5 ms·

FuryBSD also made it to the HN frontpage yesterday. Both FuryBSD and NomadBSD are based on FreeBSD. Is FreeBSD just generally a better desktop OS than OpenBSD

by k_sze 7y ago

FuryBSD also made it to the HN frontpage yesterday. Both FuryBSD and NomadBSD are based on FreeBSD. Is FreeBSD just generally a better desktop OS than OpenBSD? I've never used any *BSD in my life, so I honestly don't know.

0xcde4c3db 7y ago
I'd say that it largely depends on what you consider table stakes for "desktop" these days. OpenBSD has a surprisingly credible and coherent desktop story as far as it goes, though at this point you'll probably be disappointed if you expect anything resembling cutting-edge GPU or Wi-Fi support (they're not sitting still on those fronts, it's just a lot of work to keep up). Gaming in general will be a challenge outside of emulators and other open-source runtimes (ScummVM, fnaify, LWJGL, Ren'Py, etc.).
- anthk 7y ago
  Most wireless devices will work fine under OpenBSD, and so will do Intel/AMD cards. No Nvidia.
  - 0xcde4c3db 7y ago
    I think I overstated the gap in GPU support. I was under the impression that the amdgpu driver was still not in the default kernel (which in OpenBSD implies not really being supported), but it looks like they added it for 6.6. It's reportedly from Linux 4.19, which is reasonably recent. This should support the RX 500 series, which is the sort of thing that one might actually pick up at Best Buy today.
    - anthk 7y ago
      For graphics and desktop related it's better to run -current. Sometimes it may break inbetween, but it's solved fast over getting a new snapshot and upgrading the packages. OFC if you are like me being paranoid over stability, get -release.
arminiusreturns 7y ago
Yes FreeBSD tends to be the better desktop BSD due to many devs/users using it as a daily driver and fixing many of the pain points... of course I haven't used FreeBSD as my daily driver since ~2003 so I could be operating off totally stale information. I do have to say sometimes I get pangs of missing the much more unified tooling in BSD land, but GNU is my home now (sometimes exceptions are made in the case of pfsense, freenas, etc).
- TylerE 7y ago
  There was a point in time... and 2003 was probably about it, where FreeBSD on the desktop was just a dream... this would have been like 4.7 or thereabouts... * Working NVidia driver * Working OSS sound with mixing/multi access (Like modern ALSA, except, ya know, not blowing chunks) * WOrking Java * Nice fonts I think even FlashPlayer worked. And there was linux binary compat so you could run whatever.
  - arminiusreturns 7y ago
    Yep 4.5 ish to about 4.9 were very nice and about the range when it was my main system.
g82918 7y ago
I used to be able to run Matlab on FreeBSD(linux only since ~2016), so that made it much more desktop friendly as far as I was concerned. Currently OpenBSD can't run Wine and doesn't have any Linux compatibility layer. NetBSD had a youngin work on fixing Wine, but that hasn't been merged in to a release.
- anthk 7y ago
  Did you try Octave?
kjs3 7y ago
FreeBSD is an easier desktop OS than OpenBSD. Supports lot's more out of the box, more 'modern' desktop environment, etc. Whether or not it's a better desktop environment is a matter of taste. OpenBSD is lighter weight, more uniform and more minimal. Old school. For some, that's better. I run OpenBSD on lower-end/older hardware (it runs awesome on a Thinkbook 42T or 43T), and FreeBSD on modern stuff.

by k_sze 7y ago

0xcde4c3db 7y ago

I'd say that it largely depends on what you consider table stakes for "desktop" these days. OpenBSD has a surprisingly credible and coherent desktop story as far as it goes, though at this point you'll probably be disappointed if you expect anything resembling cutting-edge GPU or Wi-Fi support (they're not sitting still on those fronts, it's just a lot of work to keep up). Gaming in general will be a challenge outside of emulators and other open-source runtimes (ScummVM, fnaify, LWJGL, Ren'Py, etc.).

anthk 7y ago
Most wireless devices will work fine under OpenBSD, and so will do Intel/AMD cards. No Nvidia.
- 0xcde4c3db 7y ago
  I think I overstated the gap in GPU support. I was under the impression that the amdgpu driver was still not in the default kernel (which in OpenBSD implies not really being supported), but it looks like they added it for 6.6. It's reportedly from Linux 4.19, which is reasonably recent. This should support the RX 500 series, which is the sort of thing that one might actually pick up at Best Buy today.
  - anthk 7y ago
    For graphics and desktop related it's better to run -current. Sometimes it may break inbetween, but it's solved fast over getting a new snapshot and upgrading the packages. OFC if you are like me being paranoid over stability, get -release.

arminiusreturns 7y ago

Yes FreeBSD tends to be the better desktop BSD due to many devs/users using it as a daily driver and fixing many of the pain points... of course I haven't used FreeBSD as my daily driver since ~2003 so I could be operating off totally stale information. I do have to say sometimes I get pangs of missing the much more unified tooling in BSD land, but GNU is my home now (sometimes exceptions are made in the case of pfsense, freenas, etc).

TylerE 7y ago
There was a point in time... and 2003 was probably about it, where FreeBSD on the desktop was just a dream... this would have been like 4.7 or thereabouts... * Working NVidia driver * Working OSS sound with mixing/multi access (Like modern ALSA, except, ya know, not blowing chunks) * WOrking Java * Nice fonts I think even FlashPlayer worked. And there was linux binary compat so you could run whatever.
- arminiusreturns 7y ago
  Yep 4.5 ish to about 4.9 were very nice and about the range when it was my main system.

g82918 7y ago

I used to be able to run Matlab on FreeBSD(linux only since ~2016), so that made it much more desktop friendly as far as I was concerned. Currently OpenBSD can't run Wine and doesn't have any Linux compatibility layer. NetBSD had a youngin work on fixing Wine, but that hasn't been merged in to a release.

anthk 7y ago
Did you try Octave?

kjs3 7y ago

FreeBSD is an easier desktop OS than OpenBSD. Supports lot's more out of the box, more 'modern' desktop environment, etc. Whether or not it's a better desktop environment is a matter of taste. OpenBSD is lighter weight, more uniform and more minimal. Old school. For some, that's better. I run OpenBSD on lower-end/older hardware (it runs awesome on a Thinkbook 42T or 43T), and FreeBSD on modern stuff.