4 ms·

Are you honestly suggesting BSD is easier to use than Linux?

yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
No, they're suggesting that BSD changes less. If you learn FreeBSD, and you learn, let's say Ubuntu, and then you keep using them for a decade, the stated position is that FreeBSD would require you to learn fewer new things than ex. Ubuntu over the same timespan.
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  I've been using Linux for 27 years, and it hasn't changed all that much in that time. Packaging has got better, systemd is a bit of a pain in the tits but necessary if you want to support the kind of things we expect to do with "real" computers instead of servers sitting in a dark room untouched for years. I've been using NetBSD for about the same amount of time, and it hasn't changed all that much either.
  - throw0101c 4y ago
    > I've been using Linux for 27 years, and it hasn't changed all that much in that time. First there's networking configuration. On Debian and Ubuntu the interfaces(5) used to be nice and simple, but dog knows what to use on any particular system nowadays since there are like three ways to do things: interface, netplan, system-networkd, other? Plus there's resolv.conf(5) being fiddled with a myriad of ways and you have to figure out which system to use there as well. ifconfig kind of works and kind of doesn't for some things. How may firewall system changes have there been in the last 27 years? Are we supposed to be using iptables or nftables in 2022?
    - Volundr 4y ago
      > ifconfig kind of works and kind of doesn't for some things. And is being replaced with 'ip'
    - Gordonjcp 4y ago
      In roughly the same amount of time I've owned about ten or fifteen cars. Every single one of them had the dashboard controls in slightly different places, with slightly different options. Some had four-speed gearboxes, some five-speed, some automatic with three-, four-, five-, or in one case 18-speed gearboxes. Every single one of them was basically just a car, and drove me to the same places in the same way.
hnlmorg 4y ago
That wasn’t their point. But to be honest I do think FreeBSD is. Linux wins in terms of market share which makes it appear easier (eg more software support, bore install guides, etc). But if you look at the base OS itself, FreeBSD is a lot more consistent to manage. I think it’s a great pity FreeBSD doesn’t get more traction to be honest with you. I have no major qualms with Linux on the whole but FreeBSD is a really nice platform to work on too.
nix23 4y ago
Yes, much easier, Linux is a mess, the firewall disgusting, LVM...buah. The only problem BSD have, are drivers. But you obviously never worked with BSD...unbloated systems ARE easier to use.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  Firewalls are the one thing I don't really like on FreeBSD. It gives you 3 options but the handbook doesn't provide much guidance on the pros and cons of each. I'd prefer it if there was one favored one that all the effort went into to make it really good, just like with everything else FreeBSD. This is not arch where you have to handpick each component :)
  - adrian_b 4y ago
    Of the 3 FreeBSD firewalls, ipfw is the native firewall, like iptables is for Linux. The pf firewall is a fork of the OpenBSD firewall. It is the normal choice for someone already familiar with using OpenBSD firewalls. Otherwise, a new user should choose between ipfw and pf the one whose configuration seems easier to understand. I happen to prefer ipfw, because writing a configuration file for ipfw is exactly like writing a program in a programming language (a language very much like BASIC), which examines the incoming or outgoing packets, by executing instructions sequentially. Others find the syntax used by pf more pleasant, but I find it more difficult to reason about which is the matching rule that will be selected by pf for execution for a certain packet. The third firewall, ipfilter, is also provided mainly for the former users of it on other operating systems. I am not aware of any particular advantage for it.
    - GekkePrutser 4y ago
      Exactly, I found out the same with some googling, but the handbook specifically mentions it will describe the differences and then neglects to do it :) I was first considering pf because I used it on Mac before, but the problem is the freebsd version was forked quite a long time ago and has different features than the openbsd version as a result. I went for ipfw mainly because it seems to see the most active development. But really, I wish FreeBSD would just pick one as standard and keep the others around for compatibility reasons if needed. One of the reasons I like FreeBSD is that you don't have to make such choices. Things have well chosen defaults. Contrast this with arch which I mentioned, that even lets you decide which mechanism to use for network management (e.g. net manager, connman, systemd-networkd, netctl). It describes this choice really well in its excellent wiki, but when I tried arch it meant I had to do this kind of decision for pretty much every part of the OS :) What I like for FreeBSD is that they keep things simple. But where they do give a choice, I'd love it if they describe the pros and cons as well as Arch do: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Network_configuration#Network_managers https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Network_configuration#Netwo... I think Arch and FreeBSD have a lot in common, they're both intended for users that don't expect to click through everything and just dump you on a command prompt where you can set up stuff the way you want, instead focusing on excellent documentation. I use FreeBSD on my daily driver PC now as I thought Arch was too much work with all the choices, and on the other hand the one thing I did want to change (systemd) it didn't allow.
adrian_b 4y ago
I have not tried recently to use BSD as a desktop, which is likely to have problems when using many recent GPUs, due to the lack of device drivers (but NVIDIA provides FreeBSD drivers, not only Linux, so I have used FreeBSD on a signage appliance with a fanless NVIDIA GPU). However, when using a system without a GUI, e.g. for a networking or storage server, in most cases FreeBSD is definitely much easier to use than Linux. There are a huge number of small details that matter. Even for something as simple as seeing the status of the network interfaces. If I type "ifconfig" without arguments on FreeBSD, it shows everything that I want to know, about all network interfaces. To obtain the same information on a Linux system, I have to type a large number of "ip" commands, each with many arguments that I fail to remember even after decades of using "ip", so I may need to consult the "man" page for "ip". (The legacy ifconfig of Linux does not provide the functionality of FreeBSD ifconfig) In general, for any network-related task, using ifconfig and ipfw on FreeBSD is much easier than using ip and iptables on Linux. There also many more niche applications where there are big differences. For example the "mt" command for magnetic tape control sucks badly on Linux, but it is very convenient on FreeBSD. Also for SCSI devices FreeBSD has more flexible commands. While audio seems to be improving on Linux with things like pipewire, for a long time audio was in many cases easier to configure on FreeBSD than on Linux with the dreaded ALSA or pulseaudio, if the audio hardware was supported. Also, when I had to configure once some USB surveillance cameras, that was easier on FreeBSD with webcamd, than on Linux, but like for audio, FreeBSD has a shorter list of supported devices. Some of the differences in the user interface between FreeBSD and Linux are caused by FreeBSD being more conservative, while in Linux some older tools have been replaced with newer tools, but the newer tools have been made with worse user interfaces, like in the replacement of ifconfig with ip, or in the introduction of ALSA and pulseaudio, which both have an extremely poor user interface, especially for computers with multiple audio devices.
johnklos 4y ago
I can't speak for the person you're asking, but BSD is worlds easier than using Linux. A how-to for FreeBSD can be used with NetBSD with minimal changes. Why? Because the BSDs don't expend effort to deliberately try to differentiate themselves from each other. They're consistent and don't change gratuitously. Try writing a how-to that has even the slightest consistency between the common Linux distros - Red Hat, Ubuntu, Debian, Arch. Heck - many how-tos written for Ubuntu 18 can't be used with newer Ubuntu! It's a mess.
- CoolCold 4y ago
  It's a mess, I agree. On practical side it rarely bothers you. In most organizations you standardize on single one and that's all. Say my largest current Linux deployment is on Centos 7. Project is new so just for 3 years. Migration will highly likely will happen to Alma 9 (RHEL 9 clone) somewhere next year. And will run another 5 years or so.
lmm 4y ago
For someone with a bit of *nix experience from a few years ago? Yes, it is, IME.

No, they're suggesting that BSD changes less. If you learn FreeBSD, and you learn, let's say Ubuntu, and then you keep using them for a decade, the stated position is that FreeBSD would require you to learn fewer new things than ex. Ubuntu over the same timespan.

Gordonjcp 4y ago
I've been using Linux for 27 years, and it hasn't changed all that much in that time. Packaging has got better, systemd is a bit of a pain in the tits but necessary if you want to support the kind of things we expect to do with "real" computers instead of servers sitting in a dark room untouched for years. I've been using NetBSD for about the same amount of time, and it hasn't changed all that much either.
- throw0101c 4y ago
  > I've been using Linux for 27 years, and it hasn't changed all that much in that time. First there's networking configuration. On Debian and Ubuntu the interfaces(5) used to be nice and simple, but dog knows what to use on any particular system nowadays since there are like three ways to do things: interface, netplan, system-networkd, other? Plus there's resolv.conf(5) being fiddled with a myriad of ways and you have to figure out which system to use there as well. ifconfig kind of works and kind of doesn't for some things. How may firewall system changes have there been in the last 27 years? Are we supposed to be using iptables or nftables in 2022?
  - Volundr 4y ago
    > ifconfig kind of works and kind of doesn't for some things. And is being replaced with 'ip'
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    In roughly the same amount of time I've owned about ten or fifteen cars. Every single one of them had the dashboard controls in slightly different places, with slightly different options. Some had four-speed gearboxes, some five-speed, some automatic with three-, four-, five-, or in one case 18-speed gearboxes. Every single one of them was basically just a car, and drove me to the same places in the same way.

hnlmorg 4y ago

That wasn’t their point. But to be honest I do think FreeBSD is. Linux wins in terms of market share which makes it appear easier (eg more software support, bore install guides, etc). But if you look at the base OS itself, FreeBSD is a lot more consistent to manage. I think it’s a great pity FreeBSD doesn’t get more traction to be honest with you. I have no major qualms with Linux on the whole but FreeBSD is a really nice platform to work on too.

nix23 4y ago

Yes, much easier, Linux is a mess, the firewall disgusting, LVM...buah. The only problem BSD have, are drivers. But you obviously never worked with BSD...unbloated systems ARE easier to use.

GekkePrutser 4y ago
Firewalls are the one thing I don't really like on FreeBSD. It gives you 3 options but the handbook doesn't provide much guidance on the pros and cons of each. I'd prefer it if there was one favored one that all the effort went into to make it really good, just like with everything else FreeBSD. This is not arch where you have to handpick each component :)
- adrian_b 4y ago
  Of the 3 FreeBSD firewalls, ipfw is the native firewall, like iptables is for Linux. The pf firewall is a fork of the OpenBSD firewall. It is the normal choice for someone already familiar with using OpenBSD firewalls. Otherwise, a new user should choose between ipfw and pf the one whose configuration seems easier to understand. I happen to prefer ipfw, because writing a configuration file for ipfw is exactly like writing a program in a programming language (a language very much like BASIC), which examines the incoming or outgoing packets, by executing instructions sequentially. Others find the syntax used by pf more pleasant, but I find it more difficult to reason about which is the matching rule that will be selected by pf for execution for a certain packet. The third firewall, ipfilter, is also provided mainly for the former users of it on other operating systems. I am not aware of any particular advantage for it.
  - GekkePrutser 4y ago
    Exactly, I found out the same with some googling, but the handbook specifically mentions it will describe the differences and then neglects to do it :) I was first considering pf because I used it on Mac before, but the problem is the freebsd version was forked quite a long time ago and has different features than the openbsd version as a result. I went for ipfw mainly because it seems to see the most active development. But really, I wish FreeBSD would just pick one as standard and keep the others around for compatibility reasons if needed. One of the reasons I like FreeBSD is that you don't have to make such choices. Things have well chosen defaults. Contrast this with arch which I mentioned, that even lets you decide which mechanism to use for network management (e.g. net manager, connman, systemd-networkd, netctl). It describes this choice really well in its excellent wiki, but when I tried arch it meant I had to do this kind of decision for pretty much every part of the OS :) What I like for FreeBSD is that they keep things simple. But where they do give a choice, I'd love it if they describe the pros and cons as well as Arch do: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Network_configuration#Network_managers https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Network_configuration#Netwo... I think Arch and FreeBSD have a lot in common, they're both intended for users that don't expect to click through everything and just dump you on a command prompt where you can set up stuff the way you want, instead focusing on excellent documentation. I use FreeBSD on my daily driver PC now as I thought Arch was too much work with all the choices, and on the other hand the one thing I did want to change (systemd) it didn't allow.

adrian_b 4y ago

I have not tried recently to use BSD as a desktop, which is likely to have problems when using many recent GPUs, due to the lack of device drivers (but NVIDIA provides FreeBSD drivers, not only Linux, so I have used FreeBSD on a signage appliance with a fanless NVIDIA GPU). However, when using a system without a GUI, e.g. for a networking or storage server, in most cases FreeBSD is definitely much easier to use than Linux. There are a huge number of small details that matter. Even for something as simple as seeing the status of the network interfaces. If I type "ifconfig" without arguments on FreeBSD, it shows everything that I want to know, about all network interfaces. To obtain the same information on a Linux system, I have to type a large number of "ip" commands, each with many arguments that I fail to remember even after decades of using "ip", so I may need to consult the "man" page for "ip". (The legacy ifconfig of Linux does not provide the functionality of FreeBSD ifconfig) In general, for any network-related task, using ifconfig and ipfw on FreeBSD is much easier than using ip and iptables on Linux. There also many more niche applications where there are big differences. For example the "mt" command for magnetic tape control sucks badly on Linux, but it is very convenient on FreeBSD. Also for SCSI devices FreeBSD has more flexible commands. While audio seems to be improving on Linux with things like pipewire, for a long time audio was in many cases easier to configure on FreeBSD than on Linux with the dreaded ALSA or pulseaudio, if the audio hardware was supported. Also, when I had to configure once some USB surveillance cameras, that was easier on FreeBSD with webcamd, than on Linux, but like for audio, FreeBSD has a shorter list of supported devices. Some of the differences in the user interface between FreeBSD and Linux are caused by FreeBSD being more conservative, while in Linux some older tools have been replaced with newer tools, but the newer tools have been made with worse user interfaces, like in the replacement of ifconfig with ip, or in the introduction of ALSA and pulseaudio, which both have an extremely poor user interface, especially for computers with multiple audio devices.

johnklos 4y ago

I can't speak for the person you're asking, but BSD is worlds easier than using Linux. A how-to for FreeBSD can be used with NetBSD with minimal changes. Why? Because the BSDs don't expend effort to deliberately try to differentiate themselves from each other. They're consistent and don't change gratuitously. Try writing a how-to that has even the slightest consistency between the common Linux distros - Red Hat, Ubuntu, Debian, Arch. Heck - many how-tos written for Ubuntu 18 can't be used with newer Ubuntu! It's a mess.

CoolCold 4y ago
It's a mess, I agree. On practical side it rarely bothers you. In most organizations you standardize on single one and that's all. Say my largest current Linux deployment is on Centos 7. Project is new so just for 3 years. Migration will highly likely will happen to Alma 9 (RHEL 9 clone) somewhere next year. And will run another 5 years or so.

lmm 4y ago

For someone with a bit of *nix experience from a few years ago? Yes, it is, IME.