4 ms·

I've also read the original blog that this article spawns from. The gist of it is: "I switched to BSD during Linux's bad period, and now I'm comfortable with it

I've also read the original blog that this article spawns from. The gist of it is: "I switched to BSD during Linux's bad period, and now I'm comfortable with it so I'll stick with it". And hey, more power to you. But the thing is, the world has moved on. Linux is stable now. Linux containerization and VM tech is good now. The storage technologies are cross-platform now (I've had zero data loss since using zfs). The moat has shrunk. So then, what are we left with? * BSD is less common, so there are fewer CVEs on it. Hackers aren't stupid; they target popular platforms. You get plenty of CVEs for Apple systems (which are BSD, btw). * Of course, since BSD is less common, it's harder to find employees who are wizards with it. * Everyone releases for Linux first, so on some things you either have to wait, or do it yourself (or stick it in a Linux VM, at which point...) * Licensing bites people all the time, but it's hardly a catastrophic thing; merely the normal politics that occur when things get big enough, and enough money is involved. You win by paying good money to hire the better legal team. So what true benefit is there to using BSD over Linux? Other than satisfying your own self or going with what you're already familiar with, not much.

technothrasher 2y ago
> the world has moved on This is exactly why I migrated my systems to Linux. I still prefer BSD honestly, having "grown up" with SunOS and then moving to FreeBSD very early, it's where I'm most comfortable. But it started to get so that it was noticably harder to keep my software up to date and functioning on BSD when it is often an afterthought for many projects now, or only supported by third party work. I may not like it (in fact, I don't) but Linux is definitely the easier path for most things these days.
parkcedar 2y ago
Mac isn’t really BSD, it’s a common misconception. It shares some of the userland code, but it’s a vastly different kernel (derived from the Mach microkernel). The userland has diverged quite significantly now too. Though, I guess it probably is closer to BSD than Linux
- BSDobelix 2y ago
  >but it’s a vastly different kernel (derived from the Mach microkernel). XNU is a combination of a FreeBSD-Kernel (Networking, Filesystem, etc) and a Mach-Kernel (scheduling, ipc, virtual-memory etc): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7GMHB3Plc8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7GMHB3Plc8
  - parkcedar 2y ago
    Yes, but since it was initially created I believe a lot of it has been rewritten. Eg, the filesystem. I suspect the memory system is different these days too, since macOS handles compressed memory quite differently (though not sure how that gets implemented under the hood). FreeBSD is like a great grandparent, related but still very different.
    - aeadio 2y ago
      Every extant Unix has been rewritten since the original AT&T code, Ship of Theseus style. We still consider them members of the Unix family, because they can trace their lineage directly. One could built a Git repo showing every code change from the original Unix release through modern day BSDs, if only we had granular commit info going back that far. In fact, it's been partially done for FreeBSD, https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo We could in principle do something similar for Darwin (if we had enough of the historical code), which is the core of MacOS, which is based on NeXT, which was based on BSD with a new kernel. That makes MacOS every bit as much a member of the Unix/BSD family as FreeBSD is.
- sph 2y ago
  No one really cares about the kernel internals, its origin or the license of it. What is prominent is the user-space components (i.e. shell and other binaries). macOS is closer to other BSDs than Linux is, as Linux usually ships with GNU libs and utilities.
  - 2y ago
timc3 2y ago
I have run Linux, BSD and other unix for a long time (since the 90s and the very first Slackware) and continue to this day. I prefer BSD because to me it’s more logical, it rarely changes, the documentation is first class and it’s very stable (yes more so than Linux). Plus I like its networking stack and PF I prefer Linux when I need to run something popular and want a community. I prefer Solaris clones for storage. I prefer macOS for doing music, graphics and every day work and for laptops. It’s no problem jumping between them. BSD is my favorite though.

technothrasher 2y ago

> the world has moved on This is exactly why I migrated my systems to Linux. I still prefer BSD honestly, having "grown up" with SunOS and then moving to FreeBSD very early, it's where I'm most comfortable. But it started to get so that it was noticably harder to keep my software up to date and functioning on BSD when it is often an afterthought for many projects now, or only supported by third party work. I may not like it (in fact, I don't) but Linux is definitely the easier path for most things these days.

parkcedar 2y ago

Mac isn’t really BSD, it’s a common misconception. It shares some of the userland code, but it’s a vastly different kernel (derived from the Mach microkernel). The userland has diverged quite significantly now too. Though, I guess it probably is closer to BSD than Linux

BSDobelix 2y ago
>but it’s a vastly different kernel (derived from the Mach microkernel). XNU is a combination of a FreeBSD-Kernel (Networking, Filesystem, etc) and a Mach-Kernel (scheduling, ipc, virtual-memory etc): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7GMHB3Plc8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7GMHB3Plc8
- parkcedar 2y ago
  Yes, but since it was initially created I believe a lot of it has been rewritten. Eg, the filesystem. I suspect the memory system is different these days too, since macOS handles compressed memory quite differently (though not sure how that gets implemented under the hood). FreeBSD is like a great grandparent, related but still very different.
  - aeadio 2y ago
    Every extant Unix has been rewritten since the original AT&T code, Ship of Theseus style. We still consider them members of the Unix family, because they can trace their lineage directly. One could built a Git repo showing every code change from the original Unix release through modern day BSDs, if only we had granular commit info going back that far. In fact, it's been partially done for FreeBSD, https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo We could in principle do something similar for Darwin (if we had enough of the historical code), which is the core of MacOS, which is based on NeXT, which was based on BSD with a new kernel. That makes MacOS every bit as much a member of the Unix/BSD family as FreeBSD is.
sph 2y ago
No one really cares about the kernel internals, its origin or the license of it. What is prominent is the user-space components (i.e. shell and other binaries). macOS is closer to other BSDs than Linux is, as Linux usually ships with GNU libs and utilities.
- 2y ago

timc3 2y ago

I have run Linux, BSD and other unix for a long time (since the 90s and the very first Slackware) and continue to this day. I prefer BSD because to me it’s more logical, it rarely changes, the documentation is first class and it’s very stable (yes more so than Linux). Plus I like its networking stack and PF I prefer Linux when I need to run something popular and want a community. I prefer Solaris clones for storage. I prefer macOS for doing music, graphics and every day work and for laptops. It’s no problem jumping between them. BSD is my favorite though.