11–20 of 45 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One big reason should be ZFS. And the ports. I love ports.
How do BSD ports differ from apt/yum?
I'm a fulltime developer, so the less time I spend sysadmining on this system, the better it is for me. Upgrading packages, the kernel and even the jails is a quick job and can be set up to happen automatically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do BSD ports differ from apt/yum?
With BSD ports you compile the packages. The advantage is that you can select the compilation flags and choose dependencies and options. For instance, want to build emacs without X support? Just run WITHOUT_X11=yes make install clean. With apt you typically have packages like emacs-nox for special cases.
Considering the high-quality and availability of Linux distributions these days, what are some of the advantages of using FreeBSD over Linux? More specifically, are there any competitive advantages that could be obtained from using FreeBSD over Linux that would outweigh the costs of deviating from the Linux standard on web servers?
If you have to ask that question and you're running web servers the BSD's are probably not right for you. OS choice mainly comes down to preferences, some people like the way the BSD's do things, and some don't. There are some features that Linux has that the BSD's don't and vica-versa (like ZFS support on FreeBSD). But it's probably not going to matter on a web server.
edit : to make it clear, Perlmonks.org for instance have performance problems because their host (which is also mine, BTW), pair.com, hosts the (heavy) mysql database backing the site under FreeBSD.
Considering the high-quality and availability of Linux distributions these days, what are some of the advantages of using FreeBSD over Linux? More specifically, are there any competitive advantages that could be obtained from using FreeBSD over Linux that would outweigh the costs of deviating from the Linux standard on web servers?
At least for servers, FreeBSD is more polished than mainstream Linux (RedHat, Debian, and ancestors), if you ask me. The ports system keeps far more up to date than the typical Linux packaging system and the releases seem to be on a somewhat sane schedule. Of course, Linux is sort of this amalgamation of the kernel and whatever distribution you choose, so the ecosystem is fragmented and lacks the centralized command-…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With BSD ports you compile the packages. The advantage is that you can select the compilation flags and choose dependencies and options. For instance, want to build emacs without X support? Just run WITHOUT_X11=yes make install clean. With apt you typically have packages like emacs-nox for special cases.
Sounds like Gentoo's system to me. (And, of course, my BSD-loving friends hold Gentoo to be the most bearable Linux.)
Heh, You know Linux has been getting soft and Gooey around the edges when there are Unix manuals for Linux users :-) When I went from Slackware to FreeBSD in 1998, the only document you needed was INSTALL and the hardware compatibility list. In fact, FreeBSD was more posh than slack, it had a curses install and came with a luxurious handbook. Speaking of which, I absolutely don't miss the days of taking a list of sup…
This isn't Windows. This isn't MacOS. Each PC Unix variant offers you precisely as much choice as far as your UI goes.
Great guide. It tells me how. Is there a similar document that tells me why? The main thing I can think of is kqueue, but I'd love to see a list of all the features BSD gives me but linux doesn't (and vice versa).
It has also been mentioned that FreeBSD is "a sysadmin's dream". A big part of the reason for this is its userland. The truth of the matter is that BSD tools are often much more consistent and less overly complex, and have better thought out basic functionality and interfaces, than GNU tools.
BSD Unix systems also resist the influence of the GNU project where many Linux distributions do not. For instance, in some distributions you will find far too many pieces of software that have nothing for man pages except a reference to how the real information is in a GNU Info page. The GNU project very much as a "not invented here" problem, where it not only wants to replace everything in the world -- even when it's "free software" -- with something weird and less usable that bears the GNU stamp on it. Meanwhile, the various BSD Unix systems insist on standardized tools and documentation that is easy to use, like man pages instead of Info pages.
Speaking of documentation, that's another good reason to use FreeBSD (or OpenBSD, for that matter). The big BSD Unix systems are among the best-documented OSes I have ever seen, and I have seen quite a few operating systems. Consider the completeness and helpfulness of the FreeBSD Handbook, which is actually one of the best pieces of documentation on the Web even for many Linux distributions, but is even more helpful for FreeBSD (of course).
Also . . . this is not comprehensive, but it might serve as a nice introduction to the whys and wherefores:
http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4lin...
I wrote a comparison as well, once, but I seem to have misplaced it.
Considering the high-quality and availability of Linux distributions these days, what are some of the advantages of using FreeBSD over Linux? More specifically, are there any competitive advantages that could be obtained from using FreeBSD over Linux that would outweigh the costs of deviating from the Linux standard on web servers?
At least for servers, FreeBSD is more polished than mainstream Linux (RedHat, Debian, and ancestors), if you ask me. The ports system keeps far more up to date than the typical Linux packaging system and the releases seem to be on a somewhat sane schedule. Of course, Linux is sort of this amalgamation of the kernel and whatever distribution you choose, so the ecosystem is fragmented and lacks the centralized command-…
Really? Why don't you think stability and security are important? What about consistency of interface between tools in a single system, and adherence to expectations of standard tools that make sense to the user (e.g., man pages instead of GNU Info pages, which are slowly creeping into Linux-based systems everywhere I look)?
I'm afraid I have to disagree with this estimation. In fact, the more time that passes, and the more the biggest Linux distributions are those that pander to people with expectations grown in the MS Windows ecosystem, the more the benefits of FreeBSD over Linux distributions grow. I suppose your mileage may vary, though.
> Also, the Gentoo crowd seems to be similar, at least in spirit, to the FreeBSD folks. While they don't have the same deep integration of kernel & environment, they do have the same values when it comes to clean aesthetics and keeping up-to-date with packaged software.
. . . but not when it comes to stability, from what I have seen.