6 ms·

Documentation. Everything is in one place, and it is maintained. In contrast, Linux requires you to go look up documentation in a lot of different places, and

by jlouis 4y ago

Documentation. Everything is in one place, and it is maintained. In contrast, Linux requires you to go look up documentation in a lot of different places, and it is highly dependent on distribution what to do in a given situation. One reason for this is that FreeBSD maintains not only a kernel, but also a userland. This means a change in the kernel can immediately be followed by appropriate changes in the userland and vice versa.

zeendo 4y ago
Yeah. And the exception (as a desktop user) - ArchLinux - really proves the rule here. I like Arch for a handful of reasons but the documentation is really the standout one. But my experience with FreeBSD's docs are even better - and most of that experience is quite old at this point. I can't imagine how much better the situation has gotten since FreeBSD only seems to mature and not degrade (based on comments like yours which are very common).
- xxpor 4y ago
  I use Arch docs all the time, even for non-Arch distros. What really makes the wiki stand out is its focus on practical problems with examples, more than man-pages style docs. Is there anything similar for FreeBSD? I know the man pages are supposed to be amazing, but it's just a different problem to solve IMO. I also seriously dislike the BSD's tendency towards making --help useless, forcing you to bring up the man page. This is just for practical reasons. It's easier to hit up arrow, dash dash help pipe less than up arrow, ctrl+a, man, alt+f, ctrl+k to kill the arguments you've already written :)
  - rabf 4y ago
    https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/handbook/ https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/handbook/
    - xxpor 4y ago
      Oh this looks really nice! /me adds a new project to the backlog...
  - anthk 4y ago
    > forcing you to bring up the man page Man pages in OpenBSD for instance are a "must". In the GNU world, often man pages are really badly maintained pointing to GNU info. Also, the so called "Linux Howtos" were a disaster full of obsolete points. Just compare the OpenBSDxy.html upgrading page (where m and n are release numbers) for OpenBSD releases (and the FAQ) to the Arch Wiki.
    - deltarholamda 4y ago
      Man alive, OpenBSD's documentation is excellent. FreeBSD is good too, but there is just so, so much in the OpenBSD man pages. OpenBSD also strikes a very good balance between "informative" and "terse" that should be held up as a model for others. Unfamiliar things may need a few readings to get everything, but it's all there without being a toilet-clogger.
anthk 4y ago
That was my first problem with Linux, getting docs to configure the system was horrible. From Debian Woody to SuSE and then Debian Sarge, every distro was chaotic and Yast and Debconf overwrote everything. With NetBSD and OpenBSD everything looked sane. They explained you everything, from /etc/profile, managing services without making you mad with runlevels, to launching X and so on.
- CoolCold 4y ago
  Yeah, I double this
- lproven 4y ago
  > They explained you everything twitch Small English correction: the noun directly after the verb "to explain" must be the thing that is being explained. What you wrote means "they explained [anthk] [to everything]". They gave an explanation of you to the whole universe? This is a common mistake but it winds me up every time. "They explained" + the thing they explained + optionally to whom or what they explained it. It should be: "they explained everything to you."

by jlouis 4y ago

zeendo 4y ago

Yeah. And the exception (as a desktop user) - ArchLinux - really proves the rule here. I like Arch for a handful of reasons but the documentation is really the standout one. But my experience with FreeBSD's docs are even better - and most of that experience is quite old at this point. I can't imagine how much better the situation has gotten since FreeBSD only seems to mature and not degrade (based on comments like yours which are very common).

xxpor 4y ago
I use Arch docs all the time, even for non-Arch distros. What really makes the wiki stand out is its focus on practical problems with examples, more than man-pages style docs. Is there anything similar for FreeBSD? I know the man pages are supposed to be amazing, but it's just a different problem to solve IMO. I also seriously dislike the BSD's tendency towards making --help useless, forcing you to bring up the man page. This is just for practical reasons. It's easier to hit up arrow, dash dash help pipe less than up arrow, ctrl+a, man, alt+f, ctrl+k to kill the arguments you've already written :)
- rabf 4y ago
  https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/handbook/ https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/handbook/
  - xxpor 4y ago
    Oh this looks really nice! /me adds a new project to the backlog...
- anthk 4y ago
  > forcing you to bring up the man page Man pages in OpenBSD for instance are a "must". In the GNU world, often man pages are really badly maintained pointing to GNU info. Also, the so called "Linux Howtos" were a disaster full of obsolete points. Just compare the OpenBSDxy.html upgrading page (where m and n are release numbers) for OpenBSD releases (and the FAQ) to the Arch Wiki.
  - deltarholamda 4y ago
    Man alive, OpenBSD's documentation is excellent. FreeBSD is good too, but there is just so, so much in the OpenBSD man pages. OpenBSD also strikes a very good balance between "informative" and "terse" that should be held up as a model for others. Unfamiliar things may need a few readings to get everything, but it's all there without being a toilet-clogger.

anthk 4y ago

That was my first problem with Linux, getting docs to configure the system was horrible. From Debian Woody to SuSE and then Debian Sarge, every distro was chaotic and Yast and Debconf overwrote everything. With NetBSD and OpenBSD everything looked sane. They explained you everything, from /etc/profile, managing services without making you mad with runlevels, to launching X and so on.

CoolCold 4y ago
Yeah, I double this
lproven 4y ago
> They explained you everything twitch Small English correction: the noun directly after the verb "to explain" must be the thing that is being explained. What you wrote means "they explained [anthk] [to everything]". They gave an explanation of you to the whole universe? This is a common mistake but it winds me up every time. "They explained" + the thing they explained + optionally to whom or what they explained it. It should be: "they explained everything to you."