10 ms·

You shouldn't run a BSD on a PC

39 points by jaypatelani 2y ago

vermaden 2y ago
I have read it – its exaggerated for my standards. I use FreeBSD on laptops/desktop since 2005 and it mostly works. Do some things do not work? Sure. Do all things work on Linux? Nope. Do all things work on Windows? Nope. Not to mention how many times Linux or Windows break to the point of reinstall. From all the OSes I know – and they are a few – FreeBSD sucks the least – just pick the right hardware.
DmitryOlshansky 2y ago
In contrast I enjoyed my brief adventure in FreeBSD land. The system is so clean and simple compared to the chaotic nature of the typical linux desktop with countless deamons running. Ports usually work just fine and they even have Jetbrains Intellij IDE ready to go, lastly ZFS is a blessing - snapshotting never being easier.
nequo 2y ago
Firefox on FreeBSD is a hack layered over a hack running slowly. I have no idea how much work is required to support it, but it’s somewhere between “big” and “have mercy”. Might someone be able to summarize what kinds of hacks Firefox needs to run on FreeBSD?
- hulitu 2y ago
  > Firefox on FreeBSD is a hack layered over a hack running slowly. On linux too. I have to install Wayland just to be able to start Firefox.
  - tomsmeding 2y ago
    That sounds like something is seriously wrong. Firefox works perfectly fine on Xorg here for the past 10 years or so, across multiple distros.
    - sim7c00 2y ago
      firefox is incredibly slow on linux. didnt test it in the past 10 years on bsd. its the one thing i dont like when using linux. (mite be doing something wrong but i doubt it. fast pc. apt install, start. using out of the box stuff. (maybe not the nix way ;p)
      - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
        > apt install, start. using out of the box stuff. Are you on Ubuntu, by any chance? They replaced their firefox with a snap version (even if you `apt install` it, there's a redirect) which I've heard is significantly slower to start.
  - sshine 2y ago
    I run Firefox in Xorg, Wayland is not installed. What magic am I applying without knowing it?
- Gud 2y ago
  To be honest this has not been my experience. Firefox works just as well in FreeBSD as it does in Windows and GNU/Linux.
jraph 2y ago
> the GNU/Linux driver land is full of closed blobs > [...] > Ever wondered why GNU’s GUIX doesn’t support Nvidia? That’s because the drivers are provided as blobs, and therefore closed-source. As a result, the work needed for BSD support is difficult and slow Isn't it pretty much the only example of this? As long as you don't pick nvidia, you won't have proprietary drivers running. Of course there are many firmware blobs. It's an issue, I would prefer not running any proprietary firmware, but I don't see how it would be a bigger issue in BSD land. So yes, the issue is programs assuming Linux (though doesn't many people in the OSS ecosystem using Mac help a bit?), hardware support, and not as much help from the internet. Not too surprising, I would expect this; and the hardware support is what prevents me from considering *BSD. I didn't think of the fact you are not going to be on the bleeding edge too on *BSD, and that would be relevant to me, since I run a rolling distro and take this somewhat for granted. Bonus note: > You try to Kagi[6] it and nothing I would suggest "look it up" as a term that will remain stable and doesn't advertise a particular search engine. The best thing is you won't need a footnote either (however, I sympathize with the wish to make people use something else than Google).
- megapoliss 2y ago
  > Of course there are many firmware blobs. It's an issue, I would prefer not running any proprietary firmware, but I don't see how it would be a bigger issue in BSD land. It's closed-source, and it's Linux. There is no firmware for BSD.
  - ibotty 2y ago
    BSDs can load most firmware perfectly fine. I don't know what you are talking about.
    - megapoliss 2y ago
      Cool I thought it's specific for linux, so it cannot be used on BSD
      - 2y ago
wkat4242 2y ago
> And here comes another problem - it’s very hard to back port anything from GNU/Linux kernel. There is a huge difference between what GPL and BSD license allows. Yes but the BSD license allows a lot more. So this isn't really a problem. > Firefox on FreeBSD is a hack layered over a hack running slowly. I have no idea how much work is required to support it, but it’s somewhere between “big” and “have mercy”. About that closed-source ones? No Office for you. Firefox works fine on FreeBSD. And MS office is not available on Linux either. Open source office stuff is. I use abiword myself. > Nada. GNU/Linux has plethora of sites, blogs, and vlogs. Any problem you may encounter, someone else already solved and documented This is actually a problem with Gnu/Linux. A solved issue on arch may not be the solution on Debian or redhat. Really these distros are different OSes but they are not treated as such. > You need to enjoy making it work for you. Otherwise, all you will find is annoyance and a swift OS change. Well yes. Here I agree. I love running my FreeBSD desktop. But it's not as much work as he claims and the community is really helpful. Because it's so small you can often reach out to the maintainers directly and because they're completely non-commercial you will get real answers, not the corporate line. This is the main thing I love about FreeBSD. There's no double motive. Nobody trying to make a buck or push their own intellectual property. If some corporation is paying to do work for you they're doing that because they're expecting to make more money off you one way or another. There's no win-win. Linux is more neoliberal, BSD more socialist and grassroots. > Next: do you like to call yourself an early adopter? Being in the bleeding edge is what gets you going? BSD are evolving slowly by design. If something works, let’s leave it alone. That’s the mantra. GNU/Linux is changing rapidly - Pipewire, Wayland, SystemD. Even good old ifconfig is being deprecated. At the same time BSDs still use technology from decades ago7. There was never a need to replace them, so no one did it. Yes this is a huge benefit of the BSDs in my opinion. No changes for the sake of it. Overall, l think the title of the article is way too black and white. Yes you need to be aware of what you're getting into. But if you're even trying this, you already do. Nobody runs BSD on their desktop because some magazine told them it's the best thing ever.
- oaiey 2y ago
  > Yes but the BSD license allows a lot more. So this isn't really a problem. ahm .... is not that the exact problem that a code with a higher amount of restrictions to be transferred into a licensed environment with less restrictions.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
antirez 2y ago
Why don't people just tell us what they think, instead of what we "should" do with these kind of titles? I find this paternalism really off putting. Less lame title: Why I don't run XYZ.
- benterix 2y ago
  Totally agree, my pet peeve is "considered harmful".
  - jraph 2y ago
    I've gotten used to hear "by whom?" in my head each time I encounter any kind of passive phrasing. (since it's a very convenient way to hide the subject when it would really matter, in addition to not have to specify the subject when it actually doesn't matter)
- Brian_K_White 2y ago
  They do run BSD, so "why I don't run BSD" would be incorrect. And they are telling you what they think. This is both a totally factual warning and advocacy. Title is fine and matches the content. Even though there is another level at which some few readers end up being curious and try exactly the thing being nominally warned against, and this reaction is intentional, the surface literal meaning is also plain fact and neither misleading nor non-literal paternalistic literary device. The reasons given are actually true and are reasons one might not want to use a BSD as a desktop. The contrary reaction to reject the advice and try to run BSD is expected but only from a few people. The title and the content are 100% plain surface value good true advice. You will have those problems. As for the title, if they themselves do run BSD despite those problems, then the title is fine. They are simply reporting what life is like. There is nothing wrong with that.
  - antirez 2y ago
    It's a matter of style, not content.
megapoliss 2y ago
I wonder - if there are reasons to use BSD nowadays. It seems, Linux is just better, and the only benefit of BSD is that it is not GPL (so it can used in closed-source software)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Gud 2y ago
  I personally use predominantly FreeBSD as a daily driver, but I’m absolutely agnostic about my OS choices. I use Windows 10 and GNU/Linux as well. Exactly what way do you think GNU/Linux is better? What I like the most about FreeBSD is the flexibility it offers, similar to GNU/Linux, yet at the same time it feels like an integrated system? Additionally. The FreeBSD pkg and ports combo beats every GNU/Linux distro I’ve ever tried, and I’ve tried many of them. Certainly I agree with the author of the blog post in many ways. If I was not using FreeBSD as a server OS, I would (maybe) not use it on the desktop.
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  huge BSD fan, but this is a debate I've come back to a few times. really like FreeBSD on my server but linux just has so much more happening, esp. on the desktop, there isn't really a comparison. like maybe if I just needed a simple browsing-word-coding box, but there are Mac offerings there if I want to go fancy, or linux on a commodity Dell/Acer, if I don't, and most of the linux offerings are usable desktops right out of the metaphorical box
stiray 2y ago
A short story: I was a Windows guy. Driver writting Windows guy. Hated linux to my guts with its chaos. Switched to it on laptop every 2 years to figure out something vital is missing. Gradually, Windows (8) became so horrible, that I have switched to Linux, not that it was any better, but Windows became worse. Now I run FreeBSD on server and my personal laptop. I don't understand what is the point of this article, I had a problem with LTO5 LTFS on server, installed minimum debian into bhyve, did a PCI passtrough and shared the mountpoint. Works like a charm. I am not using FreeBSD to support all the hardware in the world but to have a nifty environment, that is stable. And it stays stable (was regularly upgraded from FreeBSD 8 to latest, hardware has changed twice, still running the same installation), while linux is starting to look more and more like furball on y2y basis (not talking about kernel, distributions are THE problem). --- I would like to challenge arch/gentoo users to try FreeBSD for a while. Just for fun, use vm. You might be surprised how complicated for no reason can linux distributions be. This is how I made a switch to it.
Koshkin 2y ago
That post made me want to start running a BSD on my laptop. (It’s an older ThinkPad, so things are expected to work well on it.)
sshine 2y ago
My takeaway: You should definitely run BSD on a PC, but don't get fooled: - You may need to unlearn some Linux-isms - Your software may assume GNU instead of POSIX - You will not get good GPU/WiFi driver support - You may need to relearn looking for answers - You will need to learn how your OS works In particular, I like how he phrased the difference in culture between Linux and BSD: While Linux is more noob-friendly, and BSD is known for "RTFM!", it is in part because very small communities cannot service the masses with tailored answers in every possible form (so we settle for well-maintained docs rather than highly searchable variations over a theme), and perhaps in part simply because of a culture difference where BSD users dedicate themselves to their platforms more than many Linux users (myself included), and answering questions from people who don't try to get a full picture, but just want to move on, creates an un-even playing ground. I don't know, I just liked how you can elevate the conversation about community dynamics beyond "BSD users are mean because 'RTFM!' contains a swear word!"
smitty1e 2y ago
In other words, after deciding to run a BSD, do the homework and obtain supported hardware.

39 points by jaypatelani 2y ago

I have read it – its exaggerated for my standards. I use FreeBSD on laptops/desktop since 2005 and it mostly works. Do some things do not work? Sure. Do all things work on Linux? Nope. Do all things work on Windows? Nope. Not to mention how many times Linux or Windows break to the point of reinstall. From all the OSes I know – and they are a few – FreeBSD sucks the least – just pick the right hardware.

DmitryOlshansky 2y ago

In contrast I enjoyed my brief adventure in FreeBSD land. The system is so clean and simple compared to the chaotic nature of the typical linux desktop with countless deamons running. Ports usually work just fine and they even have Jetbrains Intellij IDE ready to go, lastly ZFS is a blessing - snapshotting never being easier.

nequo 2y ago

Firefox on FreeBSD is a hack layered over a hack running slowly. I have no idea how much work is required to support it, but it’s somewhere between “big” and “have mercy”. Might someone be able to summarize what kinds of hacks Firefox needs to run on FreeBSD?

hulitu 2y ago
> Firefox on FreeBSD is a hack layered over a hack running slowly. On linux too. I have to install Wayland just to be able to start Firefox.
- tomsmeding 2y ago
  That sounds like something is seriously wrong. Firefox works perfectly fine on Xorg here for the past 10 years or so, across multiple distros.
  - sim7c00 2y ago
    firefox is incredibly slow on linux. didnt test it in the past 10 years on bsd. its the one thing i dont like when using linux. (mite be doing something wrong but i doubt it. fast pc. apt install, start. using out of the box stuff. (maybe not the nix way ;p)
    - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
      > apt install, start. using out of the box stuff. Are you on Ubuntu, by any chance? They replaced their firefox with a snap version (even if you `apt install` it, there's a redirect) which I've heard is significantly slower to start.
- sshine 2y ago
  I run Firefox in Xorg, Wayland is not installed. What magic am I applying without knowing it?
Gud 2y ago
To be honest this has not been my experience. Firefox works just as well in FreeBSD as it does in Windows and GNU/Linux.

jraph 2y ago

> the GNU/Linux driver land is full of closed blobs > [...] > Ever wondered why GNU’s GUIX doesn’t support Nvidia? That’s because the drivers are provided as blobs, and therefore closed-source. As a result, the work needed for BSD support is difficult and slow Isn't it pretty much the only example of this? As long as you don't pick nvidia, you won't have proprietary drivers running. Of course there are many firmware blobs. It's an issue, I would prefer not running any proprietary firmware, but I don't see how it would be a bigger issue in BSD land. So yes, the issue is programs assuming Linux (though doesn't many people in the OSS ecosystem using Mac help a bit?), hardware support, and not as much help from the internet. Not too surprising, I would expect this; and the hardware support is what prevents me from considering *BSD. I didn't think of the fact you are not going to be on the bleeding edge too on *BSD, and that would be relevant to me, since I run a rolling distro and take this somewhat for granted. Bonus note: > You try to Kagi[6] it and nothing I would suggest "look it up" as a term that will remain stable and doesn't advertise a particular search engine. The best thing is you won't need a footnote either (however, I sympathize with the wish to make people use something else than Google).

megapoliss 2y ago
> Of course there are many firmware blobs. It's an issue, I would prefer not running any proprietary firmware, but I don't see how it would be a bigger issue in BSD land. It's closed-source, and it's Linux. There is no firmware for BSD.
- ibotty 2y ago
  BSDs can load most firmware perfectly fine. I don't know what you are talking about.
  - megapoliss 2y ago
    Cool I thought it's specific for linux, so it cannot be used on BSD
    - 2y ago

wkat4242 2y ago

> And here comes another problem - it’s very hard to back port anything from GNU/Linux kernel. There is a huge difference between what GPL and BSD license allows. Yes but the BSD license allows a lot more. So this isn't really a problem. > Firefox on FreeBSD is a hack layered over a hack running slowly. I have no idea how much work is required to support it, but it’s somewhere between “big” and “have mercy”. About that closed-source ones? No Office for you. Firefox works fine on FreeBSD. And MS office is not available on Linux either. Open source office stuff is. I use abiword myself. > Nada. GNU/Linux has plethora of sites, blogs, and vlogs. Any problem you may encounter, someone else already solved and documented This is actually a problem with Gnu/Linux. A solved issue on arch may not be the solution on Debian or redhat. Really these distros are different OSes but they are not treated as such. > You need to enjoy making it work for you. Otherwise, all you will find is annoyance and a swift OS change. Well yes. Here I agree. I love running my FreeBSD desktop. But it's not as much work as he claims and the community is really helpful. Because it's so small you can often reach out to the maintainers directly and because they're completely non-commercial you will get real answers, not the corporate line. This is the main thing I love about FreeBSD. There's no double motive. Nobody trying to make a buck or push their own intellectual property. If some corporation is paying to do work for you they're doing that because they're expecting to make more money off you one way or another. There's no win-win. Linux is more neoliberal, BSD more socialist and grassroots. > Next: do you like to call yourself an early adopter? Being in the bleeding edge is what gets you going? BSD are evolving slowly by design. If something works, let’s leave it alone. That’s the mantra. GNU/Linux is changing rapidly - Pipewire, Wayland, SystemD. Even good old ifconfig is being deprecated. At the same time BSDs still use technology from decades ago7. There was never a need to replace them, so no one did it. Yes this is a huge benefit of the BSDs in my opinion. No changes for the sake of it. Overall, l think the title of the article is way too black and white. Yes you need to be aware of what you're getting into. But if you're even trying this, you already do. Nobody runs BSD on their desktop because some magazine told them it's the best thing ever.

oaiey 2y ago
> Yes but the BSD license allows a lot more. So this isn't really a problem. ahm .... is not that the exact problem that a code with a higher amount of restrictions to be transferred into a licensed environment with less restrictions.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

antirez 2y ago

Why don't people just tell us what they think, instead of what we "should" do with these kind of titles? I find this paternalism really off putting. Less lame title: Why I don't run XYZ.

benterix 2y ago
Totally agree, my pet peeve is "considered harmful".
- jraph 2y ago
  I've gotten used to hear "by whom?" in my head each time I encounter any kind of passive phrasing. (since it's a very convenient way to hide the subject when it would really matter, in addition to not have to specify the subject when it actually doesn't matter)
Brian_K_White 2y ago
They do run BSD, so "why I don't run BSD" would be incorrect. And they are telling you what they think. This is both a totally factual warning and advocacy. Title is fine and matches the content. Even though there is another level at which some few readers end up being curious and try exactly the thing being nominally warned against, and this reaction is intentional, the surface literal meaning is also plain fact and neither misleading nor non-literal paternalistic literary device. The reasons given are actually true and are reasons one might not want to use a BSD as a desktop. The contrary reaction to reject the advice and try to run BSD is expected but only from a few people. The title and the content are 100% plain surface value good true advice. You will have those problems. As for the title, if they themselves do run BSD despite those problems, then the title is fine. They are simply reporting what life is like. There is nothing wrong with that.
- antirez 2y ago
  It's a matter of style, not content.

megapoliss 2y ago

I wonder - if there are reasons to use BSD nowadays. It seems, Linux is just better, and the only benefit of BSD is that it is not GPL (so it can used in closed-source software)

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Gud 2y ago
I personally use predominantly FreeBSD as a daily driver, but I’m absolutely agnostic about my OS choices. I use Windows 10 and GNU/Linux as well. Exactly what way do you think GNU/Linux is better? What I like the most about FreeBSD is the flexibility it offers, similar to GNU/Linux, yet at the same time it feels like an integrated system? Additionally. The FreeBSD pkg and ports combo beats every GNU/Linux distro I’ve ever tried, and I’ve tried many of them. Certainly I agree with the author of the blog post in many ways. If I was not using FreeBSD as a server OS, I would (maybe) not use it on the desktop.
red-iron-pine 2y ago
huge BSD fan, but this is a debate I've come back to a few times. really like FreeBSD on my server but linux just has so much more happening, esp. on the desktop, there isn't really a comparison. like maybe if I just needed a simple browsing-word-coding box, but there are Mac offerings there if I want to go fancy, or linux on a commodity Dell/Acer, if I don't, and most of the linux offerings are usable desktops right out of the metaphorical box

stiray 2y ago

A short story: I was a Windows guy. Driver writting Windows guy. Hated linux to my guts with its chaos. Switched to it on laptop every 2 years to figure out something vital is missing. Gradually, Windows (8) became so horrible, that I have switched to Linux, not that it was any better, but Windows became worse. Now I run FreeBSD on server and my personal laptop. I don't understand what is the point of this article, I had a problem with LTO5 LTFS on server, installed minimum debian into bhyve, did a PCI passtrough and shared the mountpoint. Works like a charm. I am not using FreeBSD to support all the hardware in the world but to have a nifty environment, that is stable. And it stays stable (was regularly upgraded from FreeBSD 8 to latest, hardware has changed twice, still running the same installation), while linux is starting to look more and more like furball on y2y basis (not talking about kernel, distributions are THE problem). --- I would like to challenge arch/gentoo users to try FreeBSD for a while. Just for fun, use vm. You might be surprised how complicated for no reason can linux distributions be. This is how I made a switch to it.

Koshkin 2y ago

That post made me want to start running a BSD on my laptop. (It’s an older ThinkPad, so things are expected to work well on it.)

sshine 2y ago

My takeaway: You should definitely run BSD on a PC, but don't get fooled: - You may need to unlearn some Linux-isms - Your software may assume GNU instead of POSIX - You will not get good GPU/WiFi driver support - You may need to relearn looking for answers - You will need to learn how your OS works In particular, I like how he phrased the difference in culture between Linux and BSD: While Linux is more noob-friendly, and BSD is known for "RTFM!", it is in part because very small communities cannot service the masses with tailored answers in every possible form (so we settle for well-maintained docs rather than highly searchable variations over a theme), and perhaps in part simply because of a culture difference where BSD users dedicate themselves to their platforms more than many Linux users (myself included), and answering questions from people who don't try to get a full picture, but just want to move on, creates an un-even playing ground. I don't know, I just liked how you can elevate the conversation about community dynamics beyond "BSD users are mean because 'RTFM!' contains a swear word!"

smitty1e 2y ago

In other words, after deciding to run a BSD, do the homework and obtain supported hardware.