Linked by snydeq on Tue 8th Nov 2011 01:29 UTC
BSD and Darwin derivatives Deep End's Paul Venezia wonders why more folks aren't using FreeBSD on the desktop. 'There used to be a saying -- at least I've said it many times -- that my workstations run Linux, my servers run FreeBSD. Sure, it's quicker to build a Linux box, do a "yum install x y z" and toss it out into the wild as a fully functional server, but the extra time required to really get a FreeBSD box tuned will come back in spades through performance and stability metrics. You'll get more out of the hardware, be that virtual or physical, than you will on a generic Linux binary installation.'
Permalink for comment 496378
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I agree, 10 years ago.
by evilsjg on Tue 8th Nov 2011 02:39 UTC
evilsjg
Member since:
2006-03-29

In the FreeBSD 2.x (I like to pretend 3.x never existed) and 4.x series, this was absolutely, totally and irrefutably true. FreeBSD was faster, more stable, made better use of available memory, had a better file system and even oftentimes had better hardware support. Since the Linux 2.4-series stabilized though FreeBSD has been totally outpaced. Support for modern video cards isn't there, stability isn't necessarily there, UFS is showing its age and ZFS is a bloated cow. Not to mention the major desktops, KDE and Gnome are using OS features only available on Linux, which leads to a degraded experience on FreeBSD.

He cites examples like DTrace, which is really a developer tool, not something a desktop user cares about. He cites examples of companies using BSD, even Apple, so it must be good, right? No! What it DOES have is the best license for this purpose.

I am a HUGE BSD fanboy, but I don't even find Linux suitable in some cases for desktop use and FreeBSD is much further behind. The author of this article is reminiscing about the good-old-days (which I like to reflect on too) of FreeBSD, and is unfortunately out of touch with the current state of things.

Reply Score: 14