haven't had success running solaris or anything else.




It comes pre-installed with PCBSD. So I would assume it's in the ports. I haven't tried it but I can confirm that it's there.


----------



## fiftyone (Sep 3, 2009)

CodeBlock said:
			
		

> No, they aren't that similar, mainly for the reasons vivek pointed out plus some other things (the bsd community is better than any linux community I've seen... ports, in my opinion, are better than any package manager, etc)..
> 
> Might want to read http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php which summarizes the differences of both OS's.. Really though - they are quite different in quite a few areas. BSD (as far as I know) has a better security standpoint (especially OpenBSD), etc.
> 
> I have nothing against Linux, but I very much prefer BSD now that I've been using it for a few months.



This article was the main reason I actually decided to try BSD and it made me actually fall in love with the OS. I actually even wrote the guy a thank you letter for writing such an awesome article... but no response :*(


----------



## Anonymous (Sep 4, 2009)

*Linux vs FreeBSD ?.?*

Freebsd is the shiznit. Never again will i ever install windows although linux is still up in the air. Could someone explain the difference for me between linux and UXIX like operating such as FreeBSD, other than just the kernel is different, other than that whats the real difference? And if the kernel if different, what are the significant differences that warrant the two classes of operating systems being classified seperately?


----------



## Mel_Flynn (Sep 4, 2009)

sand_man said:
			
		

> Also, I am very new to FreeBSD and I have trouble finding things in the filesystem. Not to say that it's a mess, I'm just not used to it. In Arch, I just know where everything is. The problem is that each distro organises their hierarchy differently.



Guess what, it's documented and largely enforced as per /etc/mtree/* and mtree.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Sep 4, 2009)

mickeyharvey70 said:
			
		

> Freebsd is the shiznit. Never again will i ever install windows although linux is still up in the air. Could someone explain the difference for me between linux and UXIX like operating such as FreeBSD, other than just the kernel is different, other than that whats the real difference? And if the kernel if different, what are the significant differences that warrant the two classes of operating systems being classified seperately?



Welcome to this thread (so no need to open another one), where this information has already been made available:

http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php


----------



## dennylin93 (Sep 4, 2009)

If you take a brief look, Linux and BSD share many similarities, but they are different are their cores. The entire structure is fundamentally different. Of course, Linux and BSD have more in common than BSD and Windows or Linux and Windows.

The kernel and system are prominent differences. Linux distros all use the same kernel, but different programs while the FreeBSD kernel and programs are all maintained by the same developers. Ports also work when an upgrade is done while Linux has to upgrade its packages as well.

The community and documentation also vary a lot. FreeBSD has the best documentation ever (in my opinion, but I believe many users also feel this way).


----------



## hydra (Sep 4, 2009)

A beginner would say "I see no difference. The black boxes are same to me!". Frankly, this is not true. Use it and feel the difference.

It must be noted that the perception of differences depends on the usage.


----------



## dennylin93 (Sep 4, 2009)

Quite true. "Using" is how you'll see the differences. Go down deep into the OS and the differences will be quite obvious (I go crazy every time I try to use Linux).


----------



## CodeBlock (Sep 4, 2009)

dennylin93 said:
			
		

> Quite true. "Using" is how you'll see the differences. Go down deep into the OS and the differences will be quite obvious (I go crazy every time I try to use Linux).



While I come from a linux background (used it for ~5 years before switching to BSD), so I'm familiar with Linux, I do agree that the majority of differences will be found by actually using the OS and trying to accomplish different things (such as device drivers).

Though as discussed before, one of my issues with linux is the difference in file tree - how some steal our rc.d/, some use rc.<integer>/, and some use init.d/, etc...


----------



## oliverh (Sep 4, 2009)

fiftyone said:
			
		

> I hear a lot of people talking about Linux vs BSD but having been using BSD exclusively for a while now I can't honestly say that I have seen a WHOLE lot of difference compared to the various Linux distros.
> 
> 99% of all the commands are the same, the interface is nothing shocking that a Linux user would run away from...
> 
> ...



-well 99% of all the commands aren't the same, maybe it's your impression
-documentation, there isn't much if any in "Linux-country"
-you cannot even jump from Debian to Slack or vice versa; or maybe try Gentoo then Debian or Arch and Fedora.
-honestly I think you're referring to desktops (KDE, Gnome) and on this level you won't see much difference
-furthermore quality, well that's a broad term but a valid point. Try some rolling release like ArchLinux or Gentoo and hope you're surviving the next kernel update (it's most of the time okay, but it can be a severe pain in the backside). Look at the plethora of security fixes you'll get with every minor kernel update. FreeBSD won't update your system but you're to some degree bleeding edge with ports. That's a huge difference in terms of quality.And look at the frequency of security fixes for FreeBSD release ... a couple of fixes maybe. Now compare it to the tons of updates e.g. Ubuntu sees week by week or the Linux kernel itself.

There are lots of differences, some small, some huge. But the main difference is software engineering. Linux doesn't care about a design, if it fits then it's okay. If there is some problem maybe we can exchange it, but we will not fix it.


----------



## fonz (Sep 4, 2009)

dennylin93 said:
			
		

> FreeBSD has the best documentation ever (in my opinion, but I believe many users also feel this way).


The OpenBSD folks also claim to have the best documentation... Personally I think FreeBSD's is better though.

Alphons (not to mention the community)


----------



## wonslung (Sep 7, 2009)

sand_man said:
			
		

> Not all Linuxes use SysV init.
> I come from Arch which uses the BSD style rc.d
> 
> Also, I am very new to FreeBSD and I have trouble finding things in the filesystem. Not to say that it's a mess, I'm just not used to it. In Arch, I just know where everything is. The problem is that each distro organises their hierarchy differently.



The thing is, on FreeBSD once you understand one simple thing, it's much easier to find stuff, relative to linux

That one thing is the separation of the base system with the ports.

base system config files = /etc
ports config files = /usr/local/etc

base system stuff is in /usr/bin /usr/sbin /bin and /sbin

ports stuff is in /usr/local/bin /usr/local/sbin

it's much easier to find stuff once you understand that...and it's also much easier to REMOVE probelm files.

most of the linux distros i've use throw everything in /usr/bin or /usr/sbin 
it's really annoying.

I think FreeBSD has just the right amount of filesystem separation...check out opensolaris sometime, heh


----------



## wonslung (Sep 7, 2009)

Henu said:
			
		

> As a Linux user who has done work with FreeBSD for two months now, I've found one of the most confusing thing the three "package managers."
> 
> I can install software using distribution sets from sysinstall, I can use pkg_add and I can use Ports but I'm still not sure which is the best alternative or are some of them the same thing.
> 
> Overall, I think FreeBSD is pretty nice. In my opinion fonz had the best point, especially the Windows part of it



I would only use sysinstall for the base system stuff, and even then i typically only do minimal installs.

pkg_add is like apt-get, binary installs.  When you know you only need default settings it's ok.. even then i typically only use it to install 2 or 3 things when i first install a system. sudo nano, and maybe bash depending on who the system is for


the beauty of ports is that it downloads the source files, and you pick your options on an easy to use menu.  When you install most things, like apache, php...even stuff like rtorrent, theres several ways to compile it.  With ports you can compile only what you need.  You also have a file called /etc/make.conf which lets you set system wide configs for the compiler, where you can set stuff like processor type and other optimizations.  On top of all of this, it handles dependiencies.  So a typical ports system will have much less "fluff" if the users is even halfway knowledgeable.

It makes for a much more speciallized setup.  the ONLY downside i see to ports AT ALL is that each system is different...if the ports system wasn't so good and FreeBSD didn't have SUCH good documentation and forums, then it might be a bigger issue.  

I am by no means an expert in FreeBSD yet, but i will say this, using FreeBSD, i learned more in 2 weeks than i did in 2 years of Linux.  Ports is one of the best features.


----------



## wonslung (Sep 7, 2009)

ephemera said:
			
		

> I do have to reboot for playing games  But for everything else Vmware is perfect for me. I have been dual booting since the time i started using fbsd (4.8 i think) but for me rebooting is not a practical option anymore. Besides, it's not just Windows i also have Solaris installed to try out some things from time to time.
> If Vmware made a fbsd version that would be just fanstastic but i can only wish. I heard VirtualBox is being ported to fbsd, we will have to wait and see how that turns out.



There is Virtualbox for FreeBSD. But personally, i would rather just use a native ap.  For MOST stuff you can find better aps.


----------



## ericbsd (Sep 7, 2009)

Most Linux distro are Gnu Linux and are reverse ingeneering of unix. FreeBSD are a true unix baby.


----------



## irkkaaja (Sep 7, 2009)

it kind of depends on the distribution. The differences between FreeBSD and any Debian flavor (sidux, mepis, ubuntu) are pretty major:
source installations vs binary installation
OSS vs ALSA/PulseAudio
UFS2/ZFS vs ext4/XFS
tcsh vs dash
install to /usr/local/bin vs install to /usr/bin
clang vs gcc (coming soon!)
FreeBSD's /dev is somewhat nicer
bsd libc vs eglibc
disklabel vs fdisk -l
freebsd-update vs apt-get upgrade
rc.d vs init.d


----------



## Alt (Sep 7, 2009)

hell yeah "rc.d vs init.d" its loong difference xD

Ill try to continue =)
(ifconfig/route) vs ip
(ipfw/natd/pf) vs iptables
(sockstat&netstat) vs netstat
(systat&vmstat) vs vmstat
jails vs (bsdjail/vserver/freevps)
netgraph vs -


----------



## dennylin93 (Sep 7, 2009)

wonslung said:
			
		

> I am by no means an expert in FreeBSD yet, but i will say this, using FreeBSD, i learned more in 2 weeks than i did in 2 years of Linux.  Ports is one of the best features.



I second this. I've been using Windows for around 7~8 years now and FreeBSD for just one year. However, I've learned loads more using FreeBSD.


----------



## Eponasoft (Sep 7, 2009)

I think FreeBSD sort of forces you to learn new things. Virtually anyone can use Windows, and most people with a little Windows knowledge can use most modern Linux distros. But FreeBSD requires a functioning brain.


----------



## graudeejs (Sep 7, 2009)

Won't this thread die, for once?
All points have been said over and over and over....


----------



## Eponasoft (Sep 7, 2009)

I guess people want to make sure that the point is made...


----------



## ephemera (Sep 7, 2009)

roddierod said:
			
		

> VirtualBox is in the ports. I have it running XP, but I haven't had success running solaris or anything else.


Wow, I didn't know VBox is already in ports. 
Thanks.


----------



## vivek (Sep 7, 2009)

killasmurf86 said:
			
		

> Won't this thread die, for once?
> All points have been said over and over and over....



May be someone can create a "FreeBSD vs MyOS" thread in FAQ/Howto section linking to all diffs. This topic is going to repeat again and again for sure...


----------



## ckester (Sep 8, 2009)

irkkaaja said:
			
		

> it kind of depends on the distribution. The differences between FreeBSD and any Debian flavor (sidux, mepis, ubuntu) are pretty major:
> source installations vs binary installation
> OSS vs ALSA/PulseAudio
> UFS2/ZFS vs ext4/XFS
> ...



One point in Linux's favor:

16-color, text-only console vs. framebuffer 

I would really like to go xorg-less, but lack of anything like Linux's framebuffer means I have to use X if I want to do anything with graphics or video.


----------



## Eponasoft (Sep 8, 2009)

That all depends on what you want to do. To do graphics in FBSD without X, you can always just use svgalib or grx; neither require X and both have been around for ages and ages...


----------



## fronclynne (Sep 8, 2009)

FreeBSD uses sh & [t]csh, most linux use bash.  And that should tell you everything.


----------



## Alt (Sep 8, 2009)

I saw linux distro where /bin/sh is symlinked to /bin/bash ...


----------



## anomie (Sep 8, 2009)

Alt said:
			
		

> I saw linux distro where /bin/sh is symlinked to /bin/bash ...



That's true for all Linux distros I've worked with. This is from the bash(1) manpages on my Fedora box: 

```
If  bash  is  invoked  with  the name sh, it tries to mimic the startup
behavior of historical versions of sh as  closely  as  possible,  while
conforming  to the POSIX standard as well.
```

Nevertheless, it does not behave quite like the Bourne shell. (i.e. It supports features that Bourne does not, which is fun if you're trying to write a portable script.)


----------



## Zare (Sep 8, 2009)

> I would really like to go xorg-less, but lack of anything like Linux's framebuffer means I have to use X if I want to do anything with graphics or video.



vidcontrol?


----------



## phoenix (Sep 8, 2009)

Alt said:
			
		

> hell yeah "rc.d vs init.d" its loong difference xD



The big difference is BSD init vs SysV init, where BSD init is now using RCng-style rc.d script and rcorder to determine dependencies and start order compared to SysV init uses that horrible mess of symlinks in up to 12 different run-level directories.

VERY BIG DIFFERENCE!!


----------



## Alt (Sep 8, 2009)

phoenix said:
			
		

> The big difference is BSD init vs SysV init, where BSD init is now using RCng-style rc.d script and rcorder to determine dependencies and start order compared to SysV init uses that horrible mess of symlinks in up to 12 different run-level directories.
> 
> VERY BIG DIFFERENCE!!


Dont know how they do right now, but when i tried redhat many years ago, there was run-levels and a crap when you call init scripts like "S00_blahblah.sh" so it run first cus of "S00". That was hell.


----------



## kurukukok (Sep 23, 2009)

*your best opinion*

Hi,

i am completely new to unix/linux based systems. i asked my mentor what platform he can suggest, he said FreeBSD. now, let me ask

1. What makes FreeBSD different from other unix/linux based systems?

2. Is it great for web or database servers?

3. I have a problem downloading freebsd through ftp. Seems like our system admin did not implement it. Torrent sites also blocked. i can only download through http. Any other sites where I can download FreeBSD? I'm afraid to download from other sites maybe because it has been modified or altered.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Sep 23, 2009)

kurukukok, we're not starting yet another "what's the difference" thread. Read this one from top to bottom. And don't combine questions. Post them in the right forum.


----------



## SirDice (Sep 23, 2009)

kurukukok said:
			
		

> 1. What makes FreeBSD different from other unix/linux based systems?


As DD said, read the rest of this thread.



> 2. Is it great for web or database servers?


Yes.



> 3. I have a problem downloading freebsd through ftp. Seems like our system admin did not implement it. Torrent sites also blocked. i can only download through http. Any other sites where I can download FreeBSD? I'm afraid to download from other sites maybe because it has been modified or altered.


Substitute the ftp:// for http://

http://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/


----------



## dennylin93 (Sep 23, 2009)

Perhaps we should make FAQ about the differences between FreeBSD and other OSes . There certainly is enough information because of all the replies.


----------



## wonslung (Sep 23, 2009)

my favorite essay on the subject is this:
http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php

it's old but it still holds up, it's one of the things that led me to freebsd in the first place.


----------



## jb_fvwm2 (Sep 23, 2009)

dennylin93 said:
			
		

> Perhaps we should make FAQ about the differences between FreeBSD and other OSes . There certainly is enough information because of all the replies.



Another FAQ "where did my (xp_Vista_etc) go?" "install-alongside
information)"
maybe should be even on the main .ORG page, noticeable with
any other links...  That question at least comes up too often
on the freebsd-questions list and answering before the problem
would make the BSD's more user-friendly...


----------



## sossego (Oct 2, 2009)

Comparing operating systems is similar to the following:
You have a Brazilian with a passion-fruit, an American with an apple, and an Ethiopian with a date. To each, the fruit that they have is the best. If this is the fruit they know, it will be the standard for the flavor of other fruits.

People will make their decisions based upon usage and exposure- add willingness to learn in there.

I'll hit a few points.

Windows has an NT kernel that was used and another kernel. It makes it similar to linux in this aspect.
Debian is changing to dash- following Ubuntu P . This is done to move away from bash.

Linux-kernel systems are made for specialists: the tools are there, the audience is waiting, and it will use what you make. 
BSD systems are known for stability. 


When it comes to file hierarchy and basic function, BSD and Linux are very similar- let's not split hairs here because of command line options and orders, ok?

I'm making a Debian live cd for my girlfriend.
I'll be putting the BSDs on a few boxes soon. 
The former is for her to have a portable environment for what she likes. The latter is for me to learn more security and migrate to BSD- all flavors- even more.



What it comes down to is preference and perception.


----------



## lele (Sep 17, 2012)

sossego said:
			
		

> What it comes down to is preference and perception.



Not at all.  There are objective metrics, like:
- support for laptops: FreeBSD loses here (this is a deal-breaker for me), and that means you'll have to run something else on your laptop, thus increasing your learning curve;
- up-to-date documentation: FreeBSD wins here, whilst with Linux, unless you choose a distribution backed by a company (like Red Hat), you'll have to rely on old documentation, which could be no longer relevant;
- desktop environments: FreeBSD loses here, because the most comprehensive desktop environments are Linux-centric, and that means their ports to FreeBSD are less functional (I tried out the PC-BSD 9 Live DVD and found both Gnome and KDE to be less functional and/or buggy);
- international support: FreeBSD loses here, because it is USA-centric (the USA keyboard layout is baked into the kernel [1]), and a functional desktop install requires you to download a huge ISO, which will be difficult if you lack access to a reliable connection and large bandwidth, as it is the case for less developed countries; on the other hand, a complete Debian desktop install fits on a CD [2].

[1] I've said "USA-centric" instead of "USA-only" on purpose: I know that you can localize FreeBSD afterwards, but the USA keyboard will always be the default, for instance when you set up encrypted partitions
[2] Actually, the PC-BSD project provides functional desktop installations that fit on CDs.


----------



## NewGuy (Sep 17, 2012)

I tend to agree with what the original poster is saying. I've used FreeBSD and GNU/Linux distributions for years and I find it's their designs and philosophies which are different. The end result, the functionality the user actually sees, is pretty much the same. So much so that there have been times when I have logged into a server and, after working on it for a while (editing files, compiling software, etc) I haven't been aware of whether I was on FreeBSD or GNU/Linux.

As the second poster pointed out, there are lots of differences (full OS vs kernel, documentation styles, license, minor file system differences), but these are design differences most people won't notice rather than practical differences. If you take a user out of the Windows world and plop them down in front of Kubuntu and PC-BSD they're not going to be aware anything is different besides the wallpaper. Both systems use virtual the same file systems and run the same software. They are much more alike than different.


----------



## tingo (Sep 17, 2012)

lele said:
			
		

> - international support: FreeBSD loses here, because it is USA-centric (the USA keyboard layout is baked into the kernel)



Excuse me? Would you be kind enough to back up that statement with some proof, please?
For many years now, we even had the possibility to change keyboard layout in the install program.
Get your facts straight, please.


----------



## lele (Sep 17, 2012)

tingo said:
			
		

> Excuse me? Would you be kind enough to back up that statement with some proof, please?
> For many years now, we even had the possibility to change keyboard layout in the install program.
> Get your facts straight, please.



Read posts #2 and #4 here: http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?p=119565#post119565


----------



## tingo (Sep 17, 2012)

lele said:
			
		

> Read posts #2 and #4 here: http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?p=119565#post119565



Well, that really doesn't say what you think it does. It says that the default keymap in the kernel is US, and to change that you can compile a new kernel with another default keymap. It doesn't say that FreeBSD is lacking in international support.

(I agree that it is very inconvenient that your preferred keymap is loaded after you have input a passphrase for an encrypted rootfs, but that is a separate issue. I just hope someone who uses encrypted rootfs has filed a PR for that bug - it needs to be fixed somehow)


----------



## lele (Sep 17, 2012)

tingo said:
			
		

> Well, that really doesn't say what you think it does. It says that the default keymap in the kernel is US, and to change that you can compile a new kernel with another default keymap. It doesn't say that FreeBSD is lacking in international support.



Well, then I wasn't clear enough.  I said "USA-centric" instead of "USA-only" on purpose, meaning that you can customize it afterwards, but it defaults to the USA.  I know that FreeBSD has international support.


----------



## SirDice (Sep 18, 2012)

lele said:
			
		

> I said "USA-centric" instead of "USA-only" on purpose, meaning that you can customize it afterwards, but it defaults to the USA.  I know that FreeBSD has international support.


That can be said for pretty much every OS I ever installed. They all had the default USA settings. Why is this a problem with FreeBSD?


----------



## freemason (Sep 18, 2012)

The BAD thing about Free- and Open- BSD`s is that their Unicode support isn't that great...

For example, there is Koi8 for cyrillic, but it's very painful to get cyrillic with UTF-8 in console (and in some default shell like /bin/sh - even in X, bash/zsh do the job however).


----------



## vermaden (Sep 18, 2012)

Install FreeBSD, they said. It will be fun, they said.


----------



## throAU (Sep 21, 2012)

fiftyone said:
			
		

> I hear a lot of people talking about Linux vs BSD but having been using BSD exclusively for a while now I can't honestly say that I have seen a WHOLE lot of difference compared to the various Linux distros.
> 
> 99% of all the commands are the same, the interface is nothing shocking that a Linux user would run away from...
> 
> ...



The big differences are with package management (base+packages, Linux mixes the two concepts - there is no real "core" distribution), initialization scripts and the lack of GNU tools (this is a good thing) installed in the base system.

If you used FreeBSD you can figure out Linux.  If you're used to Linux it is a bit of a learning curve coming the other way, but insurmountable.


----------



## GuillotinePartition (Sep 22, 2012)

Like both. Free and Open BSD along with Slackware. They are very similar and raw to the grinds and gears of an operating system, plus they are both closer to unix amd each other with slight variations in syntax, etc. imho.


----------



## mechanic (Oct 2, 2012)

throAU said:
			
		

> The big differences are with package management (base+packages, Linux mixes the two concepts - there is no real "core" distribution), initialization scripts and the lack of GNU tools (this is a good thing) installed in the base system.
> 
> If you used FreeBSD you can figure out Linux.  If you're used to Linux it is a bit of a learning curve coming the other way, but insurmountable.



Presumably you meant "surmountable". As someone who has tried a couple of times to go the Linux -> FreeBSD route, I have to say the project makes that pretty hard. Firstly it's a nightmare getting Broadcom wifi to work on FreeBSD, when you get past that the usual features like Keepass(x) and Dropbox (essential features of a desktop session) just won't work. Keepassx has no package and the port compile stops with a fatal error after 40 min or so (and needs qt-elsewhere or whatever it's called - 200MB), Dropbox won't work at all because the notification feature just isn't supported in BSD. So not worth the hassle.

No doubt someone will be along shortly to berate me for not  jumping into the source code to fix all these things myself, but why when in many Linux distros all that 'just works'?


----------



## SR_Ind (Oct 2, 2012)

mechanic,

What problems do you face with Broadcom wifi setup? 

Regarding Qt. I think that's a genuine problem. May be port maintainers should try to split and repackage the source tarball. 

By the way, add the Qt libraries as package instead of going the whole download and build route.


----------



## SNK (Oct 3, 2012)

There is a package for security/keepassx: ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/amd64/packages-9-stable/security/. And it compiles fine in my jail.

Dropbox works fine under Wine.


----------



## throAU (Oct 3, 2012)

mechanic said:
			
		

> Presumably you meant "surmountable".



Uh yeah.  Typo...  I actually missed the word "not".  It should have read "not insurmountable".

Wifi is a bit of a pain on both operating systems.


----------



## break19 (Oct 3, 2012)

mechanic: inotify is a linux only thing.  FreeBSD's kqueue was done BEFORE linux's inotify.

That is similar in fashion to complain that DirectX doesnt work on linux.

Sure, there is a compatibility layer available: wine.  Just as there is a compatibility layer of libevent and libevent2. Just because the application you are using stupidly only supports linux, instead of using libevent(2) which supports *BSD, Linux, Solaris.... Doesn't mean the OS is at fault. It means the application developer is a moron for writing non-portable code.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Oct 3, 2012)

break19 said:
			
		

> That is similar in fashion to complain that DirectX doesnt work on linux.


Yeah. That's why I won't use Linux and Linux sux.


----------



## mechanic (Oct 5, 2012)

Thanks for the responses:

Broadcom wifi: the many varieties of chip and driver each needing slightly different firmware is the main headache, although even when that's sorted I found the whole System locked up solidly on me when using XFCE network manager to set the network details (that was using PC-BSD but basically it's the FreeBSD system that does the networking), and that deleted some open files which didn't help.

Dropbox: no point in insulting the developers we have to work with whatever they produce. I've used it under Wine and the trouble is that although one can download all the Dropbox contents the regular updating when the contents change doesn't work, again because of the notify thing.

Keepassx, I noticed later on that there was a PBI (PC-BSD) for this but certainly the port failed to complete an install with some compiler error or other. I'm not going to waste another hour of my life running all that again for more detail, sorry.

The earlier post in the thread was about moving from Linux to BSD and I was simply explaining that BSD doesn't make it easy, in most Linux distros all the above 'just work'.


----------



## jwele (Oct 5, 2012)

ephemera said:
			
		

> I do have to reboot for playing games  But for everything else Vmware is perfect for me. I have been dual booting since the time i started using fbsd (4.8 i think) but for me rebooting is not a practical option anymore. Besides, it's not just Windows i also have Solaris installed to try out some things from time to time.
> If Vmware made a fbsd version that would be just fanstastic but i can only wish. I heard VirtualBox is being ported to fbsd, we will have to wait and see how that turns out.



I talked to a representative about FreeBSD support. This is his reply.



> Greetings,
> Thank you for your interest in VMware. As an open source project, not every version of the FreeBSD OS is tested with VMware. However, we do support the current version (FreeBSD 9.0) as a guest OS of ESXi/vSphere 5.1 and Fusion 5.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Savagedlight (Oct 8, 2012)

jwele said:
			
		

> I talked to a representative about FreeBSD support. This is his reply.



Yeah, but that doesn't mean you can have FreeBSD as host OS.


----------



## Disturbo (Mar 15, 2013)

mechanic said:
			
		

> Thanks for the responses:
> 
> Broadcom wifi: the many varieties of chip and driver each needing slightly different firmware is the main headache, although even when that's sorted I found the whole System locked up solidly on me when using XFCE network manager to set the network details (that was using PC-BSD but basically it's the FreeBSD system that does the networking), and that deleted some open files which didn't help.
> 
> ...




Broadcom WiFi
The device comes with relevant firmware in the OEM Win* installation. I've successfully taken Windows firmware and placed it in the specified location, to be used by a custom firmware 'loader' script hooking into an existing kernel module, to get my built-in WWAN device to work.
Perhaps you could do the same? Maybe someone else has made a workaround?​
DropBox
We use GitHub.​
Keepasx
Why use a PBI when the application is in the ports tree?​
```
% whereis keepassx
keepassx: /usr/ports/security/keepassx
```


----------



## zspider (Mar 15, 2013)

There are differences, but you have to look beyond the outer appearance. I used to say the same thing until I actually starting playing with FreeBSD (after using Linux for 3 years). The differences were obvious to me immediately.


----------



## kpedersen (Mar 15, 2013)

A specific wifi device not working is not a valid reason to reject an OS.
If the same hardware didn't work on OSX or Windows, you would just replace it with a working one. Do the same on FreeBSD and get another.
Sure, it is annoying when hardware doesn't work but replacing it is a very easy solution.

As for DropBox, the fact that it doesn't work on FreeBSD is a perfect excuse for me not to have to install it and instead get people who are sending files to me to either use svn, ftp or email rather than some ridiculous, proprietary, commercial crapware.


----------



## fonz (Mar 15, 2013)

kpedersen said:
			
		

> instead get people who are sending files to me to either use svn, ftp or email rather than some ridiculous, proprietary, commercial crapware.


Fair enough, but not everybody has that choice. For example, I have done some project work in aerodynamics with aeronautical engineers. The whole team (besides me, of course) preferred DropBox (some even suggested Google Docs, but fortunately that idea fell through right away) and they were not going to change just because I happened to be running a "vague" operating system they'd never even heard of (some had (very) basic experience with Linux but no more than that). So I had to improvise and just use DropBox' Web interface, which meant I couldn't sync directories but at least I could up- and download our stuff. It was far from ideal, but it had to do.


----------



## sossego (Mar 15, 2013)

On the wireless device: People throw away and sell laptops that aren't working. Cannibalize the parts because you may find a wireless card that does work.

There are some similarities when it comes to basic structure. The further into the system one peers, the less that the two are alike.


----------



## fonz (Mar 15, 2013)

sossego said:
			
		

> On the wireless device: People throw away and sell laptops that aren't working. Cannibalize the parts because you may find a wireless card that does work.


On the other hand, especially when it comes to laptops boards are often integrated. With a PC one might be able to just swap one card for another, but with laptops such isn't always feasible.


----------



## sossego (Mar 15, 2013)

Not true.

One can flip the laptop over, remove the panel, and remove the card. I do this with all of my laptops. 
Some cards will only work with some systems- the AirPort card seems only to work with Powerbooks and iBooks right now.

One can even exchange/interchange/swap hard drives and optical drives if the physical port- female- can attach to the plug- male. 

If the ribbon can be switched over or the plug itself, one can interchange the screen between machines.


----------



## wblock@ (Mar 15, 2013)

Every notebook I've ever opened has the wireless chipset on a separate card.  The desirable Atheros cards are relatively rare.  Beware that some manufacturers including Lenovo and HP prevent non-approved cards from working in their machines.


----------



## sossego (Mar 15, 2013)

I haven't the chance to take apart a netbook or reader as of yet....
At least one that was working. 


Off topic but on subject: Cell/Mobile/Smart phones are the same way. You can actually interchange parts if the physical connections are the same.


----------



## fonz (Mar 16, 2013)

sossego said:
			
		

> One can flip the laptop over, remove the panel, and remove the card.


If it's a separate card, yes of course. But most laptops (and especially netbooks) I've seen have one main board that integrates everything. NIC, sound card, video card, etc. all in one board. There's no switching around then unless you care to replace the whole darn thing.


----------



## sossego (Mar 16, 2013)

I'm curious....
What netbooks and laptops are you using?


----------



## fonz (Mar 16, 2013)

sossego said:
			
		

> I'm curious....
> What netbooks and laptops are you using?


Just your basic Acer stuff, nothing special.


----------



## wblock@ (Mar 16, 2013)

Wireless is not integrated.  Possibly they can't integrate it due to different regulations in different countries.  The notebooks or netbooks I have worked on with removable wireless includes Acer (and Gateway, which are made by Acer), Dell, Toshiba, Thinkpad, HP, and even a couple of Apple notebooks.


----------



## sossego (Mar 16, 2013)

I think that we- fonz and I- are talking about two separate subjects. He is talking about the ethernet NIC connection and I about the wireless. If that is it, then yes, replacing that port takes some skill. The way around it is to have a usb ethernet adapter in the event the NIC craps out- gets loose.


----------



## nbittech (Mar 22, 2013)

The biggest difference for me is the fact that FreeBSD actually works as intended for me most of the time, and when it doesn't, there is actually a man page or some documentation there to help you.

I'm not flaming Linux here, I'm just stating my opinion that BSD is much easier to troubleshoot. Sometimes I feel that with Linux you have multiple problems with only one solution, where with BSD you have only one problem with multiple solutions.  Of course this has exceptions, as nobody uses their computer the exact same way.

I like the fact that BSD is designed in such a way that a user has multiple ways to solve the same problem.


----------



## ab (Mar 22, 2013)

There are many differences between Linux distributions and FreeBSD, but it makes me saddest to think that a Linux world does not know how to [CMD=""]make love[/CMD]. A real loss.

There's so much bashing and gnu implementations of *everything* in purge like fashion, I can't help but see a causal correlation.


----------



## _martin (Mar 29, 2013)

nbittech said:
			
		

> I'm not flaming Linux here, I'm just stating my opinion that BSD is much easier to troubleshoot.



I second that. FreeBSD has all things organized and configuration is straight forward. I used Slackware - the only distribution that followed this logic of organizing files and data. Now I've Debian in VM due to cross-compilation setup for my TV. 

At work majority of our servers are HP-UX, but due to cost cuts Linux is unfortunately (my opinion, not flaming) paving way to our customers. SuSE and Redhat are distros of choice. 
Configuration logic there is just .. well, I call it 'link rape' or 'link abuse'. So many sym links pointing to different location .. just a mess.


----------



## sossego (Mar 30, 2013)

Sometimes you need to convince a company that OS-a and application-a are better than the standard being used.

Also, there is support for the HPPA with OpenBSD and NetBSD. 

IA64 is being developed on the BSD systems.


----------

