Live data from Hacker News

Technical reasons to choose FreeBSD over GNU/Linux (2020)

unixsheikh.com

191–200 of 376 posts

Re: Technical reasons to choose FreeBSD over GNU/Linux (2020)

#191
post #62

I am using freebsd since version 8 for all my server needs (was using linux, but got repelled by its chaos which I dont care about on my laptop, but it pisses me off on server). Some more points: - bhyve, developed by netapp, they ditched all old technologies support and it works faster on my i5 server than kvm on my i7 laptop. Snapshoting using ZFS is not a feature to discard either. - FIBs, absolute miracle routing…

Honest question here about jails. I like docker because the tooling makes it super easy to get anything running in no time. How is jails tooling? Let’s say I need to get an app running, a database and a redis for the app. Is that as easy as docker compose?

Re: Technical reasons to choose FreeBSD over GNU/Linux (2020)

#192
post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tbf when I talk of using BSD tools, I'm talking about using MacOS tools - I don't have any BSD installations, I just recognize that MacOS includes mostly (?) BSD tools by default. It's not inaccurate, but somewhat unfair to use MacOS tools and call them BSD tools. They are ports of BSD tools, but Apple rarely refreshes them from the original sources, so it's kind of a time capsule to 2000. If you dropped 2000 era L…

IIRC, Apple periodically merges some kernel bits from FreeBSD and user space utilities from NetBSD. (Though I can’t find a source mentioning NetBSD, atm.) I don’t know why Apple would choose NetBSD utilities instead of FreeBSD if they are also using FreeBSD kernel bits. I understand why Apple doesn’t bother to contribute to upstream FreeBSD or NetBSD, but I’m curious why they aren’t eager to merge updates from them m…

> I’m curious why they aren’t eager to merge updates from them more frequently.

I suspect it's because the merge isn't easy to do; which is partially a self-fulfilling property of how infrequent it's done, but likely also has a lot to do with the pretty large differences in system design. A lot of the kernel bits are old as heck too; last I checked, at least the Darwin open source kernel doesn't have any protection against syn floods, which FreeBSD first addressed in kernel 4.5 (released January 29, 2002)

Re: Technical reasons to choose FreeBSD over GNU/Linux (2020)

#193
post #62

I am using freebsd since version 8 for all my server needs (was using linux, but got repelled by its chaos which I dont care about on my laptop, but it pisses me off on server). Some more points: - bhyve, developed by netapp, they ditched all old technologies support and it works faster on my i5 server than kvm on my i7 laptop. Snapshoting using ZFS is not a feature to discard either. - FIBs, absolute miracle routing…

From a technological perspective, everything you say is true, and FreeBSD is better in so many regards. But, compatibility and community support is just a deal breaker. The jails vs docker argument is a good example: while technically better, Docker (or rather, cgroups and image distribution) have been standardised and have tremendous community adoption. FreeBSD cannot tap into any of this at all. Yes, jails might be…

I think one of the biggest mistakes the FreeBSD team made(in terms of more widestream adoption) was abandoning the Linux syscall table layer. It's still there, but it's stuck on 2.6.x last time I looked. It's a lot to maintain, yes, but it would help secure a lot more users like me, who are highly technical, potential contributors, who like a lot of the features(jails, better ZFS integration, easy to set up dtrace support etc), but also like to play around with bleeding edge software that tends to support Linux/OS X first, and maybe BSDs by accident, if you're lucky.

I think keeping this layer in development, maybe having a similar setup to SmartOS, letting you set up "Linux jails" or something like that, would significantly help adoption in the desktop/workstation space. This would of course lead to recruiting more developers, and so on.

Drivers are trickier, but I actually never had driver issues the last time I used FreeBSD as a daily driver(for about 6 months a few years ago, until I ran back to Linux with my tail between my legs).

It would be nice if at some point many decades ago, the Unix world had agreed on a standardised kernel API for modular drivers, so that drivers could more easily be ported between kernels, but it's way too late for that at this point I guess.

And maybe not even technically feasible, but I'm not qualified to comment on that.

Re: Technical reasons to choose FreeBSD over GNU/Linux (2020)

#195
post #20

I have tried learning FreeBSD occasionally, mostly for nostalgia because I learned Unix on BSD 4.3 (or 4.4?) on MicroVaxes many years ago. But I get stuck on some very basic things: - My wifi card doesn't work. The installer recognizes it, but the driver doesn't work. - The console terminal defaults to 80x25, I don't know how to resize it. - I can't figure out how to start X Windows. - If I run it in a VM (e.g. Virtu…

Yet… “On FreeBSD you'll notice right away that you're dealing with a "complete operating system", a system that has been put together very well.” It’s a complete operating system. /s This is why FreeBSD loses in my view. The arrogance of claiming to be a complete system when basic stuff like wifi doesn’t work.

> basic stuff like wifi

Wi-fi is not basic.

Having written a wifi driver, that’s something I’m comfortable stating unequivocally.

The hardware is almost always proprietary and undocumented, and in many cases (looking at you, Broadcom), a poorly-designed shitshow of complex errata, proprietary magic numbers required for initialization, and in general, an absolute dogshit technology stack.

The only reason Linux has working Wi-Fi at all tends to be because it was used to power a lot of cheap consumer access points, and Wi-Fi chipset manufacturers released binary and open-source Linux drivers — generally of horrific quality, but drivers nonetheless.

Re: Technical reasons to choose FreeBSD over GNU/Linux (2020)

#198
post #62

I am using freebsd since version 8 for all my server needs (was using linux, but got repelled by its chaos which I dont care about on my laptop, but it pisses me off on server). Some more points: - bhyve, developed by netapp, they ditched all old technologies support and it works faster on my i5 server than kvm on my i7 laptop. Snapshoting using ZFS is not a feature to discard either. - FIBs, absolute miracle routing…

> in next sub-version, the commands can have completely different switches

That claim seems crazy and doesn't match my experience at all. Please name a widely used program that changed its switches completely in a sub-version.

Re: Technical reasons to choose FreeBSD over GNU/Linux (2020)

#199
post #175
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a long time Linux and BSD user I agree with you. You still have to enable basic things that are not turned on by default - i.e. stack protection. A lot of this is enabled by default on OpenBSD. https://vez.mrsk.me/freebsd-defaults.html

can't believe that openbsd dude is still updating that page. he seems to be obsessed with an os he doesn't use.

I can't believe that either. At most I'd have written an angry blog post and never updated it.

Don't know what keeps him going. A desire to see FreeBSD fix those defaults? Desire for OpenBSD to be recognised as having better defaults for security than FreeBSD? What would that even look like?

Re: Technical reasons to choose FreeBSD over GNU/Linux (2020)

#200
post #20

I have tried learning FreeBSD occasionally, mostly for nostalgia because I learned Unix on BSD 4.3 (or 4.4?) on MicroVaxes many years ago. But I get stuck on some very basic things: - My wifi card doesn't work. The installer recognizes it, but the driver doesn't work. - The console terminal defaults to 80x25, I don't know how to resize it. - I can't figure out how to start X Windows. - If I run it in a VM (e.g. Virtu…

Yet… “On FreeBSD you'll notice right away that you're dealing with a "complete operating system", a system that has been put together very well.” It’s a complete operating system. /s This is why FreeBSD loses in my view. The arrogance of claiming to be a complete system when basic stuff like wifi doesn’t work.

It’s a complete operating system on supported hardware, of course. Even Linux doesn’t work on all random laptop hardware.
Post reply on HN