5 ms·

One of the big differences between FreeBSD and Linux is that FreeBSD is designed and built as a complete system, whereas Linux is a kernel plus a collection of

One of the big differences between FreeBSD and Linux is that FreeBSD is designed and built as a complete system, whereas Linux is a kernel plus a collection of userland utilities from third-parties all of which has been configured by a vendor. Neither approach is necessarily right or wrong, just different.

Koshkin 9y ago
I keep hearing this ad nauseam, but what makes a system useful in the first place is the vast repository of third-party applications and not the base install (which you call "a complete system").
- bluGill 9y ago
  As a user that is true. As an administrators the you are using those utilities more and so the complete system is important.
- jedberg 9y ago
  FreeBSD still has a plethora of 3rd party applications, it's just that they enforce things like what you can put in /etc and /var and so on, making things much more regular.
  - sigjuice 9y ago
    Could you please list a few examples of these 3rd party FreeBSD applications that you have in mind? Thanks!
    - PeCaN 9y ago
      Have 27,569 examples: https://www.freebsd.org/ports/index.html https://www.freebsd.org/ports/index.html
    - CyberDildonics 9y ago
      Do you realize that you can compile open source programs for FreeBSD and FreeBSD can run linux binaries?
      - sigjuice 9y ago
        Yes I know open source programs compile and run on FreeBSD and other Unix-like systems. And also that FreeBSD can run at least some Linux binaries. I mistakenly assumed that OP was referring to 3rd party applications that were exclusive to FreeBSD.
        ianai 9y ago
        It's a FOSS project. Typically, FOSS operating systems differentiate on system features/applications and not on 3rd party applications. Things like package management, file system support, etc.
        Koshkin 9y ago
        Sure, but that's not what makes a computer useful in the first place.
    - paultownsend 9y ago
      The FreeBSD Ports Collection[1] is the main means of installing 3rd party software on FreeBSD. Precompiled packages are available, too. You can view a list of available ports on FreshPorts[2]. Of course you can always just compile and build your own software if you choose. [1] https://www.freebsd.org/ports/index.html https://www.freebsd.org/ports/index.html [2] http://www.freshports.org/categories.php http://www.freshports.org/categories.php
      - ianai 9y ago
        In my experience, the design of FreeBSD makes compiling projects much more easy. The standardized system really helps at many tasks.
        Koshkin 9y ago
        But few projects are designed to only support FreeBSD. In the UNIX world, Autoconf still reigns supreme.
        rleigh 9y ago
        Autoconf is completely orthogonal to the base/ports split and FreeBSD vs Linux or any other UNIX. All the ports are simply automatically configured with "--prefix=/usr/local".
      - petre 9y ago
        Lately, since pkg was introduced I find myself installing stock packags most of the time. Only if I want X compile time feature enabled I'd use the ports system. Updates are faster as well. I used to `make world`, now I just do `freebsd-update -r <release> upgrade`.
        kqr 9y ago
        I'm still a new user so I deliberately choose to compile ports to learn the FreeBSD way of thinking about stuff, understand how packaging works under the hood, and not fall into the trap of thinking it's "almost a Linux". Compiling ports is surprisingly convenient (at least after I learned the config-recursive make target...) and works most of the time. But that said, letting the compilation of JDK 1.8 run overnight isn't exactly convenient, and for the next install I'm likely to use precompiled packages, confident that I do know how to compile ports on my own should I want to.
    - fasquoika 9y ago
      List some well known ones for Linux. There's a 95% chance there's a FreeBSD port
      - thatzerodude 9y ago
        https://www.wireguard.com/ https://www.wireguard.com/
    - barkingcat 9y ago
      The Ports collection is similar in scope to any of the application databases maintained by Linux distros such as Redhat and Ubuntu. In fact, many of the packages are exactly the same from the same upstream. The differences are freebsd specific patches to fix small (like enabling or disabling different compile flags) or large (for example in the case of gnome or openjdk which requires effort to port) issues, but the packages are all there.
      - sigjuice 9y ago
        Yes, I have used FreeBSD and ports. I thought OP's message implied that there are 3rd party applications that are available exclusively for FreeBSD.
        ianai 9y ago
        For a while there, one such feature was ZFS. I know ZOL is a thing, and the pool versions are the same, but I'd bet ZFS on FreeBSD is still more stable/standard than ZOL. (It's been a while since I tried to learn the differences between ZOL/ZFS under FreeBSD so that could be out of date)
        sigjuice 9y ago
        ZFS on FreeBSD does not fit the definition of 'third party'.
        ianai 9y ago
        It’s as third party as I imagine a production file system should be.
- kqr 9y ago
  Keep in mind you need a good base system in order for the third party applications to run reliably.
  - danieldk 9y ago
    But how can we measure the quality of the base system? I tried FreeBSD again a while back, but there were pretty bad bugs even in basic UNIX utilities like grep [1], some utilities + UTF-8, and I also had some kernel panics. [1] I reported one of them in the FreeBSD bug tracker (+ patch). OpenBSD was actually really quick to solve this (I think tedu@ patched it), while the bug lingered for a long time with no activity on FreeBSD's end.
digi_owl 9y ago
Linux used to be able to run just as lean as the BSDs, and perhaps still can (see Slackware). but i fear that as it has gotten more attention in the corporate world more and more complexity has crept in as said corporate world wants something akin to AD and group policy so that the compute resources can be matched more closely to the division flow charts. This, in combo with a ongoing "users are sheep that need a shepherd" attitude from certain elements of the community leads to complexity piling on.

Koshkin 9y ago

I keep hearing this ad nauseam, but what makes a system useful in the first place is the vast repository of third-party applications and not the base install (which you call "a complete system").

bluGill 9y ago
As a user that is true. As an administrators the you are using those utilities more and so the complete system is important.
jedberg 9y ago
FreeBSD still has a plethora of 3rd party applications, it's just that they enforce things like what you can put in /etc and /var and so on, making things much more regular.
- sigjuice 9y ago
  Could you please list a few examples of these 3rd party FreeBSD applications that you have in mind? Thanks!
  - PeCaN 9y ago
    Have 27,569 examples: https://www.freebsd.org/ports/index.html https://www.freebsd.org/ports/index.html
  - CyberDildonics 9y ago
    Do you realize that you can compile open source programs for FreeBSD and FreeBSD can run linux binaries?
    - sigjuice 9y ago
      Yes I know open source programs compile and run on FreeBSD and other Unix-like systems. And also that FreeBSD can run at least some Linux binaries. I mistakenly assumed that OP was referring to 3rd party applications that were exclusive to FreeBSD.
      - ianai 9y ago
        It's a FOSS project. Typically, FOSS operating systems differentiate on system features/applications and not on 3rd party applications. Things like package management, file system support, etc.
        Koshkin 9y ago
        Sure, but that's not what makes a computer useful in the first place.
  - paultownsend 9y ago
    The FreeBSD Ports Collection[1] is the main means of installing 3rd party software on FreeBSD. Precompiled packages are available, too. You can view a list of available ports on FreshPorts[2]. Of course you can always just compile and build your own software if you choose. [1] https://www.freebsd.org/ports/index.html https://www.freebsd.org/ports/index.html [2] http://www.freshports.org/categories.php http://www.freshports.org/categories.php
    - ianai 9y ago
      In my experience, the design of FreeBSD makes compiling projects much more easy. The standardized system really helps at many tasks.
      - Koshkin 9y ago
        But few projects are designed to only support FreeBSD. In the UNIX world, Autoconf still reigns supreme.
        rleigh 9y ago
        Autoconf is completely orthogonal to the base/ports split and FreeBSD vs Linux or any other UNIX. All the ports are simply automatically configured with "--prefix=/usr/local".
    - petre 9y ago
      Lately, since pkg was introduced I find myself installing stock packags most of the time. Only if I want X compile time feature enabled I'd use the ports system. Updates are faster as well. I used to `make world`, now I just do `freebsd-update -r <release> upgrade`.
      - kqr 9y ago
        I'm still a new user so I deliberately choose to compile ports to learn the FreeBSD way of thinking about stuff, understand how packaging works under the hood, and not fall into the trap of thinking it's "almost a Linux". Compiling ports is surprisingly convenient (at least after I learned the config-recursive make target...) and works most of the time. But that said, letting the compilation of JDK 1.8 run overnight isn't exactly convenient, and for the next install I'm likely to use precompiled packages, confident that I do know how to compile ports on my own should I want to.
  - fasquoika 9y ago
    List some well known ones for Linux. There's a 95% chance there's a FreeBSD port
    - thatzerodude 9y ago
      https://www.wireguard.com/ https://www.wireguard.com/
  - barkingcat 9y ago
    The Ports collection is similar in scope to any of the application databases maintained by Linux distros such as Redhat and Ubuntu. In fact, many of the packages are exactly the same from the same upstream. The differences are freebsd specific patches to fix small (like enabling or disabling different compile flags) or large (for example in the case of gnome or openjdk which requires effort to port) issues, but the packages are all there.
    - sigjuice 9y ago
      Yes, I have used FreeBSD and ports. I thought OP's message implied that there are 3rd party applications that are available exclusively for FreeBSD.
      - ianai 9y ago
        For a while there, one such feature was ZFS. I know ZOL is a thing, and the pool versions are the same, but I'd bet ZFS on FreeBSD is still more stable/standard than ZOL. (It's been a while since I tried to learn the differences between ZOL/ZFS under FreeBSD so that could be out of date)
        sigjuice 9y ago
        ZFS on FreeBSD does not fit the definition of 'third party'.
        ianai 9y ago
        It’s as third party as I imagine a production file system should be.
kqr 9y ago
Keep in mind you need a good base system in order for the third party applications to run reliably.
- danieldk 9y ago
  But how can we measure the quality of the base system? I tried FreeBSD again a while back, but there were pretty bad bugs even in basic UNIX utilities like grep [1], some utilities + UTF-8, and I also had some kernel panics. [1] I reported one of them in the FreeBSD bug tracker (+ patch). OpenBSD was actually really quick to solve this (I think tedu@ patched it), while the bug lingered for a long time with no activity on FreeBSD's end.

digi_owl 9y ago

Linux used to be able to run just as lean as the BSDs, and perhaps still can (see Slackware). but i fear that as it has gotten more attention in the corporate world more and more complexity has crept in as said corporate world wants something akin to AD and group policy so that the compute resources can be matched more closely to the division flow charts. This, in combo with a ongoing "users are sheep that need a shepherd" attitude from certain elements of the community leads to complexity piling on.