6 ms·

I tried freebsd. Gone back to ubuntu. In this day and age not having proper dependency resolution for packages is not acceptable. I've more than once had some t

I tried freebsd. Gone back to ubuntu. In this day and age not having proper dependency resolution for packages is not acceptable. I've more than once had some tool based on ports just go into an infinite cycle when asked to upgrade some packages. The philosophy laid out in this article seems more like rationalization of historical accidents more than anything else. Linux file system layout is just as predictable as anything else. Configuration goes in /etc, PID files and other such things go in /var, things local to the users go in /usr/local, cron related things go in /etc/cron.d, and so on and so forth. FreeBSD file system layout on the other hand makes no sense to me and the rc system is even more bizarre. Do I really need to specify "XYZ_start=YES" when upstart, systemd, and others have this stuff all sorted out already. Well not systemd so much but close enough. Overall the BSDs are too low level for development and play purposes. For deploying proxies, caches, NATs, and other such single purpose things I'm sure they're great but anything else not so much.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
It's really not just a rationalization. BSDs control the kernel and the userland, meaning that file system layout is coherent. Check any Ubuntu installation and packages are all over the place. This is perhaps unavoidable. Also, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD, and FreeBSD can all be used as server or desktops without much fiddling. Their installers are better than anything in the Linux world. You can have one up and running with a nice wm, browser, etc, in 15 minutes. They are more finnicky about hardware, but when you can buy a laptop for $200, that's not so much an issue.
- dkarapetyan 10y ago
  I don't think the layout is coherent at all. Ubuntu layout is much more coherent. If I need nginx configuration I look in /etc/nginx. Following the same pattern if I need mysql configuration I look in /etc/mysql. If I need to figure out the actual daemon configuration for each I look in /etc/init. It's all very nice and tidy. Actual binaries go in /usr/local/bin or /usr/bin or /bin. That's pretty much all I need to know for any binary or daemon. This is not true in FreeBSD. So where exactly is the incoherence?
  - JdeBP 10y ago
    > If I need to figure out the actual daemon configuration for each I look in /etc/init. ... except that that was Ubuntu two major versions and some time ago, back when it used upstart. Nowadays, Ubuntu Linux is a systemd operating system. * https://freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/file-hierarchy.html https://freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/file-hierarchy....
  - merlincorey 10y ago
    It isn't actually as nice and tidy as it would seem because you do not have a direct separation between system configuration and application configuration. It's a small, subtle detail that for many is less important today than it once was; however, if I have two FreeBSD systems of mostly equal versions and I want to migrate applications and/or users from one to the other, I know ALL I have to do is copy from /usr/local -- try that on your Ubuntu machine. Good luck separating the system-specific configurations from your user and application configurations.
    - dkarapetyan 10y ago
      I don't want that separation in a consistent and coherent system. User vs base is artificial. What I care about is the end result the overall system accomplishes and base vs non-base doesn't really factor into that. What does it matter to me if nginx is part of the base system or not? I need a web server. Arbitrarily choosing apache/httpd vs nginx to include as part of the base system is incidental complexity where I stand from.
      - JdeBP 10y ago
        Florian Haas apparently disagrees. * https://hastexo.com/blogs/florian/2016/02/21/containers-just-because-everyone-else/ https://hastexo.com/blogs/florian/2016/02/21/containers-just... * https://plus.google.com/+FlorianHaas/posts/4xjQP1q6DEN https://plus.google.com/+FlorianHaas/posts/4xjQP1q6DEN
      - teacup50 10y ago
        > User vs base is artificial. No. It's not. If nginx releases an update, do you also need to update your OS? No, because the user dependency graph isn't shared with the base OS. If you update your OS, do you also need to update nginx? No, because there's backwards ABI compatibility. The split is not artificial.
- merlincorey 10y ago
  +1 on the BSD installers being some of the best out there. OpenBSD's and FreeBSD's specifically are amazing, both for different reasons. OpenBSD's is very minimal simple ASCII input and output questions with sane defaults. FreeBSD offers a console dialog based approach similar in some ways to Debian's installer, but in other ways different (and to my mind, better). Both of them will get you efficiently setup from nothing to installed within minutes, and since they are very simple and well documented, both of them are easily scriptable for installing servers or laptops quickly with a specific setup or your own prompts. By contrast, linux installers are generally larger, slower, clunkier processes and I am not sure how easy it would be to integrate any random distribution's installer into a scripted workflow.
- 746F7475 10y ago
  Whenever I hear "BSD" I always think: "if you want to use BSD you have to build a machine for it". This isn't really based on any real world experience, but whenever BSD comes up as a topic only thing that sticks with me is: "it only likes very specific hardware" which makes me very hesitant to ever consider trying it. I've had so many hardware incompatibility problems with Ubuntu, which is suppose to support almost everything, I don't even wanna think about trying to run BSD.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    Hardware can actually be a mixed bag between BSD and Linux. In my experience (which is several years dated by now), BSDs seemed to do better with various less popular WiFi chipsets.
    - 746F7475 10y ago
      I remember having trouble with wifi chipsets ~5-6 years ago when smaller netbooks started to hit the scene. I had one of thous, like 8" laptops with brand new ARM chip and 4 hour battery life, for it getting wifi working was hard, but after that I haven't had much trouble with wifi, but maybe I've just been lucky.
  - krylon 10y ago
    It's strange, I have heard lots of people complain who wanted to give Linux a try (over Windows) and ran into hardware issues. On the other hand, over the last ~15 years, I have almost never checked if a piece of hardware is supported by Linux (or BSD) before buying it, and I have only run into problems twice, really. One was an Aureal Vortex sound card for which a driver was maintained outside the Linux kernel tree, so I had to download it and build the module manually; the other was a really crappy HP scanner. Ironically, these days it does work on Linux much better (meaning: at all) than on Windows. (One key factor, though, seems to be not using brand-new hardware. After a year or so, chances are much* better it is supported properly.) Apart from that, I have had no problems at all. Maybe I was just really lucky.
    - 10y ago
- idobai 10y ago
  > Also, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD, and FreeBSD can all be used as server or desktops without much fiddling. Their installers are better than anything in the Linux world. You can have one up and running with a nice wm, browser, etc, in 15 minutes. When I wanted to try FreeBSD the installation failed multiple times and after the first success I couldn't install a DE for hours. I've also had problems with the package manager because I couldn't install anything before doing something with some configuration files. OpenBSD is the same category but at least it doesn't failed at installation as much.
knorker 10y ago
> In this day and age not having proper dependency resolution for packages is not acceptable. It still doesn't? Haha! I remember ranting about this 10 years ago, with a friend who went to a conference in France… that was dedicated to package management in BSDs. I asked him how I "just upgrade all the packages" (apt-get upgrade). I'd found two-three ways, but couldn't get them to work. He said that yeah there are three ways. They don't work. I thought surely they'd fixed it by now.
- tobik 10y ago
  > I thought surely they'd fixed it by now. They did. pkg has gotten a lot better the past 3 years.
- rleigh 10y ago
  pkg update; pkg upgrade No different from apt on a Debian system. It's come on leaps and bounds since the initial 10.0 release.
- milcron 10y ago
  On OpenBSD, just do `pkg_add -Uu`.
  - knorker 10y ago
    That's packages only, and with ports you're on your own, right?
    - milcron 10y ago
      OpenBSD devs recommend using binary packages, even for the ports tree. Even if you compile from source, it generates a binary package then installs it.
unethical_ban 10y ago
FreeBSD has the "pkg" system now, which has binary distribution with dependency management. Of all things, the lack of a distinction in Fedora/RHEL of "requires vs. recommends" is frustrating, coming from Ubuntu.

aaron-lebo 10y ago

It's really not just a rationalization. BSDs control the kernel and the userland, meaning that file system layout is coherent. Check any Ubuntu installation and packages are all over the place. This is perhaps unavoidable. Also, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD, and FreeBSD can all be used as server or desktops without much fiddling. Their installers are better than anything in the Linux world. You can have one up and running with a nice wm, browser, etc, in 15 minutes. They are more finnicky about hardware, but when you can buy a laptop for $200, that's not so much an issue.

dkarapetyan 10y ago
I don't think the layout is coherent at all. Ubuntu layout is much more coherent. If I need nginx configuration I look in /etc/nginx. Following the same pattern if I need mysql configuration I look in /etc/mysql. If I need to figure out the actual daemon configuration for each I look in /etc/init. It's all very nice and tidy. Actual binaries go in /usr/local/bin or /usr/bin or /bin. That's pretty much all I need to know for any binary or daemon. This is not true in FreeBSD. So where exactly is the incoherence?
- JdeBP 10y ago
  > If I need to figure out the actual daemon configuration for each I look in /etc/init. ... except that that was Ubuntu two major versions and some time ago, back when it used upstart. Nowadays, Ubuntu Linux is a systemd operating system. * https://freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/file-hierarchy.html https://freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/file-hierarchy....
- merlincorey 10y ago
  It isn't actually as nice and tidy as it would seem because you do not have a direct separation between system configuration and application configuration. It's a small, subtle detail that for many is less important today than it once was; however, if I have two FreeBSD systems of mostly equal versions and I want to migrate applications and/or users from one to the other, I know ALL I have to do is copy from /usr/local -- try that on your Ubuntu machine. Good luck separating the system-specific configurations from your user and application configurations.
  - dkarapetyan 10y ago
    I don't want that separation in a consistent and coherent system. User vs base is artificial. What I care about is the end result the overall system accomplishes and base vs non-base doesn't really factor into that. What does it matter to me if nginx is part of the base system or not? I need a web server. Arbitrarily choosing apache/httpd vs nginx to include as part of the base system is incidental complexity where I stand from.
    - JdeBP 10y ago
      Florian Haas apparently disagrees. * https://hastexo.com/blogs/florian/2016/02/21/containers-just-because-everyone-else/ https://hastexo.com/blogs/florian/2016/02/21/containers-just... * https://plus.google.com/+FlorianHaas/posts/4xjQP1q6DEN https://plus.google.com/+FlorianHaas/posts/4xjQP1q6DEN
    - teacup50 10y ago
      > User vs base is artificial. No. It's not. If nginx releases an update, do you also need to update your OS? No, because the user dependency graph isn't shared with the base OS. If you update your OS, do you also need to update nginx? No, because there's backwards ABI compatibility. The split is not artificial.
merlincorey 10y ago
+1 on the BSD installers being some of the best out there. OpenBSD's and FreeBSD's specifically are amazing, both for different reasons. OpenBSD's is very minimal simple ASCII input and output questions with sane defaults. FreeBSD offers a console dialog based approach similar in some ways to Debian's installer, but in other ways different (and to my mind, better). Both of them will get you efficiently setup from nothing to installed within minutes, and since they are very simple and well documented, both of them are easily scriptable for installing servers or laptops quickly with a specific setup or your own prompts. By contrast, linux installers are generally larger, slower, clunkier processes and I am not sure how easy it would be to integrate any random distribution's installer into a scripted workflow.
746F7475 10y ago
Whenever I hear "BSD" I always think: "if you want to use BSD you have to build a machine for it". This isn't really based on any real world experience, but whenever BSD comes up as a topic only thing that sticks with me is: "it only likes very specific hardware" which makes me very hesitant to ever consider trying it. I've had so many hardware incompatibility problems with Ubuntu, which is suppose to support almost everything, I don't even wanna think about trying to run BSD.
- int_19h 10y ago
  Hardware can actually be a mixed bag between BSD and Linux. In my experience (which is several years dated by now), BSDs seemed to do better with various less popular WiFi chipsets.
  - 746F7475 10y ago
    I remember having trouble with wifi chipsets ~5-6 years ago when smaller netbooks started to hit the scene. I had one of thous, like 8" laptops with brand new ARM chip and 4 hour battery life, for it getting wifi working was hard, but after that I haven't had much trouble with wifi, but maybe I've just been lucky.
- krylon 10y ago
  It's strange, I have heard lots of people complain who wanted to give Linux a try (over Windows) and ran into hardware issues. On the other hand, over the last ~15 years, I have almost never checked if a piece of hardware is supported by Linux (or BSD) before buying it, and I have only run into problems twice, really. One was an Aureal Vortex sound card for which a driver was maintained outside the Linux kernel tree, so I had to download it and build the module manually; the other was a really crappy HP scanner. Ironically, these days it does work on Linux much better (meaning: at all) than on Windows. (One key factor, though, seems to be not using brand-new hardware. After a year or so, chances are much* better it is supported properly.) Apart from that, I have had no problems at all. Maybe I was just really lucky.
  - 10y ago
idobai 10y ago
> Also, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD, and FreeBSD can all be used as server or desktops without much fiddling. Their installers are better than anything in the Linux world. You can have one up and running with a nice wm, browser, etc, in 15 minutes. When I wanted to try FreeBSD the installation failed multiple times and after the first success I couldn't install a DE for hours. I've also had problems with the package manager because I couldn't install anything before doing something with some configuration files. OpenBSD is the same category but at least it doesn't failed at installation as much.

knorker 10y ago

> In this day and age not having proper dependency resolution for packages is not acceptable. It still doesn't? Haha! I remember ranting about this 10 years ago, with a friend who went to a conference in France… that was dedicated to package management in BSDs. I asked him how I "just upgrade all the packages" (apt-get upgrade). I'd found two-three ways, but couldn't get them to work. He said that yeah there are three ways. They don't work. I thought surely they'd fixed it by now.

tobik 10y ago
> I thought surely they'd fixed it by now. They did. pkg has gotten a lot better the past 3 years.
rleigh 10y ago
pkg update; pkg upgrade No different from apt on a Debian system. It's come on leaps and bounds since the initial 10.0 release.
milcron 10y ago
On OpenBSD, just do `pkg_add -Uu`.
- knorker 10y ago
  That's packages only, and with ports you're on your own, right?
  - milcron 10y ago
    OpenBSD devs recommend using binary packages, even for the ports tree. Even if you compile from source, it generates a binary package then installs it.

unethical_ban 10y ago

FreeBSD has the "pkg" system now, which has binary distribution with dependency management. Of all things, the lack of a distinction in Fedora/RHEL of "requires vs. recommends" is frustrating, coming from Ubuntu.