6 ms·

Does anyone here run FreeBSD on the desktop? If so, can you explain why you prefer it to Linux?

ofalkaed 4y ago
It is like linux if Canonical never happened, so like linux 20 years ago. The ports system is nice. FreeBSD is my fallback in case Patrick gives in to the changing linux world and I have to abandon Slackware or start learning OS stuff again. Biggest thing to know about it as a desktop, drivers get into the kernel much slower than with linux and some never get in, so like linux was 20 years ago.
- blackhaz 4y ago
  OMG - this is so true. Home sweet home. A few additional points: - The hard separation between the base OS and user-installed packages that go in /usr/local - you can wipe the /usr/local and get back to the pristine state. Things don't get mixed. - Better documentation, better man pages. Whenever I log in to a Linux distro it feels like things are all in the wrong places. Hardware support is bad though, I wish hardware vendors would open source their drivers.
- ken666 4y ago
  Have a look at void Linux. I was a long time freebsd user until I really needed some proprietary software (zoom) in the pandemic. Switched to void and it is the same freebsd feeling, but with much better hardware support. And with my beloved ZFS!
  - SSLy 4y ago
    Or, just, arch.
    - chongli 4y ago
      I used Arch for a number of years before switching to a Mac when I went back to school. At some point I may go back to Linux or FreeBSD (I've used both!) but I'll never go back to rolling releases. The whole reason I switched to Mac was that I got tired of things breaking constantly due to the never-ending updates. And if you put things off then you end up getting a whole lot of breakage all at once. No, I would prefer taking things slow and getting tested releases way less often. I have no need to be on the bleeding edge of everything.
      - doubled112 4y ago
        This is why I run Debian everywhere. Even my desktops. My hardware is usually a little older anyway, so the latest stable release is good enough. Flatpaks are finally to a point where if I need up to date apps I can just install it from Flathub.
      - sph 4y ago
        The only sane Linux setup for a workstation is an immutable distro like Silverblue/Kinoite, and an Arch Linux toolbox (or any distro you prefer). I will die on this hill, and whoever disagrees has never tried what honestly feels like the future. My Linux PC is as stable and reproducible as my iPhone. One day I will finish my Fedora Silverblue master guide that has been a draft for months... (No, sorry, NixOS ain't better.)
        phaer 4y ago
        NixOS is "better" in the sense that you can get pretty close to something like Silverblue with it if you tinker around. But I agree with you that for the average user Silverblue surely is the the better platform, NixOS is for people how like to hack around and customize their environment.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        chongli 4y ago
        immutable distro like Silverblue I had never even heard these before! This sounds exactly like what I want! One day I will finish my Fedora Silverblue master guide that has been a draft for months... I would love to read it!
        bionsystem 4y ago
        I can't figure out a decent workflow for Kinoite. It's probably a little bit too much work for me to change my habits right here right now. But I agree that this is a great setup and ultimately, what I want to aim to. Complete separation of user and OS, containerized apps everywhere, and so forth. But my quick trial of a few hours was too short to adapt. Also I love excel too much unfortunately.
  - 5e92cb50239222b 4y ago
    I believe it runs fine in any browser with WebRTC support.
    - hestefisk 4y ago
      Assuming you have a good webcam?
    - VagueMag 4y ago
      Been using the webcam with my FreeBSD desktop for job interviews over the past couple of months. Unfortunately Zoom eats up a ton of CPU and then crashes when I open it in a browser tab, and there isn't a packaged binary that I've given a try yet. On Google Meet the browser also doesn't support blurring out the background. So, while it's not totally broken or anything, I don't rely on it for important video meetings.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  Like UNIX you mean.
- simion314 4y ago
  >It is like linux if Canonical never happened, Really? from what I read BSD complaints they hate RedHat related stuff like systemd and GNOME code was Linux only for w hile, not sure if this was fixed in GJPME or downstream.
  - ofalkaed 4y ago
    Canonical adopting systemd is what made it a standard, community went from being very divided on systemd to resigned and accepting it almost overnight after Canonical announced they were going systemd. This is a fairly common trend, they have a fair amount of influence although that seems to be waning after their push for snap.
    - thecosmicfrog 4y ago
      Canonical only settled on systemd when Debian decided to adopt it, though.
      - slackfan 4y ago
        That is nice historical revisionism, considering Canonical was all in on upstart.
        veidr 4y ago
        No, the parent you are replying to meant that Canonical only gave up on upstart and accepted defeat (and thus went with systemd) when Debian made that decision.
        thecosmicfrog 4y ago
        Correct - that was what I meant. I remember the init system debates all too well.
        simion314 4y ago
        Dude, that is historical true, Upstart was there before systemd , Redhat used upstart too. Then an RH dev created systemd and Arch,Fedora,Debian moved to systemd , Ubuntu followed Debian decision since Ubuntu is based on Debian and they share maintainers/developers.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  > Canonical Canonical/Red Hat. The changes have largely been the two of them warring for control of key projects, such that other distros are forced to fall in line and become second-class to theirs (why risk the knock-off when you can go straight to the source?). Red Hat's won every one of these battles so far.
voytec 4y ago
Know the system better but as for preference - Linux is better suited for some tasks and I use both - FreeBSD as host with Linux VMs. Switched after 10+ years of using Apple products exclusively. I've recently posted[1] my thoughts on commercial vs. FOSS-driven workstations. One huge downside to FreeBSD on a workstation is the lack of modern WiFi support. Impatiently waiting for WiFi drivers emulated via LinuxKPI[2]. [1] https://wojteksychut.com/posts/work-tech-i-use-privately/ https://wojteksychut.com/posts/work-tech-i-use-privately/ [2] https://wiki.freebsd.org/LinuxKPI https://wiki.freebsd.org/LinuxKPI
doublerabbit 4y ago
Not Linux: Linux feels clunky like a bunch of third party cogs all mashed together. Some with teeth missing some with too many. If it's not SystemMd taking over the whole startup of system services and needing its own DHCP server, it's then down to package manager's. Apt being replaced with snap, snap replaced by flat images. Its divided and with no formality. Someone will create some new thing, I'll get popular, get introduced in to some distro, command others to use it and then end up being abandoned. Linux is now in bed with corporate. The original idea was having a free alternative of unix and/or sort of fight against Microsoft. That's gone. These are not all bad things, but turns the experience of Linux in to a mess. For FreeBSD: It just works, its solid, it bounces back. It has ZFS. Its Unix. The kernel is as whole, its solid. Rock battle tested solid. Packages feel meshed correctly. Documentation is a single source. Its just lovely to use and when you replace Linux for FreeBSD you'll feel a weight off your shoulders as your system will shutdown rather than systemmd displaying "Waiting 5minutes for X to shutdown". Have a great community which isn't divided by distributions.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- 2b3a51 4y ago
  I'm glad you like your FreeBSD installation. Just a reminder that a range of Linux distributions available. There is choice.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - doublerabbit 4y ago
    I'm aware. If I had to choose one it would be Slackware.
    - 2b3a51 4y ago
      Posting this off Slackware 14.2/xfce4 on an old Thinkpad X220. All good. (Must get round to upgrading to 15.0 sometime)
wkat4242 4y ago
I do yes. It's my daily driver. I love it on the desktop. I use it with KDE. What I love is the excellent documentation, stable OS + rolling packages, ZFS on root (snapshots!), the ports collection so you can recompile packages easily with your own settings if needed. Also no attempts to include their own IP like canonical does with snap. The low level of commercial interest is great. There's nothing being replaced just for the sake of it. The biggest problem seems to be wifi drivers with their closed source blob skullduggery making things difficult, but I have no need for wifi on my desktop anyway.
citrin_ru 4y ago
I do. The main reason is that I know it better and I feel it is easier to know it well thanks to good documentation and relative simplicity (compare to Linux). First class ZFS support is another reason. While ZFS is available on Linux in distros I would use (OpenSuse or Fedora) it is not available by default and needs to be installed separately. Also use i3 WM and install only apps I use - a typical Linux distro which brings Gnome/KDE/Unity and lots of apps I don't need is a waste of space (on my small SSD). Though I admit that FreeBSD desktop is less user and especially novice user friendly than Linux. Another big reason to prefer Linux is closed source software. Sometimes closed source apps have Linux versions but practically never FreeBSD ones. Linux emulation works for simple apps but setting up something like Skype or Zoom (which requires camera/mic access) is too much of a work even for an experienced FreeBSD user (if possible at all).
- russnes 4y ago
  I would use FreeBSD myself if it weren't for Void Linux. You get all the extra tools and quality of life from Linux without any bloat, and it has a minimal init system. It's also very convenient to use if you need up to date software since it is a rolling release, but there are some things in FreeBSD which is better like reproducible builds. Kind of like Arch Linux but without the chaos, and the community appears to be growing!
vermaden 4y ago
Mostly of those reasons: - https://vermaden.wordpress.com/2020/09/07/quare-freebsd/ https://vermaden.wordpress.com/2020/09/07/quare-freebsd/ Its simple and logical with lots of useful features that most people do not even know exist. Also in may aspects it makes my life easier - like with ZFS Boot Environments or Rescue subsystem - Ports and Source infrastructure for custom system/packages building. I also like the Community. Here is mine 'desktop' documentation if needed: - https://vermaden.wordpress.com/freebsd-desktop/ https://vermaden.wordpress.com/freebsd-desktop/ Regards.
hestefisk 4y ago
Yes I do. The main reason is stability and familiarity. Also the lack of systemd.
klibertp 4y ago
I don't run it right now (and won't anytime soon) as a desktop. Once I switched to using laptops exclusively, the driver story became too bad to work comfortably. But, I used FreeBSD on a desktop for 5 years, from 2005 to 2010. I really enjoyed using it. The reasons for that are what others already mentioned: simplicity, well-thought-out organization of the system vs. userland vs. 3rd party packages (man hier), excellent documentation always available locally, ports, jails, pf, etc. It was all nice, but the killer feature, for me, was stability. The system simply refused to die, no matter what I threw at it or how I misconfigured it. At the time, Linux was a lot less stable than it is today - it could hang forever, corrupt the filesystem, or restart in the middle of doing something. Especially with proprietary, binary blobs and apps, rare as they were, Linux had a hard time accumulating uptime. On the other hand, FreeBSD worked, always. Well, it had no other choice, given that ACPI wasn't fully implemented and it couldn't suspend/sleep - it was a desktop but also a server for some private stuff, so that was ok. Linux got much better over the years, both in kernel and userland. I have been using Fedora for close to 15 years now, and it works. I won't be going back to FreeBSD on the desktop, unfortunately. However, I'm tempted to try it again on an older laptop that plays the role of a NAS: no GUI, always connected to the router with a cable, always connected to power. I have Fedora running there, but I already use ZFS - it's great - so the switch shouldn't be hard.
- mnd999 4y ago
  Same, I used to run it a lot, but I went back to it recently and have not really managed to make it work. I'm using sway, and I have hit a whole bunch of issues: * Have to use 14-CURRENT to support my RDNA2 graphics card at all. This was not simple. * Systemd sucks, but on Linux when I start a sway session it co-ordinates all the xdg-desktop-portal-wlr / pipewire / pipewire-media-session (I think). There doesn't seem to be a freebsd equivalent for user level services. Although dbus / consolekit seems to be doing something, I don't understand why or how. * Sound is just broken. My usb headset gives constant loud feedback, by bluetooth dongle spams the dmesg until it eventually gives up and my hda card seems to work in all the mixers but no sound is forthcoming. * Firefox with wayland on just loses the compositor connection almost instantly. Alacratty seems fine though, as is xwayland. * My webcam doesn't work, in firefox it's blank, in chrome the video is corrupted. * I have no idea how to configure XDG_RUNTIME_DIR to get created a login with the right permissions etc on tmpfs. I could leave it on zfs of course but apparently that's problematic.
krylon 4y ago
The last time I did was around the time PC-BSD became TrueOS, forcing me to reinstall. Running X11 gave me some kind of trouble afterwards, so installed vanilla FreeBSD, which gave me trouble, too. So I installed Debian and haven't looked back. That was on a ThinkPad x220, which supposedly is supported well by the BSD systems, and it did run well with PC-BSD. But I figured I was getting too old for fiddling around all weekend to get it to work, and Debian just worked(tm). Before that, I used FreeBSD on my desktop roughly from 2003 to 2005, mostly because I liked its simplicity and it did feel snappier than GNU/Linux at the time.
School-Cotton 4y ago
I use exclusively Linux now because of work, but in the past I ran FreeBSD on the desktop because I like tinkering and taking things apart to see how they work, and this is much easier with FreeBSD than any Linux distro I know of. Same reason I prefer emacs to other editors. Want to see how the “grep” command works? Just go to /usr/src/usr.bin/grep and read the source. Modify and reinstall it if you like. On Ubuntu this would be a huge chore of figuring out what package the command comes from, wrestling with apt-get source and dpkg-buildpackage, tweaking your apt settings to not immediately replace your custom-built one with the upstream version, etc.
gruturo 4y ago
A coherent userland (not without occasional warts, but without stuff being deliberately, maliciously ignored, broken or replaced to foster someone's agenda). ZFS as a first class citizen, without wondering if Oracle will show up and take the ball away. Jails, although that's not super relevant to the desktop experience. I won't mention systemd, although I truly dislike it (though I have no particular attachment to init scripts, I was quite fond of Solaris' SMF for example). The absence of snap and whatever horrors Canonical keeps pushing is another plus, but I'm in not in a good position to judge its impact as I'm blissfully ignorant of how bad they are, I just stumble in the occasional horror story. Biggest thing I'm missing and wish I had: Docker. Jails may be technically better, but the world went another way and they have no functional ecosystem.
- jonhohle 4y ago
  That seems to be the one advantage separating kernel from user space has provided. At least in my experience, jails may break when the host OS gets updated and the jail isn’t upgraded in lock step. That means having 1+n upgrades for every minor version update. Requiring a docker container to have a user space which matches the kernel kind of defeats the purpose.
  - toast0 4y ago
    This shouldn't normally happen, generally you can run a new kernel with an older userland (the documented upgrade process for the main root is upgrade kernel, reboot, upgrade userland, so at least part of userland needs to still work), and a chroot jail is mostly an independent userland. You may need to ensure the kernel is compiled with backwards compatability if your userland is very far off, and sometimes you see problems with syscall details: 13.0 released with a bug that some ifconfig arguments wouldn't work with a 12.x binary; and I've run into problems with the cpu pinning syscall when the bitmask size increased (this was recently fixed upstream, although I ran into it years ago), etc, so it's not unheard of, but it's fairly rare, in my experience.
- fullstop 4y ago
  > ZFS as a first class citizen, without wondering if Oracle will show up and take the ball away. Is this still true now that FreeBSD is using the ZoL/OpenZFS tree?
yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
FreeBSD has - can have - better ZFS support than Linux. Ubuntu comes close, but then you're on Ubuntu...
- vermaden 4y ago
  Ubuntu has only fraction of what FreeBSD has when it comes to ZFS. Several things that Ubuntu misses: - lack of ZFS Boot Environments - https://is.gd/BECTL https://is.gd/BECTL - https://is.gd/BEADM https://is.gd/BEADM - no bootloader integration - still requires ancient EXT4 or XFS /boot to start system ... and while the version of ZFS is newer on FreeBSD you can always install these packages and have LATEST OpenZFS available: - sysutils/openzfs - sysutils/openzfs-kmod Hope that helps.
efficax 4y ago
Ran it for a long time, mostly I liked the simplicity of it over linux, which with systemd + udev etc has become much harder to configure easily just by reading through the files in /etc. The way you configure FreeBSD has been basically the same since 1998, so I haven't had to learn new magic with whatever trend is taking over the linux world. On modern linux, without a browser open to google shit constantly it's a real challenge to make even little quality of life changes. And Linux binary compat on FreeBSD was (maybe still is?) very good. Lately I'm on linux though since I need docker for my job workflow.

It is like linux if Canonical never happened, so like linux 20 years ago. The ports system is nice. FreeBSD is my fallback in case Patrick gives in to the changing linux world and I have to abandon Slackware or start learning OS stuff again. Biggest thing to know about it as a desktop, drivers get into the kernel much slower than with linux and some never get in, so like linux was 20 years ago.

blackhaz 4y ago
OMG - this is so true. Home sweet home. A few additional points: - The hard separation between the base OS and user-installed packages that go in /usr/local - you can wipe the /usr/local and get back to the pristine state. Things don't get mixed. - Better documentation, better man pages. Whenever I log in to a Linux distro it feels like things are all in the wrong places. Hardware support is bad though, I wish hardware vendors would open source their drivers.
ken666 4y ago
Have a look at void Linux. I was a long time freebsd user until I really needed some proprietary software (zoom) in the pandemic. Switched to void and it is the same freebsd feeling, but with much better hardware support. And with my beloved ZFS!
- SSLy 4y ago
  Or, just, arch.
  - chongli 4y ago
    I used Arch for a number of years before switching to a Mac when I went back to school. At some point I may go back to Linux or FreeBSD (I've used both!) but I'll never go back to rolling releases. The whole reason I switched to Mac was that I got tired of things breaking constantly due to the never-ending updates. And if you put things off then you end up getting a whole lot of breakage all at once. No, I would prefer taking things slow and getting tested releases way less often. I have no need to be on the bleeding edge of everything.
    - doubled112 4y ago
      This is why I run Debian everywhere. Even my desktops. My hardware is usually a little older anyway, so the latest stable release is good enough. Flatpaks are finally to a point where if I need up to date apps I can just install it from Flathub.
    - sph 4y ago
      The only sane Linux setup for a workstation is an immutable distro like Silverblue/Kinoite, and an Arch Linux toolbox (or any distro you prefer). I will die on this hill, and whoever disagrees has never tried what honestly feels like the future. My Linux PC is as stable and reproducible as my iPhone. One day I will finish my Fedora Silverblue master guide that has been a draft for months... (No, sorry, NixOS ain't better.)
      - phaer 4y ago
        NixOS is "better" in the sense that you can get pretty close to something like Silverblue with it if you tinker around. But I agree with you that for the average user Silverblue surely is the the better platform, NixOS is for people how like to hack around and customize their environment.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - chongli 4y ago
        immutable distro like Silverblue I had never even heard these before! This sounds exactly like what I want! One day I will finish my Fedora Silverblue master guide that has been a draft for months... I would love to read it!
      - bionsystem 4y ago
        I can't figure out a decent workflow for Kinoite. It's probably a little bit too much work for me to change my habits right here right now. But I agree that this is a great setup and ultimately, what I want to aim to. Complete separation of user and OS, containerized apps everywhere, and so forth. But my quick trial of a few hours was too short to adapt. Also I love excel too much unfortunately.
- 5e92cb50239222b 4y ago
  I believe it runs fine in any browser with WebRTC support.
  - hestefisk 4y ago
    Assuming you have a good webcam?
  - VagueMag 4y ago
    Been using the webcam with my FreeBSD desktop for job interviews over the past couple of months. Unfortunately Zoom eats up a ton of CPU and then crashes when I open it in a browser tab, and there isn't a packaged binary that I've given a try yet. On Google Meet the browser also doesn't support blurring out the background. So, while it's not totally broken or anything, I don't rely on it for important video meetings.
pjmlp 4y ago
Like UNIX you mean.
simion314 4y ago
>It is like linux if Canonical never happened, Really? from what I read BSD complaints they hate RedHat related stuff like systemd and GNOME code was Linux only for w hile, not sure if this was fixed in GJPME or downstream.
- ofalkaed 4y ago
  Canonical adopting systemd is what made it a standard, community went from being very divided on systemd to resigned and accepting it almost overnight after Canonical announced they were going systemd. This is a fairly common trend, they have a fair amount of influence although that seems to be waning after their push for snap.
  - thecosmicfrog 4y ago
    Canonical only settled on systemd when Debian decided to adopt it, though.
    - slackfan 4y ago
      That is nice historical revisionism, considering Canonical was all in on upstart.
      - veidr 4y ago
        No, the parent you are replying to meant that Canonical only gave up on upstart and accepted defeat (and thus went with systemd) when Debian made that decision.
        thecosmicfrog 4y ago
        Correct - that was what I meant. I remember the init system debates all too well.
      - simion314 4y ago
        Dude, that is historical true, Upstart was there before systemd , Redhat used upstart too. Then an RH dev created systemd and Arch,Fedora,Debian moved to systemd , Ubuntu followed Debian decision since Ubuntu is based on Debian and they share maintainers/developers.
yamtaddle 4y ago
> Canonical Canonical/Red Hat. The changes have largely been the two of them warring for control of key projects, such that other distros are forced to fall in line and become second-class to theirs (why risk the knock-off when you can go straight to the source?). Red Hat's won every one of these battles so far.

voytec 4y ago

Know the system better but as for preference - Linux is better suited for some tasks and I use both - FreeBSD as host with Linux VMs. Switched after 10+ years of using Apple products exclusively. I've recently posted[1] my thoughts on commercial vs. FOSS-driven workstations. One huge downside to FreeBSD on a workstation is the lack of modern WiFi support. Impatiently waiting for WiFi drivers emulated via LinuxKPI[2]. [1] https://wojteksychut.com/posts/work-tech-i-use-privately/ https://wojteksychut.com/posts/work-tech-i-use-privately/ [2] https://wiki.freebsd.org/LinuxKPI https://wiki.freebsd.org/LinuxKPI

doublerabbit 4y ago

Not Linux: Linux feels clunky like a bunch of third party cogs all mashed together. Some with teeth missing some with too many. If it's not SystemMd taking over the whole startup of system services and needing its own DHCP server, it's then down to package manager's. Apt being replaced with snap, snap replaced by flat images. Its divided and with no formality. Someone will create some new thing, I'll get popular, get introduced in to some distro, command others to use it and then end up being abandoned. Linux is now in bed with corporate. The original idea was having a free alternative of unix and/or sort of fight against Microsoft. That's gone. These are not all bad things, but turns the experience of Linux in to a mess. For FreeBSD: It just works, its solid, it bounces back. It has ZFS. Its Unix. The kernel is as whole, its solid. Rock battle tested solid. Packages feel meshed correctly. Documentation is a single source. Its just lovely to use and when you replace Linux for FreeBSD you'll feel a weight off your shoulders as your system will shutdown rather than systemmd displaying "Waiting 5minutes for X to shutdown". Have a great community which isn't divided by distributions.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
2b3a51 4y ago
I'm glad you like your FreeBSD installation. Just a reminder that a range of Linux distributions available. There is choice.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- doublerabbit 4y ago
  I'm aware. If I had to choose one it would be Slackware.
  - 2b3a51 4y ago
    Posting this off Slackware 14.2/xfce4 on an old Thinkpad X220. All good. (Must get round to upgrading to 15.0 sometime)

wkat4242 4y ago

I do yes. It's my daily driver. I love it on the desktop. I use it with KDE. What I love is the excellent documentation, stable OS + rolling packages, ZFS on root (snapshots!), the ports collection so you can recompile packages easily with your own settings if needed. Also no attempts to include their own IP like canonical does with snap. The low level of commercial interest is great. There's nothing being replaced just for the sake of it. The biggest problem seems to be wifi drivers with their closed source blob skullduggery making things difficult, but I have no need for wifi on my desktop anyway.

citrin_ru 4y ago

I do. The main reason is that I know it better and I feel it is easier to know it well thanks to good documentation and relative simplicity (compare to Linux). First class ZFS support is another reason. While ZFS is available on Linux in distros I would use (OpenSuse or Fedora) it is not available by default and needs to be installed separately. Also use i3 WM and install only apps I use - a typical Linux distro which brings Gnome/KDE/Unity and lots of apps I don't need is a waste of space (on my small SSD). Though I admit that FreeBSD desktop is less user and especially novice user friendly than Linux. Another big reason to prefer Linux is closed source software. Sometimes closed source apps have Linux versions but practically never FreeBSD ones. Linux emulation works for simple apps but setting up something like Skype or Zoom (which requires camera/mic access) is too much of a work even for an experienced FreeBSD user (if possible at all).

russnes 4y ago
I would use FreeBSD myself if it weren't for Void Linux. You get all the extra tools and quality of life from Linux without any bloat, and it has a minimal init system. It's also very convenient to use if you need up to date software since it is a rolling release, but there are some things in FreeBSD which is better like reproducible builds. Kind of like Arch Linux but without the chaos, and the community appears to be growing!

vermaden 4y ago

Mostly of those reasons: - https://vermaden.wordpress.com/2020/09/07/quare-freebsd/ https://vermaden.wordpress.com/2020/09/07/quare-freebsd/ Its simple and logical with lots of useful features that most people do not even know exist. Also in may aspects it makes my life easier - like with ZFS Boot Environments or Rescue subsystem - Ports and Source infrastructure for custom system/packages building. I also like the Community. Here is mine 'desktop' documentation if needed: - https://vermaden.wordpress.com/freebsd-desktop/ https://vermaden.wordpress.com/freebsd-desktop/ Regards.

hestefisk 4y ago

Yes I do. The main reason is stability and familiarity. Also the lack of systemd.

klibertp 4y ago

I don't run it right now (and won't anytime soon) as a desktop. Once I switched to using laptops exclusively, the driver story became too bad to work comfortably. But, I used FreeBSD on a desktop for 5 years, from 2005 to 2010. I really enjoyed using it. The reasons for that are what others already mentioned: simplicity, well-thought-out organization of the system vs. userland vs. 3rd party packages (man hier), excellent documentation always available locally, ports, jails, pf, etc. It was all nice, but the killer feature, for me, was stability. The system simply refused to die, no matter what I threw at it or how I misconfigured it. At the time, Linux was a lot less stable than it is today - it could hang forever, corrupt the filesystem, or restart in the middle of doing something. Especially with proprietary, binary blobs and apps, rare as they were, Linux had a hard time accumulating uptime. On the other hand, FreeBSD worked, always. Well, it had no other choice, given that ACPI wasn't fully implemented and it couldn't suspend/sleep - it was a desktop but also a server for some private stuff, so that was ok. Linux got much better over the years, both in kernel and userland. I have been using Fedora for close to 15 years now, and it works. I won't be going back to FreeBSD on the desktop, unfortunately. However, I'm tempted to try it again on an older laptop that plays the role of a NAS: no GUI, always connected to the router with a cable, always connected to power. I have Fedora running there, but I already use ZFS - it's great - so the switch shouldn't be hard.

mnd999 4y ago
Same, I used to run it a lot, but I went back to it recently and have not really managed to make it work. I'm using sway, and I have hit a whole bunch of issues: * Have to use 14-CURRENT to support my RDNA2 graphics card at all. This was not simple. * Systemd sucks, but on Linux when I start a sway session it co-ordinates all the xdg-desktop-portal-wlr / pipewire / pipewire-media-session (I think). There doesn't seem to be a freebsd equivalent for user level services. Although dbus / consolekit seems to be doing something, I don't understand why or how. * Sound is just broken. My usb headset gives constant loud feedback, by bluetooth dongle spams the dmesg until it eventually gives up and my hda card seems to work in all the mixers but no sound is forthcoming. * Firefox with wayland on just loses the compositor connection almost instantly. Alacratty seems fine though, as is xwayland. * My webcam doesn't work, in firefox it's blank, in chrome the video is corrupted. * I have no idea how to configure XDG_RUNTIME_DIR to get created a login with the right permissions etc on tmpfs. I could leave it on zfs of course but apparently that's problematic.

krylon 4y ago

The last time I did was around the time PC-BSD became TrueOS, forcing me to reinstall. Running X11 gave me some kind of trouble afterwards, so installed vanilla FreeBSD, which gave me trouble, too. So I installed Debian and haven't looked back. That was on a ThinkPad x220, which supposedly is supported well by the BSD systems, and it did run well with PC-BSD. But I figured I was getting too old for fiddling around all weekend to get it to work, and Debian just worked(tm). Before that, I used FreeBSD on my desktop roughly from 2003 to 2005, mostly because I liked its simplicity and it did feel snappier than GNU/Linux at the time.

School-Cotton 4y ago

I use exclusively Linux now because of work, but in the past I ran FreeBSD on the desktop because I like tinkering and taking things apart to see how they work, and this is much easier with FreeBSD than any Linux distro I know of. Same reason I prefer emacs to other editors. Want to see how the “grep” command works? Just go to /usr/src/usr.bin/grep and read the source. Modify and reinstall it if you like. On Ubuntu this would be a huge chore of figuring out what package the command comes from, wrestling with apt-get source and dpkg-buildpackage, tweaking your apt settings to not immediately replace your custom-built one with the upstream version, etc.

gruturo 4y ago

A coherent userland (not without occasional warts, but without stuff being deliberately, maliciously ignored, broken or replaced to foster someone's agenda). ZFS as a first class citizen, without wondering if Oracle will show up and take the ball away. Jails, although that's not super relevant to the desktop experience. I won't mention systemd, although I truly dislike it (though I have no particular attachment to init scripts, I was quite fond of Solaris' SMF for example). The absence of snap and whatever horrors Canonical keeps pushing is another plus, but I'm in not in a good position to judge its impact as I'm blissfully ignorant of how bad they are, I just stumble in the occasional horror story. Biggest thing I'm missing and wish I had: Docker. Jails may be technically better, but the world went another way and they have no functional ecosystem.

jonhohle 4y ago
That seems to be the one advantage separating kernel from user space has provided. At least in my experience, jails may break when the host OS gets updated and the jail isn’t upgraded in lock step. That means having 1+n upgrades for every minor version update. Requiring a docker container to have a user space which matches the kernel kind of defeats the purpose.
- toast0 4y ago
  This shouldn't normally happen, generally you can run a new kernel with an older userland (the documented upgrade process for the main root is upgrade kernel, reboot, upgrade userland, so at least part of userland needs to still work), and a chroot jail is mostly an independent userland. You may need to ensure the kernel is compiled with backwards compatability if your userland is very far off, and sometimes you see problems with syscall details: 13.0 released with a bug that some ifconfig arguments wouldn't work with a 12.x binary; and I've run into problems with the cpu pinning syscall when the bitmask size increased (this was recently fixed upstream, although I ran into it years ago), etc, so it's not unheard of, but it's fairly rare, in my experience.
fullstop 4y ago
> ZFS as a first class citizen, without wondering if Oracle will show up and take the ball away. Is this still true now that FreeBSD is using the ZoL/OpenZFS tree?

yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago

FreeBSD has - can have - better ZFS support than Linux. Ubuntu comes close, but then you're on Ubuntu...

vermaden 4y ago
Ubuntu has only fraction of what FreeBSD has when it comes to ZFS. Several things that Ubuntu misses: - lack of ZFS Boot Environments - https://is.gd/BECTL https://is.gd/BECTL - https://is.gd/BEADM https://is.gd/BEADM - no bootloader integration - still requires ancient EXT4 or XFS /boot to start system ... and while the version of ZFS is newer on FreeBSD you can always install these packages and have LATEST OpenZFS available: - sysutils/openzfs - sysutils/openzfs-kmod Hope that helps.

efficax 4y ago

Ran it for a long time, mostly I liked the simplicity of it over linux, which with systemd + udev etc has become much harder to configure easily just by reading through the files in /etc. The way you configure FreeBSD has been basically the same since 1998, so I haven't had to learn new magic with whatever trend is taking over the linux world. On modern linux, without a browser open to google shit constantly it's a real challenge to make even little quality of life changes. And Linux binary compat on FreeBSD was (maybe still is?) very good. Lately I'm on linux though since I need docker for my job workflow.