Why FreeBSD 644
An anonymous reader writes "The FreeBSD operating system is the unknown giant among free operating systems. Starting out from the 386BSD project, it is an extremely fast UNIX-like operating system mostly for the Intel chip and its clones. In many ways, FreeBSD has always been the operating system that GNU/Linux-based operating systems should have been. It runs on out-of-date Intel machines and 64-bit AMD chips, and it serves terabytes of files a day on some of the largest file servers on earth."
Linux And The BSDs (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's my choice (Score:5, Informative)
FreeBSD is nice and clean (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Flaimbait (Score:4, Informative)
It's only true flame bait when you don't quote the whole thing.
In many ways, FreeBSD has always been the operating system that GNU/Linux®-based operating systems should have been
The key phrase is "In many ways". It's not a definite and there are many who would agree with that statement.
Re:I know, I know... (Score:4, Informative)
FreeBSD Hard to Install No More! (Re:News?) (Score:4, Informative)
I think those days are over...
The PC-BSD [pcbsd.org] project makes it a snap to install a functioning FreeBSD system. DistroWatch [distrowatch.com] mentions a very nice step-by-step guide [michael-and-mary.net] to installation process but really, you don't even need that if you are already handy at installing various GNU/Linux distros. (Although the guide does go into some custom configuration things that are useful/interesting.)
The torrent for PC-BSD [pcbsd.org] is ready to roll, give it a try. Now there are no more excuses ;-)
FreeBSD vs. Linux ideologies (Score:0, Informative)
FreeBSD's motto has always been rock solid stability, robustness and serving capability.
Thus, for the ones who mentioned their discomfort in installing FreeBSD for workstation - hey it's just another market demand driven issue; when there's enough pressure, the things will start getting cleaner.
For robustness one just can't beat FreeBSD, despite Linux's latest achievements. Remember the time when Linux had almost screwed itsef out of the server platform due to the incredible VM issues plaguing it's early 2.4.X series? Well, even today the VM is still not as stable as it should be. FreeBSD has the best VM out there, and it can take any types of loads.
Linux tends to be "quite fast" when people throw small tiny workloads at it like a few disk requests, or a few HTTP requests to a webserver, say Apache. If you throw any reasonable amount of workload, you gotta sit down and tune it. I mean literally re-write the code, coz it's not going to be able to handle thousands and thousands of requests. So it ends up being a very fast, low latency platform for a lot of non-serious non-server oriented uses. But it quickly looses the latency advantage when any serious load is thrown at it. I have had to re-write sizeable portions of the Linux kernel to make it handle better loads.
OTOH, FreeBSD seems to be slower and more sluggish when one throws non-server type one-off requests at it; however this latency can be multipled over thousands of requests. If you throw one request at FreeBSD or you throw thousands of thousands of requests, the latency is nearly the same - that is the DEFINITION of robustness.
I remember when I had installed FreeBSD 4.2 a few years ago, and the httpd could handle only about 1000 simultaneous requests. I just had to change a few kernel sysctls, and it smoothly managed to increase that to about 100000 simultaneous requests; all chuggnig along at the same latency. That is what I want in a server platform.
I have never seen that kind of capability in Linux. When it comes to internet serving, one can still not beat FreeBSD.
Of late it's been plagued a bit by the big change in architecture for SMP scalability in the 5.X series; and it always seems to have an issue with driver availability - but that is just due to the fact that it is a small enthusiast community compared to Linux. Hence the lesser number of hands working on it.
Linux does have some advantages though, and their driver availabilty is very very good. It addresses almost every bit of desktop hardware money can buy, and is the only one that can compete with microsoft in the driver availability market.
Good luck to both!
The real difference... (Score:3, Informative)
*BSD is a stable, secure OS with a proprietary-friendly, open source license. Linux is a stable, secure OS with a proprietary-hostile, open source license.
90% of the actual software that runs on the two is exactly the same. However, each has its own kernel and basic libraries.
Re:Antiquated Filesystems (Score:1, Informative)
FreeBSD doesn't have journalling filesystems, but it has filesystems that can do "softupdates". Hence no need to do journalling. The data structures in-core and on disk are kept consistent so no corruption can occur, and hence no need to fsck even when you reboot.
And FYI, most of the Linux journalling filesystems are now trying to adopt softupdate type features for their filesystem data (not metadata) for data ordering concepts.
Regards,
Rock
Mach is the "guts" of Mac OS X. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Is release 5 stable yet? (Score:3, Informative)
BSD code can't be "closed" (Score:3, Informative)
This is the major deceptive argument made by some GPL fans. Software licensed under BSD remains free forever and ever. The fact that people are allowed to modify it without distributing the modifications in no way makes the orginal code "closed".
We can debate the merits of GPL vs. BSD, but let's keep it honest.
Re:What about updates? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:FreeBSD is free'er, MacOS X better for users (Score:3, Informative)
Because you ummm... NEVER OWNED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE? You don't own the GPL software. Just because the combined work contains some of your work too, doesn't mean you get to own the whole kaboodle. You can do whatever you want with your diffs. Just don't pretend that you have any right whatsoever to distribute your work with my work except on the terms I allow.
A stupid license shouldn't remove their ownership and control over what they create.
Funny, the BSD license is the best way to lose control over what you create. Someone like Microsoft can take all your "hard work", modify it slightly and sell it back to you. A big part of what OS X is worth is what BSD is worth. But the BSD developers all have to pay full price to use their own work. Granted, not the best of examples since Apple has contributed a lot, but you get the general idea.
Kjella
Lets see the rest : (Score:4, Informative)
Note that only the CD layout is copyrighted, OpenBSD itself is free. Nothing precludes someone else from downloading OpenBSD and making their own CD. If for some reason you want to download a CD image, try searching the mailing list archives for possible sources. Of course, any OpenBSD ISO images available on the Internet either violate Theo de Raadt's copyright or are not official images. The source of an unofficial image may or may not be trustworthy; it is up to you to determine this for yourself.
We suggest that people who want to download OpenBSD for free use the FTP install option. For those that need a bootable CD for their system, bootdisk ISO images (named cd36.iso) are available for a number of platforms which will then permit the rest of the system to be installed via FTP. These ISO images are only a few megabytes in size, and contain just the installation tools, not the actual file sets."
So they do not provide isos for free, they prefer to have you buy a set of boxed cds to fund their effots. Yeah, I can see it... Bad, evil people trying to make some sort of money for a project.
They then say you can download from unofficial sources as you will. Gosh. They must be mad as well as evil...
They even propose to build a full system from an ftp using just a floppy or a cdrom . My head start spinning. This people REFUSE to give you an iso, but helps you 3 ways to get their sofware.(3.4 - Downloading via FTP, HTTP or AFS...)
So, I agree, BSD is made by Bad, Evil, Mind Spinning people that actually help you get their software. In multiple forms... but they won't provide you poor soul with an ISO, you'll have to use your bleeding fingers into 20 seconds of googling to get it...
Madmen, all...
in many ways...notably excepting portability (Score:3, Informative)
And if you want a portable BSD, don't overlook NetBSD [netbsd.org], arguably the most portable and ported modern high-performance operating system in existence.
Re:Linux And The BSDs (Score:2, Informative)
You're probably right that they don't scale as well on the really large systems, but that seems to mostly be due to lack of developer and corporate support. This is unfortunate, because honestly, the BSDs rock.
Re:I D I O T S (Score:1, Informative)
No, it isn't.
They both use G N U tools to do the majority of their user related tasks.
No, it doesn't.
Re:FreeBSD is so unknown to Taco (Score:2, Informative)
Clearly the GPL's not that big a problem for businesses...otherwise they wouldn't use it. They might not like to, but in the end it's worth it...and really the LGPL is no more restrictive to their business model than the BSD license.
Re:Uh Oh. (Score:4, Informative)
Systems like SuSE do come with a full set of graphical adminstration tools; it isn't necessary to go to the command line to administer them, ever.
And something like Webmin runs on any UNIX system and gives you a far more comprehensive and consistent administration interface to a larger set of subsystems than Windows tools.
Of course, many end-users find command line administration actually easier.
Re:Uh Oh. (Score:3, Informative)
FreeBSD has taken some huge steps toward a more user/newbie friendly experience in recent times. I'm posting this from my significant others' PC, which is running PC-BSD, based on 5.4 RELEASE.
The funny thing is, she prefered PC-BSD over any of the linux flavors I've had her try (including Mandriva/Mandrake, Debian, Mepis, Knoppix, etc.) and even over windows.
She tells me she likes PC-BSD because it "feels" more stable and predictable to her, and after doing a windows install last nite (for games and the occasional MSOffice/OO.org compatibility/formatting hiccups), I gotta say the PC-BSD install (the installer is a nice graphical installer, with nearly everything being fine if one just accepts the defaults) is much faster with far less pickiness, and of course, only one reboot..at the end, into the new fully-installed and functioning system.
Windows failed to detect or set up the very vanilla Linksys NIC, and required significant (for a newbie) setup after the install to get a working internet connection. PC-BSD "just worked" in regards to the NIC, and most everything else, including sound.
PC-BSD also has a package system for software management, using ".pbi" pre-built packages as well as the FreeBSD "ports" system. The ".pbi" packages available are somewhat limited still, but does include some standouts, such as the java installer, which automates the java installation, which has been an issue for me with the various FreeBSD desktops I've tried.
OO.org 2.0 beta is also included, running in KDE 3.4.0. Guess I've rambled enough, just wanted to get the word out on PC-BSD for the FreeBSD-squeamish. You can check it out for yourself at http://www.pcbsd.org/ [pcbsd.org]
Strat
Gentoo (Score:5, Informative)
Both are decent operating systems.
Re:Yes I read TFA, but (Score:3, Informative)
If you are not poking around at the kernel level, the next difference is the init system. OpenBSD uses a pure BSD init system, which is nice and simple. FreeBSD and NetBSD use rcNG, which allows individual init scripts to specify services they provide and services they depend on, allowing a more parallel init process. GNU systems usually use the abomination known as System 5 init. Just to confuse matters, OS X now uses Launchd and Solaris uses SMF, both of which are more flexible at the expense of being more complicated.
Finally, you get the ports system. These are basically BSD Makefiles that define how to apply BSD-specific patches to code and install it. They are integrated with a package system which installs compiled versions. On NetBSD and OpenBSD, installing from binary is standard (on OpenBSD, building the port first builds the package and then installs it, not sure about NetBSD), while on FreeBSD building the package installs the port, builds the package and then uninstalls the port. All of these systems do automatic dependency resolution and fetching.
I generally find BSD systems to be cleaner and less full of cruft than GNU systems, and to have a better security model (check out the reasons why GNU su doesn't restrict use to members of the wheel group some time). Generally, it's a matter of personal taste. If you can't tell the difference then just stick with whatever you are most familiar with.
Re:Linux kernel vs FreeBSD kernel (Score:3, Informative)
Re:freeBSD rules (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Kernel performance (Score:4, Informative)
Personally, I'd say that 5.3 was the first of the 5.x branch that was actually production-ready, and 5.4 is even better. However, the 5.x branch is still a bit of a disappointment compared to 4.x, which was an absolute gem in terms of stability and scalability. Thankfully, it looks like 6.x is shaping up nicely and a great effort is being made to avoid making the mistakes that were made in the 5.x branch (namely cramming in too many big new features without sufficient testing).
For my money (or lack thereof, teehee), if the FreeBSD kernel performs about as well as the Linux 2.6 kernel, then I'd choose FreeBSD hands down, merely because I prefer the FreeBSD Way. It's the oldest argument in the FreeBSD vs. Linux game: I like the consistency, the elegance, the ease of keeping third-party software updated via the ports system, and the knowledge that the project is in the hands of good, intelligent, trustworthy people. I don't mind Linux at all; in fact, I really like Gentoo. But it doesn't give me the same warm fuzzy feeling of stability, security, and elegance that FreeBSD does.
Re:FreeBSD (Score:1, Informative)
I prefer *BSD to Linux, but...
No BSD works correctly with my D-Link DMF-560TXD. Every version of Linux I've tried works perfectly with it. Both the modem and the ethernet ports work and I can use them both simultaneously. This keeps me from using *BSD on my laptop, because for me a laptop without network access, is a useless doorstop.
No BSD supports plugging/unplugging USB devices as easily as Linux, and none of them seem to be friendly with hot-plugging usb devices. This means that unless I want to reboot my desktop EVERY time I want to get pictures off my digital camera, I have to run Linux on my desktop. With Linux, I plug in the camera, turn it on, and the OS sees it and sets it up.
There are other issues similar to these, but I think these make my point fairly well. Yes they boil down to hardware compatibility and support issues, however they ARE things that Linux does better than the BSD's.
Do I prefer to run FreeBSD for a server? Yes. I'm quite happy that I can use a P-II (celeron) 350 with 64 meg of ram for a firewall/nat box, run web/email/ftp on it, run two mucks and a mud on it, and still have useable shell accounts on it.
However... on hardware compatibility and support, multimedia support, and general suitability for use as a Desktop OS? Linux is superior.
I have no problem with this... I simply tend to suggest people consider *BSD for use on servers and Linux for use on the Desktop/Laptop.
Re:Better question: (Score:1, Informative)
* NetBSD [netbsd.org] is designed with portability in mind. It runs on 17 different CPU families and over 60 different machine architectures. I've a feeling that the embedded systems folks love this OS. Because of the multiplatform focus it does lag somewhat in single-platform features.
* FreeBSD [freebsd.org] is the "mainstream" BSD distribution. It supports a range of modern x86-32 and x86-64 hardware with multiprocessor support (and has ports to some other supported CPUs [freebsd.org] where things like multiprocessor may not work), and enjoys features like a Linux compatibility layer (so you can run Linux x86 binaries, including 3D accelerated games like Unreal Tournament 2004). For it's users, the FreeBSD Ports Tree [freebsd.org] is the greatest software repository and distribution method in the know universe (eg: "cd
* OSX [apple.com] is Apple's custom version of FreeBSD that only runs on Macs. The focus here is a friendly, hugable user interface slapped over the Unixy FreeBSD core. The concept is a bit like Microsoft Bob [toastytech.com] but without making you want to kill yourself quite so badly, the implementation is not terrible. I would say more, but I'm tired of people saying how "great" OSX is then pointing to the shiny UI. A shiny UI does not a great OS make, although it certainly is no worse or better than Windows XP when it comes to running applications (provided applications are available for it).
If you're not sure which one to try, install FreeBSD with the Gnome desktop. It has the potential to be an interesting afternoon's learning experience and there is a lot of documentation [freebsd.org] to guide you if something goes wrong. Get FreeBSD from the official site [freebsd.org] or via BitTorrent [linuxisotorrent.com] (and always check the MD5's from the official site after downloading).
I really like FreeBSD - however, I'm now officially tired of messing with my computer for the sake of messing with my computer. Linux and FreeBSD have both worn out their welcome in favor of Windows XP with it's autoupdate feature. Hey, Windows XP runs Firefox AND all my games.