6 ms·

Serious question: what is so compelling about the FreeBSD desktop experience compared to Linux that makes it worth jumping through all these hoops?

IgorPartola 4y ago
For me personally it would be the ability to run jails and ZFS on a desktop. That would in turn enable me to run the same in production because local/dev/prod parity would be a good thing.
- MontyCarloHall 4y ago
  Don’t Linux and FreeBSD both use OpenZFS these days? Jails are a fair point, but if they’re essential to your production environment, why not just run your FreeBSD dev environment in a VM on your Linux laptop, or SSH into a dedicated FreeBSD dev box? After all, OP is already running Linux in a VM in order to run working WiFi drivers.
  - throw0101a 4y ago
    > Don’t Linux and FreeBSD both use OpenZFS these days? Certain integrations between ZFS and the OS are more 'elegant' in FreeBSD: * https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=beadm https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=beadm * https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?bectl https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?bectl
    - fomine3 4y ago
      Also ARC and page cache (kernel mm) integration isn't very good on Linux. It's fine for NAS but possibly not good for desktop usage. Perhaps good on FreeBSD?
- ladyanita22 4y ago
  I mean, Ubuntu does support ZFS, and there's LXC...
kloch 4y ago
Some folks just prefer BSD over other variants. I learned on old school SunOS so that might be why I prefer it. SysV based Solaris left a bad taste and Linux just seemed unnecessarily weird. 386/Net/FreeBSD was fast, a stable, simple to configure and most importantly familiar.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
johnklos 4y ago
The BSDs are much cleaner than Linux distros. Also, because they don't change gratuitously, once you learn their quirks, you can move on to other things without needing to worry about re-learning tons about the next update. Linux is a constantly moving target with lots of churn that users of computers really don't want or need.
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  So I certainly understand some of the frustration around churn, and I get that on hardware selected to run BSD, this probably doesn't matter nearly as much But... This article describes (at least in my opinion) an unusable and unstable machine. Basic HDMI out and Ethernet aren't "optional" on machines I run. Frankly - I'd rather lose wifi/bluetooth than HDMI and Ethernet (not that bluetooth is working here either...). So I guess my point is that >that users of computers really don't want or need seems very much like a personal opinion. I not only want churn if it's bringing online more hardware support - I find the lack of support here completely unsuited to my needs. If this is what you mean by "clean"... then It feels a bit like keeping a boardgame in the shrink wrap - rather than getting it out, bending a few cards, and having a good time. At least to me (fully admit this is also just an opinion).
  - johnklos 4y ago
    Perhaps you're talking about a different kind of "churn". I'm not talking about adding drivers and things to make hardware work better - I'm talking about changing commonly used commands and changing how things work from one version of a distro to the next. For instance, does "ifconfig" need to be replaced by "ip" in order to support new ethernet chips? Do you need all sorts of new invocations to systemd because a new generation of Intel graphics is supported? No. It may be a personal opinion that people don't want or need churn, but what I mean is that when people want to use a system to get things done, learning new invocations for old commands is usually a distraction to getting those things done.
    - horsawlarway 4y ago
      > Perhaps you're talking about a different kind of "churn". I don't really think I am. I'm going to pick on your exact example: ip is replacing ifconfig because linux distros are moving to netlink as a replacement for ioctl. Why are they doing that? Hardware support - Particularly WNICs. So did ifconfig need to be replaced? Strictly speaking, no - but if you want better hardware support - yes... ifconfig could have been updated, but the problem is that you're adding complexity to the system somewhere, either by expanding the old interface, or by replacing it with a new one. You can argue expansion would have been preferable to replacement, but I'm not totally convinced - they both have tradeoffs. Someone is paying the piper either way. The only way to avoid that cost (churn in the existing tool, or churn in the introduction of a new tool) is by not supporting that hardware. Which is what BSD is doing...
somat 4y ago
I Find openbsd makes for a very nice desktop operating system. first of all note that I am talking about a unix style desktop, if you are expecting something more like a mac or windows desktop you would find it lacking, the only thing I add(aside from the usual large desktop applications) is spectrewm as I like a tileing window manager. But there is something very comfortable about the openbsd base system that I have not found in a linux system, don't get me wrong linux is one of the good guys. it does not actively anger me up like using a windows desktop system does. But I really feel at home on openbsd, I think it is because I feel I understand the system well.
- mbarbar 4y ago
  Could I ask what kind of work you do day to day? Does it feel sluggish in comparison to Linux for that use case?
  - somat 4y ago
    Mostly sys-admin stuff, a lot of terminals, ssh, config editing, minor programing. but I keep a few desktop utilities (gimp, inkscape, blender) for when I want to make pictures, notably absent is a file manager, the shell takes care of all my file manipulation needs. but if I had to recommend one it would be xfe. Speed-wise I think is is more sluggish than a linux system. I like and keep it because openbsd is so comfortable. openbsd was the first operating system where I felt I understood it and it's motivations. every once in a while I try to replicate my preferred system on linux(void linux comes close to what I like about openbsd) but usually find myself back on openbsd(usually with a sigh of relief) in a couple of weeks.
retro64 4y ago
I use both. I've asked myself why I don't just streamline and standardize simply on Linux as overall it has more traction, but every time I have the opportunity to complete the switch I refuse to give up BSD. I think it boils down to control. Thinking back I have had essentially the same experience/environment on BSD for years. Upgrading from one version to the next just works and is fairly painless, even across major releases (trying to think of the last time I've had issues). I keep my home directory on a separate physical disk, so upgrading the OS drive or moving to new hardware is a matter of installing the latest BSD and plugging my home drive back in and mapping it. After upgrading I can use pkg to reinstall the apps I need and the shortcuts all link back, and I'm done. Probably forgot a few steps in there but it doesn't take long. For example I upgraded from 11.x to 13.0 just a few months ago with a hard drive swap and it took me maybe 3 hours(?), including installing the physical drive. I don't play a lot of games on it, other than complete source ports, or simple games that run on vanilla wine. Linux is for gaming and experimenting. On Linux I am far more free with what I install, and my experience has changed often over the years with different distros. Some of that was by my choice, but even at the most basic level I've found that distros tend to have a lot of flux between versions. So, overall no real surprises with FreeBSD. Upgrade and keep chugging.

IgorPartola 4y ago

For me personally it would be the ability to run jails and ZFS on a desktop. That would in turn enable me to run the same in production because local/dev/prod parity would be a good thing.

MontyCarloHall 4y ago
Don’t Linux and FreeBSD both use OpenZFS these days? Jails are a fair point, but if they’re essential to your production environment, why not just run your FreeBSD dev environment in a VM on your Linux laptop, or SSH into a dedicated FreeBSD dev box? After all, OP is already running Linux in a VM in order to run working WiFi drivers.
- throw0101a 4y ago
  > Don’t Linux and FreeBSD both use OpenZFS these days? Certain integrations between ZFS and the OS are more 'elegant' in FreeBSD: * https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=beadm https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=beadm * https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?bectl https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?bectl
  - fomine3 4y ago
    Also ARC and page cache (kernel mm) integration isn't very good on Linux. It's fine for NAS but possibly not good for desktop usage. Perhaps good on FreeBSD?
ladyanita22 4y ago
I mean, Ubuntu does support ZFS, and there's LXC...

kloch 4y ago

Some folks just prefer BSD over other variants. I learned on old school SunOS so that might be why I prefer it. SysV based Solaris left a bad taste and Linux just seemed unnecessarily weird. 386/Net/FreeBSD was fast, a stable, simple to configure and most importantly familiar.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

johnklos 4y ago

The BSDs are much cleaner than Linux distros. Also, because they don't change gratuitously, once you learn their quirks, you can move on to other things without needing to worry about re-learning tons about the next update. Linux is a constantly moving target with lots of churn that users of computers really don't want or need.

horsawlarway 4y ago
So I certainly understand some of the frustration around churn, and I get that on hardware selected to run BSD, this probably doesn't matter nearly as much But... This article describes (at least in my opinion) an unusable and unstable machine. Basic HDMI out and Ethernet aren't "optional" on machines I run. Frankly - I'd rather lose wifi/bluetooth than HDMI and Ethernet (not that bluetooth is working here either...). So I guess my point is that >that users of computers really don't want or need seems very much like a personal opinion. I not only want churn if it's bringing online more hardware support - I find the lack of support here completely unsuited to my needs. If this is what you mean by "clean"... then It feels a bit like keeping a boardgame in the shrink wrap - rather than getting it out, bending a few cards, and having a good time. At least to me (fully admit this is also just an opinion).
- johnklos 4y ago
  Perhaps you're talking about a different kind of "churn". I'm not talking about adding drivers and things to make hardware work better - I'm talking about changing commonly used commands and changing how things work from one version of a distro to the next. For instance, does "ifconfig" need to be replaced by "ip" in order to support new ethernet chips? Do you need all sorts of new invocations to systemd because a new generation of Intel graphics is supported? No. It may be a personal opinion that people don't want or need churn, but what I mean is that when people want to use a system to get things done, learning new invocations for old commands is usually a distraction to getting those things done.
  - horsawlarway 4y ago
    > Perhaps you're talking about a different kind of "churn". I don't really think I am. I'm going to pick on your exact example: ip is replacing ifconfig because linux distros are moving to netlink as a replacement for ioctl. Why are they doing that? Hardware support - Particularly WNICs. So did ifconfig need to be replaced? Strictly speaking, no - but if you want better hardware support - yes... ifconfig could have been updated, but the problem is that you're adding complexity to the system somewhere, either by expanding the old interface, or by replacing it with a new one. You can argue expansion would have been preferable to replacement, but I'm not totally convinced - they both have tradeoffs. Someone is paying the piper either way. The only way to avoid that cost (churn in the existing tool, or churn in the introduction of a new tool) is by not supporting that hardware. Which is what BSD is doing...

somat 4y ago

I Find openbsd makes for a very nice desktop operating system. first of all note that I am talking about a unix style desktop, if you are expecting something more like a mac or windows desktop you would find it lacking, the only thing I add(aside from the usual large desktop applications) is spectrewm as I like a tileing window manager. But there is something very comfortable about the openbsd base system that I have not found in a linux system, don't get me wrong linux is one of the good guys. it does not actively anger me up like using a windows desktop system does. But I really feel at home on openbsd, I think it is because I feel I understand the system well.

mbarbar 4y ago
Could I ask what kind of work you do day to day? Does it feel sluggish in comparison to Linux for that use case?
- somat 4y ago
  Mostly sys-admin stuff, a lot of terminals, ssh, config editing, minor programing. but I keep a few desktop utilities (gimp, inkscape, blender) for when I want to make pictures, notably absent is a file manager, the shell takes care of all my file manipulation needs. but if I had to recommend one it would be xfe. Speed-wise I think is is more sluggish than a linux system. I like and keep it because openbsd is so comfortable. openbsd was the first operating system where I felt I understood it and it's motivations. every once in a while I try to replicate my preferred system on linux(void linux comes close to what I like about openbsd) but usually find myself back on openbsd(usually with a sigh of relief) in a couple of weeks.

retro64 4y ago

I use both. I've asked myself why I don't just streamline and standardize simply on Linux as overall it has more traction, but every time I have the opportunity to complete the switch I refuse to give up BSD. I think it boils down to control. Thinking back I have had essentially the same experience/environment on BSD for years. Upgrading from one version to the next just works and is fairly painless, even across major releases (trying to think of the last time I've had issues). I keep my home directory on a separate physical disk, so upgrading the OS drive or moving to new hardware is a matter of installing the latest BSD and plugging my home drive back in and mapping it. After upgrading I can use pkg to reinstall the apps I need and the shortcuts all link back, and I'm done. Probably forgot a few steps in there but it doesn't take long. For example I upgraded from 11.x to 13.0 just a few months ago with a hard drive swap and it took me maybe 3 hours(?), including installing the physical drive. I don't play a lot of games on it, other than complete source ports, or simple games that run on vanilla wine. Linux is for gaming and experimenting. On Linux I am far more free with what I install, and my experience has changed often over the years with different distros. Some of that was by my choice, but even at the most basic level I've found that distros tend to have a lot of flux between versions. So, overall no real surprises with FreeBSD. Upgrade and keep chugging.