"Here we are at the moment of truth for the FreeBSD operating system - the 7.0 release. This is what FreeBSD users and developers have been waiting for ever since the dark days of the 5.X series when the promises of superior performance, threading, and stability fell flat. Though each release in the FreeBSD 6.X series improved markedly in quality and performance, 7.0 has been widely anticipated as the release that FreeBSD fans can have confidence in. I wish I could say that FreeBSD 7.0 lived up to the hype."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-12-16
If you read a few of my other posts in that article, you'll see that I was cautious to question if the replies I was seeing in response to the article were representative of the entirety of freeBSD users.
I last used freeBSD around 4.2, so yes, a while ago. And you'll note elsewhere that I've said that I suspect freeBSD has improved (like Linux) in that time period. The question is by how much? Linux has come along in leaps and bounds in that 7 years, and in all honesty, I doubt freeBSD (or any other BSD) has matched it.
As I said in previous posts, I'm about to get my new PC, which will relegate the current PC to testing purposes, and freeBSD will be something I'll be trying. I used to be a Linux junkie, but now I use Windows for most of my work, as it suits my needs better. So, I'm certainly not a Linux user having fun bashing freeBSD because of some BS rivalvry. True, I have a huge distaste for the BSD licence, and that does influence my reasoning on using a BSD system, but that's a personal preference. Since I use Microsoft Windows (even more "proprietary" than any BSD), I think I can stretch things and relax enough to try freeBSD anyways, whatever my personal dislike of the BSD licence itself.
Debian can be a bit of a mongrel to set up, which is why Ubuntu is so popular (I have my problems with Ubuntu).
I've also been known to "bash" (as some zealots so succinctly put it) Linux for the variety of what I consider weaknesses that will stop it from ever becoming popular with the masses. I always find it amazing that it's touted as an o/s for the people, but the way that it is constructed means that most ordinary people will never even want to try it. Your average person doesn't give a damn about choice, they want something that just works. Once the Linux zealots get over themselves and realise that Linux choices are killing development of essential killer apps, which in turn will affect how many ordinary people move to it, it'll start to get more general adoption. Until then, it remains the province of geeks, geeks and more geeks, as well as those too tight to pay for proprietary software (yes, I wager that most of those trying Linux are doing so not because of theological reasons (the raison d'etre of the FSF), but because they will NOT pay for Microsoft Windows. I'll also wager that most of those that have moved to Linux in the past few years were those that were pirating proprietary software the most when they did use Microsoft Windows.
I despise those that think Debian is just a server, that desktop users should bugger off and use Ubuntu etc etc. I apply the same logic to freeBSD users who expect that it's simply an excellent server o/s, and anyone that wants to tailor it to be a desktop o/s have to "know their stuff" or otherwise sod off. From my experiences, that seems to be a lot of freeBSD users, and mirrors the attitudes of the old Linux guard from 5-10 years ago. The damage that that attitude did is only just slowly being overcome with Linux now.
Dave
Member since:2008-02-05
"Linux has come along in leaps and bounds in that 7 years, and in all honesty, I doubt freeBSD (or any other BSD) has matched it."
Considering that the majority of improvements to Linux were, in fact, improvements to software that runs on top of Linux and works just as well on FreeBSD, I don't see how you can justify that doubt. The things that differentiate Linux distributions from each other are the installer, the software management system, the community, and the default install configuration. What's particular to Linux distributions that are not true of FreeBSD is the kernel and core utilities -- and FreeBSD's kernel and core utilities are certainly no worse than those common to most Linux distributions. Everything else is not specific to Linux distributions at all, and is basically shared by FreeBSD.
So . . . why the heck wouldn't you think FreeBSD could have improved as much? The fact that MS Windows has mostly gone downhill in the last seven years (Win2k was the high point for MS Windows in terms of OS design) does not provide a very impressive analogy for FreeBSD's performance in the realm of overall improvement.
"True, I have a huge distaste for the BSD licence, and that does influence my reasoning on using a BSD system, but that's a personal preference."
What's your problem with the BSD license? Personally, I find the GPL more offensive than the BSD license.
"Debian can be a bit of a mongrel to set up, which is why Ubuntu is so popular (I have my problems with Ubuntu)."
I actually prefer Debian over Ubuntu. It's a lot easier to get Debian set up the way I like, quickly and without fuss, than Ubuntu. I guess Ubuntu is great if, for the most part, you don't care about how it ends up configured -- if you're just willing to live with someone else's idea of a "good" system configuration -- but my preference is to be able to make use of my own preferences. Since I can get an entire Debian system set up to my preferences in under 45 minutes, and Ubuntu makes it almost impossible by reasonable means to get what I actually want out of it, I guess I differ from the people who make Ubuntu so popular.
In summary:
Ubuntu: Quicker and easier to set up the way I don't like.
Debian: Quicker and easier to set up the way I do like.
"I've also been known to 'bash' (as some zealots so succinctly put it) Linux for the variety of what I consider weaknesses that will stop it from ever becoming popular with the masses. I always find it amazing that it's touted as an o/s for the people, but the way that it is constructed means that most ordinary people will never even want to try it."
I think that many of these perceived weaknesses would evaporate if Linux was distributed the same way MS Windows is distributed: installed on hardware so the user doesn't have to bother. The same is true of FreeBSD as of some Linux distributions in this respect.
"because they will NOT pay for Microsoft Windows."
I wouldn't pay for MS Windows if I didn't have to, either. It's not worth the money. FreeBSD, on the other hand, is worth a fair bit.
"I'll also wager that most of those that have moved to Linux in the past few years were those that were pirating proprietary software the most when they did use Microsoft Windows."
I doubt they've moved to Linux just because they're cheap. If they were "pirating" MS Windows, they have no financial incentive to switch OSes to another free option. They wouldn't be paying either way -- and if there's no other reason to switch, they might as well stay with the free option with which they're already familiar. Thus, if they're making the switch, they must have some other reason.
"I despise those that think Debian is just a server, that desktop users should bugger off and use Ubuntu etc etc. I apply the same logic to freeBSD users who expect that it's simply an excellent server o/s, and anyone that wants to tailor it to be a desktop o/s have to "know their stuff" or otherwise sod off. From my experiences, that seems to be a lot of freeBSD users, and mirrors the attitudes of the old Linux guard from 5-10 years ago."
That depends on what you mean by "a lot". If you mean there's some minimum number -- say, a thousand people or more -- then yeah, I guess you could say there's "a lot" of such FreeBSD users. If you mean something like "a majority" or even "nearly 50%", I don't think that's an accurate estimation at all. Of course, you apparently haven't touched FreeBSD in seven years, so you're probably not on the same FreeBSD mailing lists of which I'm a member.
Member since:
2008-02-05
"I'm simply noting the reaction from loyal freeBSD users to any form of criticism about their operating system, and some of the replies posted here, which pretty much confirm the elitist nature of at least some freeBSD users (but I suspect the majority of them). Your reply is along the lines of many others."
Your comments consist of insulting generalizations about an entire community of open source software users, and appear to be calculated to denigrate the reputations of users of non-Linux OSes. If that's not your intent, perhaps you should look into charm school to learn how to communicate politely with others.
"I could easily install a Debian Etch system and it'll run for years."
Ironically, Debian Etch was the Linux system I was using when frustration with Linux issues finally pushed me to give FreeBSD a try as an alternative. My problems cleared up pretty quickly after that. I'm not saying FreeBSD is perfect -- nothing has been so far, out of the dozen or so OSes I've used to any significant degree since the early '80s -- but for my needs, at least, it has proven the most stable, reliable, convenient OS platform so far.
"My experiences with freeBSD (admittedly a few years ago now) aren't so gracious."
How long ago were those experiences? Have you noticed that Linux systems have improved significantly in the last five years (and also in the five years before that)? Why do you find it so difficult to believe the same could have happened with FreeBSD that you're willing to just give FreeBSD a bad review without giving it a try? It's a bit like giving MacOS X a bad review based on your experience with MacOS 9.
"I do note that freeBSD documentation is excellent, and it did impress me back then, and impresses me now."
It's the best OS documentation I've ever had the pleasure to encounter.
"What I have issues with is many of the freeBSD users here who basically have the attitude of 'it's not a desktop system, go use PC-BSD', which I find completely unacceptable."
I find that troubling as well. There is a contingent of FreeBSD users who regard FreeBSD as the ultimate general-purpose server OS (which it may or may not be), but get into a snit any time someone asks for "desktop" functionality. I'm not in that camp -- I'm typing this from a Thinkpad with FreeBSD installed, and it's the best OS for a laptop I've ever used.
"There's no reason why freeBSD cannot be a desktop system, and there's no real reason why it should be difficult. Things should work out of the box, or at least the majority of them."
I agree -- and, in my experience, the majority does work "out of the box". When additional configuration is required, it's easier to manage than on Linux-based systems too -- multi-channel sound is a short shell command away, unlike the configuration hell of ALSA, for instance.
"That's a well designed operating system. freeBSD has many good things as far as I'm aware, but the implementation leaves a little to be desired."
FreeBSD is better designed. Linux distributions (which vary wildly from one to the next) occasionally have default configurations that provide an easier transition for people used to MS Windows, which makes it seem more "user friendly" to people used to a particular way of doing things. In my experience, the differences between FreeBSD and Linux-based systems is like a step further on the path to better design than what you get moving from MS Windows to a Linux distribution.
My favorite Linux distro was, and is still, Debian. Everything I liked about Debian more than its Linux-based cousins, I like even more about FreeBSD.
Obviously, your experience from several years ago may differ from mine today.
By the way . . . considering the often Linux-centric community here, when judging the entire FreeBSD community off a couple of comments, you might want to keep in mind that the people posting here are those who step outside of the FreeBSD world to interact with people like you, who (outnumbering them probably 50 to 1 in a more Linux-oriented community) likely promote something of a siege mentality in them with your selection bias prompting you to insult all FreeBSD users everywhere.
. . . and, frankly, from what I've seen people here are commenting on the general poor quality of the reviewer's work, as well as the specific poor quality of this individual review. Maybe the common thread isn't FreeBSD so much as it is a general distaste for this particular reviewer.