11 ms·

FreeBSD Quickstart Guide for Linux Users

89 points by earcar 16y ago

mahmud 16y ago
Heh, You know Linux has been getting soft and Gooey around the edges when there are Unix manuals for Linux users :-) When I went from Slackware to FreeBSD in 1998, the only document you needed was INSTALL and the hardware compatibility list. In fact, FreeBSD was more posh than slack, it had a curses install and came with a luxurious handbook. Speaking of which, I absolutely don't miss the days of taking a list of supported devices to the computer shop, and reading the fine print on boxes looking for chipset specs and firmware versions.
- chbarts 16y ago
  Linux is precisely as Gooey as you want it to be. So's FreeBSD, as a matter of fact. This isn't Windows. This isn't MacOS. Each PC Unix variant offers you precisely as much choice as far as your UI goes.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
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).
- silentbicycle 16y ago
  Relevant previous discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1569559 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1569559
- gbrindisi 16y ago
  One big reason should be ZFS. And the ports. I love ports.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    How do BSD ports differ from apt/yum?
    - kroger 16y ago
      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.
      - eru 16y ago
        Sounds like Gentoo's system to me. (And, of course, my BSD-loving friends hold Gentoo to be the most bearable Linux.)
        superjared 16y ago
        Gentoo effectively copied FreeBSD's port system.
        apotheon 16y ago
        s/effectively/ineffectively/
        superjared 16y ago
        Touché :)
        SwellJoe 16y ago
        And they both suck. ports and portage are horrible excuses for package management.
        swolchok 16y ago
        That's why Gentoo's system is called Portage.
- apotheon 16y ago
  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 BSD tools are often much more consistent and less overly complex, and have better thought out basic functionality and interfaces, than GNU tools. BSD Unix systems also resist the influence of the GNU project where many Linux distributions do not. For instance, in some distributions you will find far too many pieces of software that have nothing for man pages except a reference to how the real information is in a GNU Info page. The GNU project very much as a "not invented here" problem, where it not only wants to replace everything in the world -- even when it's "free software" -- with something weird and less usable that bears the GNU stamp on it. Meanwhile, the various BSD Unix systems insist on standardized tools and documentation that is easy to use, like man pages instead of Info pages. Speaking of documentation, that's another good reason to use FreeBSD (or OpenBSD, for that matter). The big BSD Unix systems are among the best-documented OSes I have ever seen, and I have seen quite a few operating systems. Consider the completeness and helpfulness of the FreeBSD Handbook, which is actually one of the best pieces of documentation on the Web even for many Linux distributions, but is even more helpful for FreeBSD (of course). Also . . . this is not comprehensive, but it might serve as a nice introduction to the whys and wherefores: http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4lin... I wrote a comparison as well, once, but I seem to have misplaced it.
  - Nick_C 16y ago
    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?
    - koenigdavidmj 16y ago
      All three of the major BSD derivatives have the ability to put parts of themselves in modules. They are all monolithic kernels, as is Linux. Monolithic, in kernel speak, does not refer to having everything compiled in; it is more concerned about what is in kernel space (can do anything it wants with the hardware) and what is in user space (what is restricted at the hardware level to playing in its own memory). Monolithic kernels have pretty much everything in memory, and microkernels have pretty much everything in moderately-privileged userspace processes that talk to each other via message passing.
- bapadna 16y ago
  In my experience, FreeBSD's greatest asset doesn't fit well on a feature list. It's that it has a different attitude towards change than Linux. Linux is a diverse ecosystem, with tons of experiments driving it forward. Different package managers, different kernel patches, different userland configurations, different means of administration... and that's a great thing. FreeBSD is not diverse or experimental. FreeBSD is a deliberately moving beast, that adopts technologies and ideas in a more methodical manner, often after other OS's (OpenBSD / NetBSD / DragonflyBSD / Solaris / Linux / OS X) have proved that the ideas are solid, and lasting, and then it integrates them carefully, so it still looks like FreeBSD (but with some new capabilities, or better performance, or whatever), rather than having drastically different administration mechanisms, or performance characteristics, or anything else. Personally, I like this stability. I like that it's a platform that once learned, can be largely forgotten about. But that said, it does require learning first, and while it's powerful, it's not shiny or sexy. But even excluding the man pages and documentation, zfs, the pf firewall, and many other things I like about FreeBSD, this is the winner for me. I just love that it doesn't change unless the change is a large win.
neovive 16y ago
Considering the high-quality and availability of Linux distributions these days, what are some of the advantages of using FreeBSD over Linux? More specifically, are there any competitive advantages that could be obtained from using FreeBSD over Linux that would outweigh the costs of deviating from the Linux standard on web servers?
- avar 16y ago
  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.
  - neovive 16y ago
    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.
    - apotheon 16y ago
      I don't see how Ubuntu's benefits over Solaris are relevant to a comparison with FreeBSD.
      - xiongchiamiov 16y ago
        The GP was stating that choosing Ubuntu over Solaris is merely a matter of preference, just as choosing FreeBSD over Ubuntu is.
  - wazoox 16y ago
    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.
sgt 16y ago
I'm running a production server (RAID setup, i7, so decent specs too) with multiple jails, each with their own ZFS filesystem. Honestly, I may be biased since I've been a FreeBSD fan since about '99, but it is really a sysadmin's dream. The system has been rock-stable for years. I'm currently running FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE. Upgrading from 7 to 8 was not a problem, even from remote. I'm a fulltime developer, so the less time I spend sysadmining on this system, the better it is for me. Upgrading packages, the kernel and even the jails is a quick job and can be set up to happen automatically.
xiongchiamiov 16y ago
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.html http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/linux-users/commands.... [1]: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman_Rosetta http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman_Rosetta
kroger 16y ago
"Absolute FreeBSD: The Complete Guide to FreeBSD" by Michael Lucas is one of the best technical books I've read: http://www.amazon.com/Absolute-FreeBSD-Complete-Guide-2nd/dp/1593271514 http://www.amazon.com/Absolute-FreeBSD-Complete-Guide-2nd/dp...

89 points by earcar 16y ago

Heh, You know Linux has been getting soft and Gooey around the edges when there are Unix manuals for Linux users :-) When I went from Slackware to FreeBSD in 1998, the only document you needed was INSTALL and the hardware compatibility list. In fact, FreeBSD was more posh than slack, it had a curses install and came with a luxurious handbook. Speaking of which, I absolutely don't miss the days of taking a list of supported devices to the computer shop, and reading the fine print on boxes looking for chipset specs and firmware versions.

chbarts 16y ago
Linux is precisely as Gooey as you want it to be. So's FreeBSD, as a matter of fact. This isn't Windows. This isn't MacOS. Each PC Unix variant offers you precisely as much choice as far as your UI goes.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

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).

silentbicycle 16y ago
Relevant previous discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1569559 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1569559
gbrindisi 16y ago
One big reason should be ZFS. And the ports. I love ports.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  How do BSD ports differ from apt/yum?
  - kroger 16y ago
    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.
    - eru 16y ago
      Sounds like Gentoo's system to me. (And, of course, my BSD-loving friends hold Gentoo to be the most bearable Linux.)
      - superjared 16y ago
        Gentoo effectively copied FreeBSD's port system.
        apotheon 16y ago
        s/effectively/ineffectively/
        superjared 16y ago
        Touché :)
        SwellJoe 16y ago
        And they both suck. ports and portage are horrible excuses for package management.
      - swolchok 16y ago
        That's why Gentoo's system is called Portage.
apotheon 16y ago
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 BSD tools are often much more consistent and less overly complex, and have better thought out basic functionality and interfaces, than GNU tools. BSD Unix systems also resist the influence of the GNU project where many Linux distributions do not. For instance, in some distributions you will find far too many pieces of software that have nothing for man pages except a reference to how the real information is in a GNU Info page. The GNU project very much as a "not invented here" problem, where it not only wants to replace everything in the world -- even when it's "free software" -- with something weird and less usable that bears the GNU stamp on it. Meanwhile, the various BSD Unix systems insist on standardized tools and documentation that is easy to use, like man pages instead of Info pages. Speaking of documentation, that's another good reason to use FreeBSD (or OpenBSD, for that matter). The big BSD Unix systems are among the best-documented OSes I have ever seen, and I have seen quite a few operating systems. Consider the completeness and helpfulness of the FreeBSD Handbook, which is actually one of the best pieces of documentation on the Web even for many Linux distributions, but is even more helpful for FreeBSD (of course). Also . . . this is not comprehensive, but it might serve as a nice introduction to the whys and wherefores: http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4lin... I wrote a comparison as well, once, but I seem to have misplaced it.
- Nick_C 16y ago
  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?
  - koenigdavidmj 16y ago
    All three of the major BSD derivatives have the ability to put parts of themselves in modules. They are all monolithic kernels, as is Linux. Monolithic, in kernel speak, does not refer to having everything compiled in; it is more concerned about what is in kernel space (can do anything it wants with the hardware) and what is in user space (what is restricted at the hardware level to playing in its own memory). Monolithic kernels have pretty much everything in memory, and microkernels have pretty much everything in moderately-privileged userspace processes that talk to each other via message passing.
bapadna 16y ago
In my experience, FreeBSD's greatest asset doesn't fit well on a feature list. It's that it has a different attitude towards change than Linux. Linux is a diverse ecosystem, with tons of experiments driving it forward. Different package managers, different kernel patches, different userland configurations, different means of administration... and that's a great thing. FreeBSD is not diverse or experimental. FreeBSD is a deliberately moving beast, that adopts technologies and ideas in a more methodical manner, often after other OS's (OpenBSD / NetBSD / DragonflyBSD / Solaris / Linux / OS X) have proved that the ideas are solid, and lasting, and then it integrates them carefully, so it still looks like FreeBSD (but with some new capabilities, or better performance, or whatever), rather than having drastically different administration mechanisms, or performance characteristics, or anything else. Personally, I like this stability. I like that it's a platform that once learned, can be largely forgotten about. But that said, it does require learning first, and while it's powerful, it's not shiny or sexy. But even excluding the man pages and documentation, zfs, the pf firewall, and many other things I like about FreeBSD, this is the winner for me. I just love that it doesn't change unless the change is a large win.

neovive 16y ago

Considering the high-quality and availability of Linux distributions these days, what are some of the advantages of using FreeBSD over Linux? More specifically, are there any competitive advantages that could be obtained from using FreeBSD over Linux that would outweigh the costs of deviating from the Linux standard on web servers?

avar 16y ago
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.
- neovive 16y ago
  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.
  - apotheon 16y ago
    I don't see how Ubuntu's benefits over Solaris are relevant to a comparison with FreeBSD.
    - xiongchiamiov 16y ago
      The GP was stating that choosing Ubuntu over Solaris is merely a matter of preference, just as choosing FreeBSD over Ubuntu is.
- wazoox 16y ago
  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.

sgt 16y ago

I'm running a production server (RAID setup, i7, so decent specs too) with multiple jails, each with their own ZFS filesystem. Honestly, I may be biased since I've been a FreeBSD fan since about '99, but it is really a sysadmin's dream. The system has been rock-stable for years. I'm currently running FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE. Upgrading from 7 to 8 was not a problem, even from remote. I'm a fulltime developer, so the less time I spend sysadmining on this system, the better it is for me. Upgrading packages, the kernel and even the jails is a quick job and can be set up to happen automatically.

xiongchiamiov 16y ago

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.html http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/linux-users/commands.... [1]: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman_Rosetta http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman_Rosetta

kroger 16y ago

"Absolute FreeBSD: The Complete Guide to FreeBSD" by Michael Lucas is one of the best technical books I've read: http://www.amazon.com/Absolute-FreeBSD-Complete-Guide-2nd/dp/1593271514 http://www.amazon.com/Absolute-FreeBSD-Complete-Guide-2nd/dp...