4 ms·

Considering the high-quality and availability of Linux distributions these days, what are some of the advantages of using FreeBSD over Linux? More specifically

by 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.
  - apotheon 16y ago
    MySQL is not written in a very portable manner. I prefer PostgreSQL for a number of reasons, and the fact that its developers are concerned with portability is one of the more minor reasons.
rbranson 16y ago
At least for servers, FreeBSD is more polished than mainstream Linux (RedHat, Debian, and ancestors), if you ask me. The ports system keeps far more up to date than the typical Linux packaging system and the releases seem to be on a somewhat sane schedule. Of course, Linux is sort of this amalgamation of the kernel and whatever distribution you choose, so the ecosystem is fragmented and lacks the centralized command-and-control that FreeBSD has. However, I still recommend and use Linux, mainly for support reasons. 7-8 years ago it was more of a toss-up as far as support, because Linux was far less established. These days it's a different ballgame. All the reasons to prefer FreeBSD (network & VM performance, stability, security, etc) are no longer clear advantages when compared to contemporary Linux. You are correct in your assertion that there simply isn't enough benefit to using FreeBSD to weigh out the lack of support both from a community and a hardware perspective. Also, the Gentoo crowd seems to be similar, at least in spirit, to the FreeBSD folks. While they don't have the same deep integration of kernel & environment, they do have the same values when it comes to clean aesthetics and keeping up-to-date with packaged software.
- rhizome 16y ago
  As for support, BSD has over 30 years of community expertise built up, Linux about half that.
- apotheon 16y ago
  > All the reasons to prefer FreeBSD (network & VM performance, stability, security, etc) are no longer clear advantages when compared to contemporary Linux. Really? Why don't you think stability and security are important? What about consistency of interface between tools in a single system, and adherence to expectations of standard tools that make sense to the user (e.g., man pages instead of GNU Info pages, which are slowly creeping into Linux-based systems everywhere I look)? I'm afraid I have to disagree with this estimation. In fact, the more time that passes, and the more the biggest Linux distributions are those that pander to people with expectations grown in the MS Windows ecosystem, the more the benefits of FreeBSD over Linux distributions grow. I suppose your mileage may vary, though. > Also, the Gentoo crowd seems to be similar, at least in spirit, to the FreeBSD folks. While they don't have the same deep integration of kernel & environment, they do have the same values when it comes to clean aesthetics and keeping up-to-date with packaged software. . . . but not when it comes to stability, from what I have seen.

by neovive 16y ago

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.
- apotheon 16y ago
  MySQL is not written in a very portable manner. I prefer PostgreSQL for a number of reasons, and the fact that its developers are concerned with portability is one of the more minor reasons.

rbranson 16y ago

At least for servers, FreeBSD is more polished than mainstream Linux (RedHat, Debian, and ancestors), if you ask me. The ports system keeps far more up to date than the typical Linux packaging system and the releases seem to be on a somewhat sane schedule. Of course, Linux is sort of this amalgamation of the kernel and whatever distribution you choose, so the ecosystem is fragmented and lacks the centralized command-and-control that FreeBSD has. However, I still recommend and use Linux, mainly for support reasons. 7-8 years ago it was more of a toss-up as far as support, because Linux was far less established. These days it's a different ballgame. All the reasons to prefer FreeBSD (network & VM performance, stability, security, etc) are no longer clear advantages when compared to contemporary Linux. You are correct in your assertion that there simply isn't enough benefit to using FreeBSD to weigh out the lack of support both from a community and a hardware perspective. Also, the Gentoo crowd seems to be similar, at least in spirit, to the FreeBSD folks. While they don't have the same deep integration of kernel & environment, they do have the same values when it comes to clean aesthetics and keeping up-to-date with packaged software.

rhizome 16y ago
As for support, BSD has over 30 years of community expertise built up, Linux about half that.
apotheon 16y ago
> All the reasons to prefer FreeBSD (network & VM performance, stability, security, etc) are no longer clear advantages when compared to contemporary Linux. Really? Why don't you think stability and security are important? What about consistency of interface between tools in a single system, and adherence to expectations of standard tools that make sense to the user (e.g., man pages instead of GNU Info pages, which are slowly creeping into Linux-based systems everywhere I look)? I'm afraid I have to disagree with this estimation. In fact, the more time that passes, and the more the biggest Linux distributions are those that pander to people with expectations grown in the MS Windows ecosystem, the more the benefits of FreeBSD over Linux distributions grow. I suppose your mileage may vary, though. > Also, the Gentoo crowd seems to be similar, at least in spirit, to the FreeBSD folks. While they don't have the same deep integration of kernel & environment, they do have the same values when it comes to clean aesthetics and keeping up-to-date with packaged software. . . . but not when it comes to stability, from what I have seen.