Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FreeBSD Quickstart Guide for Linux Users

freebsd.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 45 posts

Re: FreeBSD Quickstart Guide for Linux Users

#21

Post by apotheon »

wazoox wrote: post #14
avar wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It depends, apparently mysql for example poses real problems under FreeBSD under heavy load. 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.

MySQL is not written in a very portable manner. I prefer PostgreSQL for a number of reasons, and the fact that its developers are concerned with portability is one of the more minor reasons.

Re: FreeBSD Quickstart Guide for Linux Users

#22

Post by apotheon »

neovive wrote: post #7
avar wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Very true. At work, our sysadmin prefers Solaris so everything we run here is Solaris-based. I actually prefer Ubuntu Server for my personal projects since I prefer its Apache structure and easier package management. In the end, the results are the same.

I don't see how Ubuntu's benefits over Solaris are relevant to a comparison with FreeBSD.

Re: FreeBSD Quickstart Guide for Linux Users

#23

Post by _cbsz »

eru wrote: post #13
kroger wrote: post #11

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.)

That's why Gentoo's system is called Portage.

Re: FreeBSD Quickstart Guide for Linux Users

#25

Post by xiongchiamiov »

eru wrote: post #13
kroger wrote: post #11

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.)

Or Arch's ABS, to a lesser extent.

Re: FreeBSD Quickstart Guide for Linux Users

#26

Post by xiongchiamiov »

apotheon wrote: post #22
neovive wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very true. At work, our sysadmin prefers Solaris so everything we run here is Solaris-based. I actually prefer Ubuntu Server for my personal projects since I prefer its Apache structure and easier package management. In the end, the results are the same.

I don't see how Ubuntu's benefits over Solaris are relevant to a comparison with FreeBSD.

The GP was stating that choosing Ubuntu over Solaris is merely a matter of preference, just as choosing FreeBSD over Ubuntu is.

Re: FreeBSD Quickstart Guide for Linux Users

#27

Post by xiongchiamiov »

The common commands page[0] lists a few translations for package managers. It would be great if someone could add a FreeBSD column to the much more voluminous Pacman Rosetta page[1] (which is intended for Arch users, but provides a helpful matrix for all the common Linux distros).

[0]: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/linux-users/commands....

[1]: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman_Rosetta

Re: FreeBSD Quickstart Guide for Linux Users

#28

Post by rbranson »

apotheon wrote: post #20
rbranson wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

> All the reasons to prefer FreeBSD (network & VM performance, stability, security, etc) are no longer clear advantages when compared to contemporary Linux. 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 a…

I was a little unclear. My main point is that many of the things that made FreeBSD such a strong leader years ago are no longer weak points in Linux.

I agree with you though otherwise. From a cleanliness, usability, and aesthetics point of view, the state of Linux is pretty sad, especially when compared to FreeBSD. Linux could also learn a little bit about documentation from FreeBSD's excellent handbook.

EDIT: Let me also say that I'd really like to see the OpenSolaris devs jump to the FreeBSD team and help drive FreeBSD further.

Re: FreeBSD Quickstart Guide for Linux Users

#30

Post by Nick_C »

apotheon wrote: post #19
yummyfajitas wrote: post #3

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).

There are a lot of reasons. The ports system has already been mentioned, and some people really like ZFS. More to the point, though, licensing differences ensure that more software (like ZFS) is legally compatible with FreeBSD than with any typical Linux+GNU distribution. 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…

Also, (I haven't run a BSD for several years, but, from memory) one of the biggest philosophical differences is that *BSD runs a monolithic kernel whereas Linux runs a modular kernel. Might not sound like much, but it is very different mindset when it comes to security, user-land and such. Is that still the case?
Post reply on HN