4 ms·

This is a good list for differences between FreeBSD and Linux distros, but describing them as advantages FreeBSD has over Linux seems problematic to me. Except

by DCKing 7y ago

This is a good list for differences between FreeBSD and Linux distros, but describing them as advantages FreeBSD has over Linux seems problematic to me. Except for firewalls and core documentation (but what about "community documentation"?) nearly every item is highly debatable whether using FreeBSD has an advantage in the first place, and many I would argue Linux has obviously better options for [1]. To me, lists like this sadly highlights that FreeBSD has extremely few unique selling points left. I accept its superiority for network infrastructure type roles, but that's about it. As a Linux user, there's nothing on this list that makes me consider switching [2]. [1]: Anything to do with package management, containers and VMs and even filesystems Linux system can either do better out of the box or can easily be augmented if you need it. I also think systemd is better than shell script based inits. But there's a reason this is a footnote, this is not the thing I want to argue here. [2]: Besides it taking effort to switch, FreeBSD has the additional problems that it has poor hardware support for desktop usage (PLEASE get your wifi act together), and software support is also substantially worse - with FreeBSD lagging behind with stuff like Electron, Wayland, desktop virtualization and desktop containerization (Flatpak, Snaps, Appimage even). The point here isn't these details, but FreeBSD winning over Linux people is an increasing uphill struggle.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rvz 7y ago
Even as an occasional Ubuntu user, it's already an effort for even some desktop developers to use GNU/Linux given that Windows and macOS are actually being sane desktops just to get work done. I just can't see any user wanting to use or switch to either Linux or BSD to sanely 'use' their computer for being productive in their daily work other than programming in vim or emacs; because they are still desktops for programmers. The BSDs now have the same Linux desktop argument of having 'choice' which has made it a blessing for its tinkerers and a curse for commercial desktop app developers as highlighted in [2]. You have 3 ways to package an app, many desktop environment choices like GNOME, KDE, Xfce and the windowing managers like X11, Wayland to test for and you then ask why your favourite software application isn't on X Linux distro or X BSD distro. I won't be looking forward to testing or bug hunting for my GUI app on either system since their desktop stacks aren't integrated well or have a stable 'SDK' unlike with Windows and macOS. GNU/Linux and the BSDs are pretty much still fragmented ecosystems. The BSDs in particular will always be behind, since the same developers who have always used Linux and were part of the FOSS community are the same ones that still contribute and pushed for it in their companies like Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon, etc. Thus, some will only accept upstream patches for Windows, Mac and Linux. The BSDs will then be left in the sand with atrocious software support and their patches will be rejected as the maintainers will be unwilling to upstream these patches due to this.
- zetalemur 7y ago
  > I just can't see any user wanting to use or switch to either Linux or BSD to sanely 'use' their computer for being productive in their daily work other than programming in vim or emacs; because they are still desktops for programmers. Do you mean for native Windows or macOs dev? Then I agree. However if you are a non tech user I don't agree. I know many people (friends and family), who use Linux on their Notebook or PCs (quite frankly most non-tech users use mobile anyway) and they have no I idea what emacs or vim is (and why should they?). So Linux being just for dev users is just not true, at least in my experience.
- willberman 7y ago
  I use Ubuntu as my main os for programming. I run into a few kinks every now and then, and for that I keep around a Windows and a macOS box. I’d say that Ubuntu is a sane desktop to get work done in.

by DCKing 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

rvz 7y ago

Even as an occasional Ubuntu user, it's already an effort for even some desktop developers to use GNU/Linux given that Windows and macOS are actually being sane desktops just to get work done. I just can't see any user wanting to use or switch to either Linux or BSD to sanely 'use' their computer for being productive in their daily work other than programming in vim or emacs; because they are still desktops for programmers. The BSDs now have the same Linux desktop argument of having 'choice' which has made it a blessing for its tinkerers and a curse for commercial desktop app developers as highlighted in [2]. You have 3 ways to package an app, many desktop environment choices like GNOME, KDE, Xfce and the windowing managers like X11, Wayland to test for and you then ask why your favourite software application isn't on X Linux distro or X BSD distro. I won't be looking forward to testing or bug hunting for my GUI app on either system since their desktop stacks aren't integrated well or have a stable 'SDK' unlike with Windows and macOS. GNU/Linux and the BSDs are pretty much still fragmented ecosystems. The BSDs in particular will always be behind, since the same developers who have always used Linux and were part of the FOSS community are the same ones that still contribute and pushed for it in their companies like Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon, etc. Thus, some will only accept upstream patches for Windows, Mac and Linux. The BSDs will then be left in the sand with atrocious software support and their patches will be rejected as the maintainers will be unwilling to upstream these patches due to this.

zetalemur 7y ago
> I just can't see any user wanting to use or switch to either Linux or BSD to sanely 'use' their computer for being productive in their daily work other than programming in vim or emacs; because they are still desktops for programmers. Do you mean for native Windows or macOs dev? Then I agree. However if you are a non tech user I don't agree. I know many people (friends and family), who use Linux on their Notebook or PCs (quite frankly most non-tech users use mobile anyway) and they have no I idea what emacs or vim is (and why should they?). So Linux being just for dev users is just not true, at least in my experience.
willberman 7y ago
I use Ubuntu as my main os for programming. I run into a few kinks every now and then, and for that I keep around a Windows and a macOS box. I’d say that Ubuntu is a sane desktop to get work done in.