4 ms·

Can anyone tell me the benefits of freebsd over popular Linux server distros (Ubuntu/centos/rhel)?

by pavs 17y ago

borism 17y ago
not being "popular linux distro" can be a benefit perhaps? otherwise, I don't see what difference does it make what kernel you're running. matter of taste
- kree10 17y ago
  For me, it's not really about the kernel but the whole OS, userland included. I agree it's still mostly matter of taste, or maybe more honestly, what you're used to. Some people really like apt-get/dpkg but I prefer working with "make buildworld/installworld" and the ports system on FreeBSD. Also, though it's not something I've taken advantage of much, I love how on FreeBSD I can "cd /usr/src/bin/ls" and hey: there's the source for ls! If I wanted to, I could hack it, and run "make install" right there. I prefer this over (for example) source packages with Doogie's Build System on Debian.
  - borism 17y ago
    recompiling your programs on every machine is such a waste of cloud
dalore 17y ago
Licensing. The BSD license is less restrictive than the GPL.
- pavs 17y ago
  Can you give a non-hypothetical real-life scenario where Freebsd with BSD license helps over GPL license based linux-distro when running a server? I am genuinely curious.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    Not a physical benefit but I suppose it could be argued you're showing support for bsd style licenses. That seems trivial but possible.
  - kvs 17y ago
    Most of the time it's that question that bothers you more when you're using something GPL. If I do X should I release the code or not? BSD eliminates that nagging question from the back of your mind.
  - adamt 17y ago
    Real life situation. You are producing a network appliance of some kind doing high throughput stuff and you have implemented some bits in the kernel. On Linux (GPL) your code is all covered by GPL so your competitors can copy and use it. On FreeBSD you can keep your technology proprietary and away from your conpetitors. This is why FreeBSD is so widely used by network appliances.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
kvs 17y ago
When your team sort of grew up with FreeBSD (or any other OS) you want to lean that way. Also, when you're shipping an appliance you don't have to think about licenses. Those are the two reasons we stick with FreeBSD.
- pavs 17y ago
  Thanks. That makes sense. I am not familiar with limitations of GPL license over BSD license. What limitation does GPL license have that you don't have to worry about with BSD when deploying your app on a Linux server? Edit: Answered elsewhere. Thanks.
- jcsalterego 17y ago
  Prime example: NetApp uses (and contributes back to) FreeBSD. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/06/prweb1042664.htm http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/06/prweb1042664.htm (minor mention)

Can anyone tell me the benefits of freebsd over popular Linux server distros (Ubuntu/centos/rhel)?

by pavs 17y ago

Can anyone tell me the benefits of freebsd over popular Linux server distros (Ubuntu/centos/rhel)?

not being "popular linux distro" can be a benefit perhaps? otherwise, I don't see what difference does it make what kernel you're running. matter of taste

kree10 17y ago
For me, it's not really about the kernel but the whole OS, userland included. I agree it's still mostly matter of taste, or maybe more honestly, what you're used to. Some people really like apt-get/dpkg but I prefer working with "make buildworld/installworld" and the ports system on FreeBSD. Also, though it's not something I've taken advantage of much, I love how on FreeBSD I can "cd /usr/src/bin/ls" and hey: there's the source for ls! If I wanted to, I could hack it, and run "make install" right there. I prefer this over (for example) source packages with Doogie's Build System on Debian.
- borism 17y ago
  recompiling your programs on every machine is such a waste of cloud

dalore 17y ago

Licensing. The BSD license is less restrictive than the GPL.

pavs 17y ago
Can you give a non-hypothetical real-life scenario where Freebsd with BSD license helps over GPL license based linux-distro when running a server? I am genuinely curious.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Not a physical benefit but I suppose it could be argued you're showing support for bsd style licenses. That seems trivial but possible.
- kvs 17y ago
  Most of the time it's that question that bothers you more when you're using something GPL. If I do X should I release the code or not? BSD eliminates that nagging question from the back of your mind.
- adamt 17y ago
  Real life situation. You are producing a network appliance of some kind doing high throughput stuff and you have implemented some bits in the kernel. On Linux (GPL) your code is all covered by GPL so your competitors can copy and use it. On FreeBSD you can keep your technology proprietary and away from your conpetitors. This is why FreeBSD is so widely used by network appliances.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

kvs 17y ago

When your team sort of grew up with FreeBSD (or any other OS) you want to lean that way. Also, when you're shipping an appliance you don't have to think about licenses. Those are the two reasons we stick with FreeBSD.

pavs 17y ago
Thanks. That makes sense. I am not familiar with limitations of GPL license over BSD license. What limitation does GPL license have that you don't have to worry about with BSD when deploying your app on a Linux server? Edit: Answered elsewhere. Thanks.
jcsalterego 17y ago
Prime example: NetApp uses (and contributes back to) FreeBSD. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/06/prweb1042664.htm http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/06/prweb1042664.htm (minor mention)