By now, anyone who is even remotely related to an IT-type position has heard about Linux, and has most likely used it, if only to see what all the hype is about. However, GNU/Linux is not the only “free” Unix type OS available. FreeBSD and its cousins, NetBSD and OpenBSD are all offshoots of BSD UNIX, a commercial UNIX also known as Berkeley Software Distribution. This article will help you learn more about FreeBSD, its differences from Linux, and it will ease a potential migration process.
Unlike Linux which uses the GPL license, the BSD family uses the BSD-style license. To summarize the differences between the two licenses in one sentence, the GPL requires any changes to the source code to be made public and be licensed under the GPL as well. The BSD license has no such requirement, any changes can be kept proprietary.
There are several major differences in the way FreeBSD and the major Linux distributions work. This article will step you through what I consider to be the biggest ‘gotchas’ that I encountered when switching my desktop from Linux to FreeBSD.
Although there are people who will argue this point, the term Linux refers to the kernel, nothing more. The applications that you use everyday on your Red Hat or Debian box are utilities added on by the respective distributions. FreeBSD on the other hand refers to the OS as a whole. FreeBSD is itself the kernel, as well as the basic applications needed to use a computer, such as the copy and move commands. This difference results in there being several distributions of Linux, such as Mandrake, SuSE, Debian and Slackware. Anyone who has used both Mandrake and Debian can tell you that there is a world of difference between them. There is only one FreeBSD. My FreeBSD is the same as the FreeBSD that you have — except for differences between versions FreeBSD is FreeBSD.
Three of the biggest Linux distributions, Red Hat, Mandrake, and SuSE use the RPM package manager. RPM handles installing, upgrading, uninstalling, and dependency checking for programs installed on those OSes. Although it does check for dependency errors before installing a program, RPM does leave a lot to be desired. For example, it cannot fetch other RPMs that are needed to solve the dependency errors. I know of are least 3 projects that solve this, urpmi, Debian’s apt-get which by the way isn’t remotely related to RPM and is a ‘Debian only’ feature, and a hybrid between RPM and apt-get. So unless you are willing to use one of the methods stated above, you have to manually find and download the required RPMs. Sound easy? Well it does until you try to manually install gnome or upgrade XFree from RPM’s. Even after you find the correct RPMs, if they are for SuSE and you’re running Red Hat, chances are they still might not work.
Each distribution of Linux is slightly different, and where they differ the most is in the file system layout. I’m sure that most everyone has heard about SuSE putting KDE in /opt while Red Hat puts in the /usr folder. To make matters even worse, RPM doesn’t recognize programs that are compiled from source. So if you have the latest and greatest Qt compiled from source, RPM doesn’t even know it exists if you try to install KDE from rpm’s.
FreeBSD uses what are known as “packages” to install, uninstall and upgrade applications. The ‘pkg_add’ command is used to install a package that you have manually downloaded to your computer. You can also run it with the ‘-r’ flag followed by a package name, and it will remotely fetch it from the Internet, as well as anything it requires to run. But the real beauty of FreeBSD’s packages is in the ports tree. The ports tree is simply that — a hierarchy of applications that have been ported to FreeBSD. Each directory contains a Makefile and any patches that are required for that particular app to compile and run on FreeBSD. For example, if I want to install the Apache web server, all I have to do is cd into the /usr/ports/www/apache directory, type ‘make && make install’, and go visit the snack machine. Assuming I have a fast computer with a decent Internet connection, when I get back it will have downloaded the apache source code, patched it, compiled it and installed it for me! The ports tree also handles any dependencies that Apache needs to run. It doesn’t matter if I’ve installed something via the ports tree, compiled it manually, on installed it via a binary package. The ports tree can find it as long as it is in your $PATH, and act accordingly.
Another difference between Linux and FreeBSD, is that with FreeBSD, 99% of what you install via ports or packages defaults into /usr/local, where as in Linux most of it goes into /usr, and sometimes /opt. This is for the most part a minor difference, however it is nice to know that whatever you have installed is in /usr/local and not spread all over the filesystem.
The FreeBSD system uses a program known as cvsup to keep itself up-to-date. Once you create a ‘sup-file’, cvsup compares what is locally on your system, and what is on the cvsup server and downloads any file that has changed since the last time it was run. You can use it to keep your ports tree and your local copy of the FreeBSD source code current and up-to-date. Unlike Linux, which normally only the kernel is downloaded and compiled on a semi-regularly basis, you can easily download the source for the entire OS using cvsup. The main reason for doing this is that it makes updating FreeBSD from one version to the next extraordinary simple. After cvsup’ing the newest source, you compile a new kernel, then you compile the ‘rest’ of the OS using one simple command: ‘make buildworld’. you then drop into single user mode and install it with ‘make installworld’. It’s just that easy.
The way that partitions are handled is also very different. Linux sees a hard drive as being divided up into different partitions. Of those partitions, some of them can have logical partitions inside of them. What we commonly think of as ‘partitions’, FreeBSD sees as slices. Within each slice are one or more ‘BSD partitions’. These BSD partitions are what shows up in the /etc/fstab.
Perhaps the next biggest difference between Linux and FreeBSD is the philosophy behind how the OSes are designed. Linux tends to have newer features and drivers (such as the closed source nVidia graphics card drivers) well before FreeBSD. The FreeBSD developers have taken a much more conservative approach to things. They prefer tried and tested code over flashy new features, preferring to wait until the major bugs have been worked out. For FreeBSD on the desktop this can be a problem if you want the latest and greatest drivers or the newest *cool* new feature. But in the server room, you want tried and tested code. Besides, how many of you put a $200 video card on your headless server?
Another difference is in what is installed by default. If you go with the default install options in SuSE, you’ll wind up with at least a gigabyte of installed software. FreeBSD on the other hand, installs just the basics. (Please note: I know that you can tell SuSE to only install the ‘basics’, but notice that I am talking about the ‘default’ install.) It gives you only the essentials, which you can use to install any of the 4000 applications in the ports tree. Almost all of the programs that run on Linux are already ported and running on FreeBSD, the only difference is that with Linux they are either installed by default, or unless you use Debian you have to go manually download them. With FreeBSD they are optional, and it is for the most part automated. Another difference in terms of what gets installed is that in Linux, the default shell is bash, however in FreeBSD it is tcsh.
For commercial programs such as Oracle or HP Openmail, FreeBSD offers a “Linux compatibility” layer. In simple terms this layer allows FreeBSD to run Linux binaries at almost native speed. Depending on the application it can run at full native speed under FreeBSD, just as it would under “Linux”. This compatibility layer is a step above emulation. The required Linux libraries are installed on the BSD system in binary form. When you try to run the Linux application, FreeBSD realizes that it is a Linux binary and simply points it to the Linux libraries that it depends on. There is also support for emulating commercial BSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and SCO binaries. Each respective OS is in different stages of support, with the best support for commercial BSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD.
Although the BSD developers are more concerned with quality than quantity, that doesn’t mean that FreeBSD is lacking in features. FreeBSD 5.0, due in Novemeber of 2002 will feature fine grained process control, which will enable it to scale effectively up to 32 processors. Version 5.0 will also feature a full DEVDFS device filesystem. Although this has been available in Linux for quite a while, you don’t hear much about it. It basically allows for the dev file system to be dynamically changed. For example, if you add a USB keyboard, it would ‘magically’ be added to the /dev directory. As for journaling file systems, the stable version, 4.4 has a feature known as ‘soft updates’. While it is technically not a journaled file system, depending on who you ask it is better than a journaled filesystem.
Throughout the big dotcom boom of ’98-’99 Linux was THE buzzword. Computer users everywhere were hearing about a *free* operating system that was challenging Microsoft in the server room as well as the desktop. Even today, the userbase of Linux is growing strongly. However most people are just beginning to hear about FreeBSD. Hopefully this article will help you evaluate FreeBSD as a possible solution to your needs. In the end though they are both free, so why not try them both and pick the one that best suits your needs?
About the Author:
Nathan Mace is currently a senior enrolled at the University of Charleston, West Virginia, majoring in Computer Information Systems. He is interested in all types of operating systems, expecially Unix-type OSes such as Linux, *BSD’s, and commercial Unices. Nathan can be reached at [email protected]
Related Stories:
. G’nite 
He didn’t mention that FreeBSD ports don’t know how to deal with hand installed software (just like rpm and deb/apt-get) that has been installed without using a port. The ports system is very nice, but its not much different than using a linux distribution with a real packaging system (Debian and Gentoo come to mind) rather than something rpm based. If a port/package isn’t available for something when you install it and becomes available later, you’re in the same boat. i highly recommend using GNU stow to manage such installations.
He also seems to think that what comes in the “default” install matters. Nobody serious about their computer will use a default, especially for a server; the minimal option and adding needed software later is best there. FreeBSD only has one distribution and one default; linux has zillions with zillions of defaults.
FreeBSD is a great OS, but take off those rose colored glasses. Claiming that “they prefer tried and tested code over flashy new features” is wrong. They simply do not have nearly as many interested hackers working on random device drivers and new flashy features as linux does. If you want to run FreeBSD, be sure to treat it like any other niche OS: choose your hardware specifically for the OS. Do that and you’ll have a great time! (Mmmm.. soft updates!)
FreeBSD me here and FreeBSD me there.
What’s going on really, seems like people are talking FreeBSD propaganda all over the place.
Not that it’s bad though, but I can’t really see a reason for changing server OS’s from Linux. Maybe it’s a geographic thing, Europeans might prefer Linux still..
>What’s going on really, seems like people are talking FreeBSD propaganda all over the place.
Are you kidding? It’s about 1000th of the Linux propaganda in the media at the moment. As mentioned earlier, this is OSAlert’s FreeBSD week – if you don’t like it, hang on a few more days and it will all be over.
–Jon
I think that a couple of things should have been made clear at the top. First of all, it’s “UNIX”, not “Unix.” The Open Group, currently the owners of the name and product, has guidelines to proper usage. The rest of the article would carry more weight if the author hadn’t made this gaffe, making himself look more like an outsider than someone whose instructions you would follow. It’s also worth noting that there is no more BSD UNIX. The U of C closed down that project nearly a decade ago. Nor is “BSD” synonymous with “UNIX.” Berkeley resold AT&T UNIX, with their own value-added extensions and utilities. Many of these utilities are now freely available, and that’s what you get in FreeBSD et al. What you specifically don’t get is UNIX.
That leads me to the most important point. Why should we change? The article doesn’t say. Frankly, I can think of a number of reasons to stay with Linux. While Berkeley’s networking stack and utilities were state of the art in the 80s, they’re antiquated now, in the 21st century. GNU has taken the torch that Berkeley dropped, as Berkeley did with AT&T. Times have changed, and the epicenter of innovation is far closer to Linux than it is to FreeBSD.
Don’t get me wrong, FreeBSD is a fine distribution. If your shop is already running FreeBSD, or if you’re a developer charged with replacing some old, creaky VAX with BSD UNIX on it, then FreeBSD is the logical place to start.
I think the author is confused about what an OS is, vs. what utilities, libraries and applications are. When dealing with the UNIX paradigm, this kind of knowledge is essential! Even if the installers are different, the programs that are being installed are the same — this seems lost on the author. So is the fact that the X Window system is used by both FreeBSD and Linux, but belongs to neither.
In summary, I was disappointed to see so many cheap shots, often based on a poor understanding of Linux and the greater UNIX paradigm. The title should not have been “Migration Guide.” It was more personal opinion than anything else. But it does illustrate the prime factor that separates the maintainers of FreeBSD and Linux — their attitudes. The FreeBSD folks are reactionary, and a little snobbish. Linux has exploded in popularity, in good part because of the openness and approachability of its maintainers. Change is inevitable. Those who embrace change are the ones making a difference.
>He didn’t mention that FreeBSD ports don’t know how to deal with hand installed software (just like rpm and deb/apt-get) that has been installed without using a port
How would this be possible? If the software you built from source has a make uninstall option then you can use that, otherwise find out where the files were installed and delete them.
A FreeBSd user with any experience would make a port to compile and install the source, then send-pr it.
>Claiming that “they prefer tried and tested code over flashy new features” is wrong
I don’t recall FreeBSD ever replacing the VM with a buggy, unreliable one then backing it out a few revisions later. The author didn’t mention the way FreeBSd is developed (-current, -stable, -release), but basically new features are integrated into -current first to undergo extensive testing, then backported into -stable when the code is considered well, stable.
It’s fair to say that Linux has more developers than FreeBSD but that’s largely due to the amount of media hype around Linux – people are hardly going to start developing for an OS they’ve never heard of 8^P . FreeBSD certainly has been expanding its userbase though (check out the mailing list archives, they’ve increaed in size significantly every year)
–Jon
>The FreeBSD folks are reactionary, and a little snobbish. Linux has exploded in >popularity, in good part because of the openness and approachability of its >maintainers.
This could be said only by a person that has never had any contact with the developers of *BSD. And about the nifty, shiny _useless_ features, just an example: when did NetBSD got USB2 support? and when did linux?
> The FreeBSD folks are reactionary, and a little snobbish. Linux
> has exploded in popularity, in good part because of the openness and
> approachability of its maintainers.
Urg ! Everything is from a point-of-view. I found this quote funny, because I’m neither from freeBSD nor Linux worlds, but I personnaly found Linux folks reactionary, a little snobbish, and with not so openness.
– Steve
Another difference between Linux and FreeBSD, is that with FreeBSD, 99% of what you install via ports or packages defaults into /usr/local, where as in Linux most of it goes into /usr, and sometimes /opt. This is for the most part a minor difference, however it is nice to know that whatever you have installed is in /usr/local and not spread all over the filesystem.
Obviously, this guy has never heard of the FHS. Debian installs everything to /usr. In fact, when you do an install of Debian, you’ll find nothing is in /usr/local, because it is strictly for the user’s use. It makes things easier to manage in this way, because you know exactly what you compiled by hand (most programs install themselves in /usr/local, if you compiled and install them). I can’t say the same about other distributions (I don’t use other distributions), Slackware installs things in almost random places, it’s a fscking nightmare, thank god for standards.
I usually write UNIX myself, but as you say, that’s the Open Group’s trademark and doesn’t in that sense apply to FreeBSD. The same term in common usage definitely applies to the *BSDs, and “Unix” conveniently distinguishes the two. It’s debatable, but it’s a damn silly argument and his usage is hardly a “gaffe”. Your other complaints are presented with so little substance that it’s hard to comment on them. The article barely mentions X11 and never suggests that it’s part of Linux, or FreeBSD – looks like you invented that.
The rest of it seems to boil down to the assertion that GNU and Linux are about change, and FreeBSD isn’t (“take the torch”, “epicenter of change”, “embrace change”, blah blah.) Talk about cheap shots and poor understanding.
>The FreeBSD folks are reactionary, and a little snobbish. Linux has exploded in >popularity, in good part because of the openness and approachability of its >maintainers.
While I am not part of any of the two communities, I had my share as a user on both systems trying to find support, and also as a “journalist”. The FreeBSD people have no match on being helpful & most importantly: open minded. If I start talking about Windows-something (and even when relevant to the topic) in a Linux chat or forum, chances are that I will be kicked or shouted about. FreeBSD people seemed to me far more receptive, open minded and clueful. Linux has the hype and attracts many trollish kids, while FreeBSD has interesting and intelligent people in it. Not that Linux does not have many intelligent people (it does!), but the jerks and trolls are so many, that outnumber the good population in the Linux world. And that’s sad.
> While Berkeley’s networking stack and utilities were state of the art in the
> 80s, they’re antiquated now, in the 21st century.
Your last copy of BSD must BE from the 80’s to make such a comment.
> Don’t get me wrong, FreeBSD is a fine distribution. If your shop is already
> running FreeBSD, or if you’re a developer charged with replacing some old,
> creaky VAX with BSD UNIX on it, then FreeBSD is the logical place to start.
Or if you want to remove that buggy Linux off your x86 box. See I can make snide remarks as well as you.
I started out with Linux using the SLS distribution (v0.99.14). I used it all the way until 2.2.12. With FreeBSD v3.2, I switched and have been quite happy with my decision.
i’d like to take some time to clear a few things up that people have mentioned in the above comments…….
1)someone made the comment that said i was to concerned about what was in the default install. the poster was right in that the default install DOESN’T matter in some ways. he’s right in saying that alot of stuff is changed after the install to suit your needs. however, I was making a point about the default install in terms of what gets installed if you use the default selections. for example, the major linux distro’s tend to want to install quite a bit of software by default. by default Freebsd installed the base freebsd OS. during the install routine you can tell it to install more than that, but the default is different than the default on linux
2)someone else commented that I said unix and not UNIX. yes, I know there is a difference, and that poster was right to point it out. my bad. i’ll see that it doesn’t get repeated
3) to say that the BSD networking code is antiquated is wrong. just because it has been in existance longer than linux doesn’t mean it’s not updated just as fast or faster than linux’s networking code.
4) i’m not sure where people are getting the “/usr/local” arguments from? people are commenting that /usr/local/ is stricly for the user’s use. well what do you thing installing 3rd party apps are? maybe i didn’t make it clear i what i meant? when Freebsd is first installed, /usr/local is empty…a poster said the same of debian. /usr/local is filled up when i compile something from the ports tree or install a package or compile from source. and i do know the difference between apps and the OS itself. do you? where is it that i seem to have confused the two?
5)someone also pointed out that i did not give any real reason for switching from linux to BSD. are there any points specifically that you would like to have expanded? i explained the differences between the ports tree & RPM. i explained that Freebsd is not several different distro’s like linux, and i explained that Freebsd is geared more towards the server room where as linux is trying for the desktop.
finally, although it might seem like my opinion, i based the article on my experiences from switching from a linux based desktop to a freebsd based desktop. i tried to remain impartial, however i think a *little* opinion makes for a better article than no opnion at all.
also, it’s not a migration article, it’s more of a comparision. finally, i’m glad that people actually took the time to read it. i enjoyed writing it.
Nathan
An overall nice article!
But this quote I find simply silly since the FBSD community really has been stressing the need of a FBSD compatible nvidia driver…
Perhaps the next biggest difference between Linux and FreeBSD is the philosophy behind how the OS’s are designed. Linux tends to have newer features and drivers(such as the closed source nVidia graphics card drivers) well before FreeBSD. The FreeBSD developers have taken a much more conservative approach to things.
They might be more conservative in their approach than the Linux community, but this example is just horrible.
“RPM doesn’t recognize programs that are compiled from source.”
Actualy, since RPM 4.0, you can make your rpm package check for libs it requires.
> Linux has the hype and attracts many trollish kids, while
> FreeBSD has interesting and intelligent people in it. Not
> that Linux does not have may intelligent people (it does!),
> but the jerks and trolls are so many, that outnumber the
> good population in the Linux world. And that’s sad.
Exactly my opinion. I avoid like hell anything Linux, since a big amount of the Linux community are just a bunch jerks totally close minded (note that I didn’t generalize: I know a *lot* of great people amongst Linux ranks). So if I really want a good time in a community, I’m currently having a real good time in the BeOS one (now the OpenBeOS). And I’ll surely try to know more about FreeBSD, because I never, from these people, get flamed just because I wrote something like “I appreciate Windows for some aspects…”
There are *BSD jerks, BeOS jerks, Linux jerks, Windows jerks and every flavour of jerk. Always people are saying “All the people in MY camp are friendly, and most of the people in the OTHER camp are just trolls and jerks. They suck”
No-one can claim for the FreeBSD, NetBSD or OpenBSD camp that they are free of jerks because each group has seen one of its leaders being a JERK in archived public forums (but Theo wins as king among BSD jerks). No-one would even bother claiming that Linus Torvalds isn’t a jerk. Bill Gates is obviously a jerk, and outside the Church of Apple I’m pretty sure everyone knows Steve Jobs is a jerk.
In fact it’s hard to think of key figures from OS history, especially in the free operating systems, without thinking of jerks. The Unix haters handbook is a splendid example of what jerks we all are. We have nothing better to do than complain about everyone else’s contribution.
So this sort of discussion might as well just be written as “I like FooOS and so I put up with the other jerks who like FooOS”. Good for you.
The #1 way to annoy people is to assume that they’re jerks. Set the right expectation and you’ll get a punch in the face right on cue.
everyone should shut up about their OS and go watch TV
I’m tired of all these os#1 is better than os#2 trolls!
Ever try to install FBSD from a network with an old laptop? By god i just about went crazy trying to do it. Maybe its that i had only Linux experience and wasnt aware of how to properly add modules and such. But doing the same task with Debian took minutes. The support i got from #freebsd on OPN was far from good, i got mocked mostly for my lack of knowledge of the BSD system. But, i wont put that experience against what i think of FBSD, its known as one of the most stable OSes out there, and i think thats an important factor for ANY type of OS, not just servers.
And for that whole /usr/local thing: Debian GNU/Linux starts with a clean /usr/local/ directory, as does FBSD (so i’ve read). The difference is that when you use apt, you down the binaries which go in /usr/. But then whenever you compile stuff yourself, it goes in /usr/local/. Because in FBSD you are always compiling stuff yourself via ports, it goes in /usr/local/.
Actually I am a Window$ convert. My fisrt time using linux cause me to think that this OS (that time RedHat 5.x) are useless since it is not as user friendly as Window$. However, when the RedHat 6.0 came out I’ve tried again and manage to install everything in working order with flasy graphical system.
Once again I face the same situation when trying to install FreeBSD which until now I fail to have a nice graphical desktop base on FreeBSD, although now am using a Linux desktop made from scratch.
In my opinion maybe FreeBSD (or other BSD) is good but it is not user friendly. Linux distribution managed to make Linux more user friendly compared to xBSD. I think this is the reason many more are interested on linux. However as we all can see, still no other OS that can compete with Window$ in term of the number of users. Why? All are related to user friendliness. I’ve seen a case where a buyer get a computer which was preinstalled with Linux distribution that cause her a headache since she cannot use the computer for office works. Can FreeBSD resolve the problem like this? If it cans I am confident, many new user migrate to it compared to Linux.
Maybe those of you that very good in programming will say I am totally jerk, this is the real situation. Doesn’t matter what your propaganda say about window$ such as it is unstable, buggy, full of security hole or what else, the main income for Microsoft is not from the server platform, it is the desktop platform that most of it contain data that not very critical.
Currently I like GNU/Linux since it is the second user friendly OS which support high variety of hardware. (Mac is good but only works on Apple hardware). Anyone that love xBSD should take not that you must first help the developer to make it more user friendly before expecting a major migration from other OS.
SAYING THE OTHER CAMP IS BAD DOESN’T MAKE YOU THE BEST UNTIL YOU PROVE YOU ARE ONE.
Why choose FreeBSD instead of Linux?
For me, I think FreeBSD may be a little easier to manage because there is only one FreeBSD, whereas there are who knows how many Linux distros.
The documentation you find on Linux (often times outdated) does not always work from one distro to the next because they all do things slightly differently. Some put scripts/files/dirs in different places and many have different configuration utilities and COMPLETELY different package managers.
I don’t see that as being as much of a problem with FreeBSD, but I’m not sure, so I welcome any comments.
Another reason I have been considering FreeBSD is because I heard it makes a great web/database/mail server and that’s about all the interest I have in *Nix anyway.
I think most people confuse the pure software with a distribution. Saying “Linux” is more user-friendly than “FreeBSD” (or vice-versa) is, if you look closely, a little ridiculous. “Linux” or “FreeBSD” are only as userfriendly as people, who package individually developed programms into a distribution, put thought into how to do it. Couldn’t you say that FreeBSD is only so consistent because there is only one distribution of it? As somebody who hasn’t worked with BSD I wonder: how much different (or alike) are FreeBSD, NetBSd and OpenBSD. How related *are* they?
Debian was mentioned and the author seemed quite pleased with it and even seemed to recognise many similarities he liked. So there is a distribution in Linux-land that is regarded more or less “equal” to FreeBSD, so why not disregard the other Distros? After all: though there exist also NetBSD and OpenBSD they were hardly mentioned (or even discussed in their difference), so if you disregard other BSDs, why not disregard the other Linuxes? If you just use a distribution that is put together with stability and up-to-date documentation in mind, why should you bother with the stuff developers do? With FreeBSd (as I read) you too only get what somebody deliberately puts on a server that is meant to be served as “distro-fodder”.
Linux > FreeBSD > Macos X > Windows.
Whoopie. I have an opinion.
The article is titled “Migrating from Linux to FreeBSD”, it should be titled “I like FreeBSD more than Linux, so there.”
It lacks any technical discussion of the differences in the kernels.
When you’re comparing FreeBSD to “Linux”, the kernel is the only thing you can compare.
You know why that is? Because Linux is a kernel.
Maybe you should have titled your article “I like FreeBSD better than Redhat.”
You may even title your article “I like FreeBSD because the ports system is better than RPM! And FreeBSD lacks drivers for new things, so it must be more stable/better/etc.”
You present no real reasons to switch to FreeBSD.
Wanking on about the differences in distributions making it hard to maintain a network of Linux PCs/Servers/Etc is pretty stupid. You know, if you have Redhat installed on every system, it’s no more difficult to maintain than FreeBSD.
Who the hell installs SuSE RPMs on a Redhat box and expects it to work?!
Oh, and I thought the point of the article was to discuss the merits of FreeBSD as a desktop OS. What about X? Desktop environments? Anything else? How is it any different to a Linux distribution?
I have used both.
I maintain 40 Linux servers 30 Linux workstations and 3 Beowulf clusters.
I’ve tried FreeBSD.
Looking at it from a server point of view:
It’s the same as a good Linux installation.
It feels awkward to me. But someone else may say the same thing about Linux, WHO CARES. It’s up to the individual.
Looking at it from a desktop point of view:
It’s worse because it doesn’t have the drivers that Linux has.
It doesn’t have the desktop user community that Linux has.
Talking about default installations as a major reason to use FreeBSD is beyond stupid.
Looking at it from a server point of view:
Who the fuck clicks ‘I want a server install’ and doesn’t specify individual packages?
Looking at it from a desktop point of view:
Who cares wether XMMS is installed right now, or if you have to cd /usr/ports/x11/xmms ; make ; make install. Whoopie.
or even easier.
rpm -ivh /mnt/cdrom/Redhat/RPMS/xmms-*
Irk, default installs.
Lets look at it from a new user desktop OS point of view.
Ok, so maybe Aunt Telie is installing FreeBSD.
The installation process is already not suited for her.
But she gets daughter, who has a CS degree to install it with the default installation.
But what’s a default FreeBSD installation anyway?
WHICH default?
Base, System, X?
Anyway.
So it’s installed.
She has a nice KDE desktop running.
Suddenly, she wants to play some MP3s, so she wants to install XMMS.
Uhhh … yeah ok.
Under redhat:
It’s either already installed, or,
She pops in the Redhat CD.
GNORPM launches.
Multimedia/Audio
XMMS
Install.
Whoopie do.
Now lets look at it from the server point of view again:
Both systems will achive enormous uptimes.
Both systems have great network stacks, with very good performance.
Both systems are much more reliable than a Windows server installation.
Both systems, when administered by a competent systems admin, will function flawlessly.
Linux 2.2 kernels are extremely stable.
Linux 2.4 kernels are still stabilising, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t have a reliable system with one.
I have a 2.4 system with a 200 day uptime.
It hasn’t missed a beat.
I’m sure a FreeBSD kernel wouldn’t either.
At the end of the day, it comes down to personal preference.
To me, FreeBSD feels awkward, while a Linux system has a nice feel. I don’t really know how to describe that, but there’s something there.
Anyway, the best way to figure out if it’s worth “switching” to FreeBSD, is to try it.
You can even have FreeBSD and Linux living side by side. It’s not hard.
If you shuffle the paragraphs around a bit, this post may make more sense.
i believe the writer of this little article conveniently forgot to mention how well freebsd scales with smp. as i understand it, work is going into it for -current, but a 5.0-release is still quite a while away. in -stable, there is no support for kernel level threading. so anyways, -current is _definately_ not suitable for production level servers. <sarcasm>this writer has definately convinced me that i will be running oracle on freebsd instead of linux because this writer thinks freebsd is _cool_ and _conservative_ and all around better than linux</sarcasm>
First, no, I just skipped you comment. Just a tiny-bit too long for my taste.
Second, someone else a couple hundred lines up stated that Windows is more user friendly than “fill in blank here”. I would agree, that when you first install Windows, it is this way. But I get calls weekly from friends who have problems with the windows box. Usually due to bad software. Which is my point. Nothing will ever be completely user friendly. I have 7 OSs installed over 4 boxes, just because, and I’ll admit it, I’m a geek. We’re all geeks, otherwise we wouldn’t be reading this comments area. But, as long as people write lousy applications, the user experience is going to be bad, and this happens on every os. There are many other reasons that *each” os is user/not-user friendly, but not ONE is completely user-friendly.
My rantings for BSD………since BSD is all about careful innovation and conservatism as you would likely say, I’d like to mention soft updates and ports in BSD. Consider when you have a filesystem that’s almost full or already full, and you don’t even know it… this will catch you sometime.. not to mention how slow soft updates is on IDE drives.. the whole ports/pkgs thing in FreeBSD is sort of ridiculous, if you like spending your day compiling _ALL_ your software and its dependencies, then you may like ports, but from my experience, it has been hell. The dependencies don’t always work out well, and given any port, it’s not guaranteed there is a pre-compiled package that can be used as well. I usually prefer installing pre-compiled binaries because it’s faster and usually, there is no difference in speed if you compile with w/ or w/o optimizations instead
Yeah, I have had similar experiences with ports too. It makes it so difficult sometimes because you can install a port, and it doesn’t often work right away, plus you have to fix problems that the maintainer never thought about. At least in Debian, they have a strict policy that results in properly working packages.
> There are *BSD jerks, BeOS jerks, Linux jerks, Windows
> jerks and every flavour of jerk. Always people are saying
> “All the people in MY camp are friendly, and most of the
> people in the OTHER camp are just trolls and jerks.
> They suck”
Errr … I’m NOT in the BSD camp. I’m NOT in the Linux camp. I just need to go around in geeks place, and I always found *TONS* of Linux jerks. Period. I never said that Linux is not a good OS, or bad, or wathever, because *** I DON’T CARE ***. The only thing I care is that I’m *** TIRED *** of all those stupid acnee teens that use the Linux Hype as their cause for rebellion and frustration.
That’s why I *** HATE *** the Linux community, because of the loud 10% of them. I have no problem with 90% others …
FreeBSD Rocks!! With that said, I would like to know about the author’s statement,
“The ports tree also handles any dependencies that Apache needs to run. It doesn’t matter if I’ve installed something via the ports tree, compiled it manually, on installed it via a binary package. The ports tree can find it as long as it is in your $PATH, and act accordingly”
I have been using FreeBSD since 2.2.2 and this has never happened to me. In fact to use the author’s example of QT, FreeBSD does not care if you have the latest QT in /usr/local/qt, because for 2.x KDE it is looking for moc2(the package QT2).I am afraid of the impending KDE 3 due to the possibility of a moc, moc2, and now possibly a moc3. Wes if you are reading this, please drop the support for KDE1.4X.
*BSD is dying
Great article. Everything was very well said and extremely true.
I been using FreeBSD for a few years, and I feel that FreeBSD deserves more attention then the crappy linux “kernel” and the GPL of evil.
If u really understand open source you cant argue against the fact that GPL is wrong/evil creation.
FreeBSD is the only real PRACTICAL open source OS, thats whats wrong with Linux, it claims to be all “Free” but its not, There have been stories of companies going as far as having no GPL software .. it claims to be “flexible” but its not, nobody touches the source theres no standard way to upgrade running servers over NFS and have down times of a single reboot in other words its trying to keep u from going to far with it, infact its very similar to Microsoft, it keeps you under its control. You dont control it because its evolved around selfish GPL.
> *BSD is dying
Nice try…
“The support i got from #freebsd on OPN was far from good, i got mocked mostly for my lack of knowledge of the BSD system.”
I’m sorry, but had you bothered reading the FAQ http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/support.html#I…
you would have known that “#FreeBSDhelp on EFNet is a channel dedicated to helping FreeBSD users. They are much more sympathetic to questions then #FreeBSD is.”
Next time you decide to try FreeBSD, please read the first few chapters of http://www.freebsd.org/handbook/index.html before you begin.
Good luck with your next FreeBSD-install
I really can’t believe that everyone is forgetting to mention how rock-stable yahoo is. Hell it ran hotmail forever and a day before MS came along and forced hotmail to run on windows (side note: anyone else know they had to throw three times as many computers at it because of that?), yahoo uses it, heck … go to http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html“