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.'
Thread beginning with comment 496429
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I'll stick with Linux.
by r_a_trip on Tue 8th Nov 2011 11:38 UTC
r_a_trip
Member since:
2005-07-06

The technology is undoubtedly sound in the BSD's. They're almost as old as UNIX itself. That is a testament to their viability.

However, I'm a desktop user. So for me, I need a platform that is easy, fully featured and has a large array of software and forward momentum.

Normally, Microsoft would fit that bill, but I'm the kind of weirdo that doesn't like the way MS does their business. That makes me an ABM'er. Apple could fit the bill if I didn't think they are as bad as MS. So that leaves me with the FOSS alternatives.

Linux maybe a chaotic hodgepodge of disparate technologies, cobbled together as an Operating System, with more variety than the supermarket cereal isle, but it is equally investing in server and desktop technologies. Linux gives me a large array of software, active development, a large supported array of hardware, ease of use developments and reasonable reliability. On top of that there are reasonably open and friendly user communities.

The BSD's seem to lack the forward momentum, aren't really desktop oriented, are relatively behind on current FOSS desktop technologies and they seem to have very cautious and closed communities. As a desktop user, the BSD's simply don't seem as welcoming to my needs. When push comes to shove, ,I will take the hacky, slightly buggy solution that works 99% now. The BSD's take the approach that something should be done right, which is good, but that doesn't help me with my current needs. Paired with the fact that some BSD's need Linux emulation to get mainstream software working, why not forego the emulation and use the thing being emulated. (Before some wiseguy mentions WINE. I've beaten the WINE addiction long, long ago.)

I do think it is good that the BSD's are around, as they offer choice, but for me, they don't look like my cup of tea.

Reply Score: 5

RE: I'll stick with Linux.
by foregam on Tue 8th Nov 2011 15:24 in reply to "I'll stick with Linux."
foregam Member since:
2010-11-17

Paired with the fact that some BSD's need Linux emulation to get mainstream software working [...]

These days this is mostly Flash, which, with some luck, will disappear gradually with HTML5. Being a Linux and BSD user, I quite like the capability to run any odd binary I come along. But yeah, you're quite right, BSDs do lag behind Linux desktopwise. I wish NetBSD in particular would make up its mind whether it wants to be another idiot friendly Unix or not.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: I'll stick with Linux.
by tuma324 on Wed 9th Nov 2011 03:23 in reply to "I'll stick with Linux."
tuma324 Member since:
2010-04-09

The technology is undoubtedly sound in the BSD's. They're almost as old as UNIX itself. That is a testament to their viability.

However, I'm a desktop user. So for me, I need a platform that is easy, fully featured and has a large array of software and forward momentum.

Normally, Microsoft would fit that bill, but I'm the kind of weirdo that doesn't like the way MS does their business. That makes me an ABM'er. Apple could fit the bill if I didn't think they are as bad as MS. So that leaves me with the FOSS alternatives.

Linux maybe a chaotic hodgepodge of disparate technologies, cobbled together as an Operating System, with more variety than the supermarket cereal isle, but it is equally investing in server and desktop technologies. Linux gives me a large array of software, active development, a large supported array of hardware, ease of use developments and reasonable reliability. On top of that there are reasonably open and friendly user communities.

The BSD's seem to lack the forward momentum, aren't really desktop oriented, are relatively behind on current FOSS desktop technologies and they seem to have very cautious and closed communities. As a desktop user, the BSD's simply don't seem as welcoming to my needs. When push comes to shove, ,I will take the hacky, slightly buggy solution that works 99% now. The BSD's take the approach that something should be done right, which is good, but that doesn't help me with my current needs. Paired with the fact that some BSD's need Linux emulation to get mainstream software working, why not forego the emulation and use the thing being emulated. (Before some wiseguy mentions WINE. I've beaten the WINE addiction long, long ago.)

I do think it is good that the BSD's are around, as they offer choice, but for me, they don't look like my cup of tea.


Smart guy.

Who would want to use BSD when it's clearly inferior to all other OSes out there.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Bizarre
by Gone fishing on Wed 9th Nov 2011 18:08 in reply to "RE: I'll stick with Linux."
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

Some of the comments here that are so hostile to FreeBSD I find bizarre, such as FreeBSD being second rate or inferior - some on this site might consider me a Linux or Ubuntu Fanboy, but having used FreeBSD to build a couple of servers, I think its great the documentation is certainly great. Unquestionably I found it easier to build a ldap server in FreeBSD than Debian due to the quality of the documentation.

The Port system works and means you build a system for your needs (although there are packages if you wish) - I believe some Linux's have copied a similar system, the jail system for security works and I have to say that the RAID system, even using gmirror and UFS was easier than mdadm, possibly it would have been even better if I used ZFS. As for speed of set up how often do you build a server? If I can build a box in a few days someone, who really knows what they are doing could build a box in a day and end up with a stable solid server.

For the desktop, possibly using FreeBSD would be an odd choice but PCBSD is basically FreeBSD and if you have moderate software needs that FreeBSD or PCBSD can meet and you have suitable hardware I have no doubt that you would end up with a fast stable box that would make you happy.

As for it taking time and being fiddly so what? If that’s what you want to do, this isn’t a Windows replacement and you could say the same for Gentoo, Slackware Arch etc.

Reply Parent Score: 1