4 ms·

Back in the days when Apple acquired NeXT, Linux was undergoing lots of development and wasn't well established. Linux being a monolithic kernel didn't offer th

Back in the days when Apple acquired NeXT, Linux was undergoing lots of development and wasn't well established. Linux being a monolithic kernel didn't offer the levels of compartmentalization that Mach did. As things now stand, FreeBSD represents many of the benefits of Darwin and the open source nature of Linux. If you seek a more secure environment without Apple's increasing levels of lock-in, then FreeBSD (and the other BSDs) merit consideration for deployment.

khana 2y ago
[dead]
finnjohnsen2 2y ago
Is the driver support fit for using FreeBSD as a desktop OS these days? Last I tried (~10 years ago) I gave up and I assumed FreeBSD was a Server OS, because I couldn't for the life of me get Nvidia drivers working in native resolution. I don't recall specifics but Bluetooth was problematic also.
- WD-42 2y ago
  I don't think so. Here's a report from this month: https://freebsdfoundation.org/blog/february-2025-laptop-support-and-usability-project-update/ https://freebsdfoundation.org/blog/february-2025-laptop-supp... Looks like (some) laptops might sleep and wifi is on the way! (with help from Linux drivers)
laurencerowe 2y ago
Isn’t FreeBSD a monolithic kernel? I don’t believe it provides the compartmentalisation that you talk about. As I understand it Mach was based on BSD and was effectively a hybrid with much of the existing BSD kernel running as a single big task under the microkernel. Darwin has since updated the BSD kernel under microkernel with the current developments from FreeBSD.
- TickleSteve 2y ago
  Mach was never based on BSD, it replaced it. Mach is the descendant of the Accent and Aleph kernels. BSD came into the frame for the userland tools. "Mach was developed as a replacement for the kernel in the BSD version of Unix," (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_(kernel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_(kernel)) Interestingly, MkLinux was the same type of project but for Linux instead of BSD (i.e. Linux userland with Mach kernel).
  - laurencerowe 2y ago
    It's not just the user land but much of the BSD kernel too. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_(kernel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_(kernel) > Throughout this time the promise of a "true" microkernel had not yet been delivered. These early Mach versions included the majority of 4.3BSD in the kernel, a system known as a POE Server, resulting in a kernel that was actually larger than the UNIX it was based on. And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU > XNU was originally developed by NeXT for the NeXTSTEP operating system. It was a hybrid kernel derived from version 2.5 of the Mach kernel developed at Carnegie Mellon University, which incorporated the bulk of the 4.3BSD kernel modified to run atop Mach primitives, MkLinux is similar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MkLinux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MkLinux > The name refers to the Linux kernel being adapted to run as a server hosted on the Mach microkernel, version 3.0.
inkyoto 2y ago
> As things now stand, FreeBSD represents many of the benefits of Darwin and the open source nature of Linux. No. FreeBSD has committed the original sin of UNIX by deliberately dropping support for all non-Intel architectures, intending to focus on optimising FreeBSD for the Intel ISA and platforms. UNIX portability and support for a diverse range of CPU's and hardware platforms are ingrained in the DNA of UNIX, however. I would argue that FreeBSD has paid the price for this decision – FreeBSD has faded into irrelevance today (despite having introduced some of the most outstanding and brilliant innovations in UNIX kernel design) – because the FreeBSD core team bet heavily on Intel remaining the only hardware platform in existence, and they missed the turn (ARM, RISC-V, and marginally MIPS in embdedded). Linux stepped in and filled in the niche very quickly, and it now runs everywhere. FreeBSD is faster but Linux is better. And it does not matter that Netflix still runs FreeBSD on its servers serving up the content at the theoretical speed of light – it is a sad living proof of FreeBSD having become a niche within a niche. P.S. I would also argue that the BSD core teams (Free/Net/Open) were a major factor in the downfall of all BSD's, due to their insular nature and, especially in the early days, a near-hostile attitude towards outsiders. «Customers» voted with their feet – and chose Linux.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  Not really everywhere, exactly because of GPL, most embedded FOSS OSes are either Apache or BSD based. It is not only Netflix, Sony is also quite found of cherry picking stuff from BSDs to their Orbit OS. Finally, I would assert Linux kernel as we know it today, is only relevant as the ones responsible for its creation still walk this planet, and like every project, when the creators are no longer around it will be taken into directions that no longer match the original goals.
- microtonal 2y ago
  I am very skeptical that it's primarily caused by the focus on Intel CPUs. FreeBSD already fell into obscurity way before RISC-V. And even though they missed the ARM router/appliance boat, Linux already overtook FreeBSD when people were primarily using Linux for x86 servers and (hobbyist) desktops. The Netcraft has confirmed: BSD is dying Slashdot meme was from the late 90ies or early 2000s. Also, if this was the main reason, we would all be using OpenBSD or NetBSD. IMO it's really a mixture of factors, some I can think of: - BSD projects were slowed down by the AT&T lawsuit in the early 90ies. - FreeBSD focused more on expert users, whereas Linux distributions focused on graphical installers and configuration tools early on. Some distributions had graphical installers at the end of the 90ies. So, Linux distributions could onboard people who were looking for a Windows alternative much more quickly. - BSD had forks very early on (FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, BSDi). The cost is much higher than multiple Linux distributions, since all BSDs maintain their own kernel and userland. - The BSDs (except BSDi) were non-profits, whereas many early Linux distributions were by for-profit companies (Red Hat, SUSE, Caldera, TurboLinux). This gave Linux a larger development and marketing budget and it made it easier to start partnerships with IBM, SAP, etc. - The BSDs projects were organized as cathedrals and more hierarchical, so made it harder for new contributors to step in. - The BSD projects provided full systems, whereas in Linux distributions would piece together systems. This made Linux development messier, but allowed quicker evolution and made it easier to adapt Linux for different applications. - The GPL put a lot more pressure on hardware companies to contribute back to the Linux kernel. Besides that there is probably also a fair amount of randomness involved.

khana 2y ago

[dead]

finnjohnsen2 2y ago

Is the driver support fit for using FreeBSD as a desktop OS these days? Last I tried (~10 years ago) I gave up and I assumed FreeBSD was a Server OS, because I couldn't for the life of me get Nvidia drivers working in native resolution. I don't recall specifics but Bluetooth was problematic also.

WD-42 2y ago
I don't think so. Here's a report from this month: https://freebsdfoundation.org/blog/february-2025-laptop-support-and-usability-project-update/ https://freebsdfoundation.org/blog/february-2025-laptop-supp... Looks like (some) laptops might sleep and wifi is on the way! (with help from Linux drivers)

laurencerowe 2y ago

Isn’t FreeBSD a monolithic kernel? I don’t believe it provides the compartmentalisation that you talk about. As I understand it Mach was based on BSD and was effectively a hybrid with much of the existing BSD kernel running as a single big task under the microkernel. Darwin has since updated the BSD kernel under microkernel with the current developments from FreeBSD.

TickleSteve 2y ago
Mach was never based on BSD, it replaced it. Mach is the descendant of the Accent and Aleph kernels. BSD came into the frame for the userland tools. "Mach was developed as a replacement for the kernel in the BSD version of Unix," (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_(kernel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_(kernel)) Interestingly, MkLinux was the same type of project but for Linux instead of BSD (i.e. Linux userland with Mach kernel).
- laurencerowe 2y ago
  It's not just the user land but much of the BSD kernel too. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_(kernel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_(kernel) > Throughout this time the promise of a "true" microkernel had not yet been delivered. These early Mach versions included the majority of 4.3BSD in the kernel, a system known as a POE Server, resulting in a kernel that was actually larger than the UNIX it was based on. And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU > XNU was originally developed by NeXT for the NeXTSTEP operating system. It was a hybrid kernel derived from version 2.5 of the Mach kernel developed at Carnegie Mellon University, which incorporated the bulk of the 4.3BSD kernel modified to run atop Mach primitives, MkLinux is similar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MkLinux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MkLinux > The name refers to the Linux kernel being adapted to run as a server hosted on the Mach microkernel, version 3.0.

inkyoto 2y ago

> As things now stand, FreeBSD represents many of the benefits of Darwin and the open source nature of Linux. No. FreeBSD has committed the original sin of UNIX by deliberately dropping support for all non-Intel architectures, intending to focus on optimising FreeBSD for the Intel ISA and platforms. UNIX portability and support for a diverse range of CPU's and hardware platforms are ingrained in the DNA of UNIX, however. I would argue that FreeBSD has paid the price for this decision – FreeBSD has faded into irrelevance today (despite having introduced some of the most outstanding and brilliant innovations in UNIX kernel design) – because the FreeBSD core team bet heavily on Intel remaining the only hardware platform in existence, and they missed the turn (ARM, RISC-V, and marginally MIPS in embdedded). Linux stepped in and filled in the niche very quickly, and it now runs everywhere. FreeBSD is faster but Linux is better. And it does not matter that Netflix still runs FreeBSD on its servers serving up the content at the theoretical speed of light – it is a sad living proof of FreeBSD having become a niche within a niche. P.S. I would also argue that the BSD core teams (Free/Net/Open) were a major factor in the downfall of all BSD's, due to their insular nature and, especially in the early days, a near-hostile attitude towards outsiders. «Customers» voted with their feet – and chose Linux.

pjmlp 2y ago
Not really everywhere, exactly because of GPL, most embedded FOSS OSes are either Apache or BSD based. It is not only Netflix, Sony is also quite found of cherry picking stuff from BSDs to their Orbit OS. Finally, I would assert Linux kernel as we know it today, is only relevant as the ones responsible for its creation still walk this planet, and like every project, when the creators are no longer around it will be taken into directions that no longer match the original goals.
microtonal 2y ago
I am very skeptical that it's primarily caused by the focus on Intel CPUs. FreeBSD already fell into obscurity way before RISC-V. And even though they missed the ARM router/appliance boat, Linux already overtook FreeBSD when people were primarily using Linux for x86 servers and (hobbyist) desktops. The Netcraft has confirmed: BSD is dying Slashdot meme was from the late 90ies or early 2000s. Also, if this was the main reason, we would all be using OpenBSD or NetBSD. IMO it's really a mixture of factors, some I can think of: - BSD projects were slowed down by the AT&T lawsuit in the early 90ies. - FreeBSD focused more on expert users, whereas Linux distributions focused on graphical installers and configuration tools early on. Some distributions had graphical installers at the end of the 90ies. So, Linux distributions could onboard people who were looking for a Windows alternative much more quickly. - BSD had forks very early on (FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, BSDi). The cost is much higher than multiple Linux distributions, since all BSDs maintain their own kernel and userland. - The BSDs (except BSDi) were non-profits, whereas many early Linux distributions were by for-profit companies (Red Hat, SUSE, Caldera, TurboLinux). This gave Linux a larger development and marketing budget and it made it easier to start partnerships with IBM, SAP, etc. - The BSDs projects were organized as cathedrals and more hierarchical, so made it harder for new contributors to step in. - The BSD projects provided full systems, whereas in Linux distributions would piece together systems. This made Linux development messier, but allowed quicker evolution and made it easier to adapt Linux for different applications. - The GPL put a lot more pressure on hardware companies to contribute back to the Linux kernel. Besides that there is probably also a fair amount of randomness involved.