4 ms·
As a small user I find it hard to find a use case where I’d want a bsd for some reason. I even installed ghostbsd in a vm to try it but it seemed very similar t
by kosolam 10mo ago
As a small user I find it hard to find a use case where I’d want a bsd for some reason. I even installed ghostbsd in a vm to try it but it seemed very similar to linux so I didn’t understand what’s the upside?
- cerved 10mo agoZFS and jails are two things FreeBSD does very well
- sbseitz 10mo agoZFS on Linux and BSD share the same code now. Hope this helps.
- mshroyer 10mo agoSure, but ZFS is much better integrated into FreeBSD. It supports ZFS on root with boot environments out of the box. And when running a Samba server, it's helpful that FreeBSD supports NFSv4 ACLs when sitting between ZFS and SMB clients; on Linux, Samba has to hack around the lack of NFSv4 ACL support by stashing them in xattrs. You can arguably get even better ZFS and SMB integration with an Illumos distribution, but for me FreeBSD hits the sweet spot between being nice to use and having the programs I need in its package library.
- irusensei 10mo agoBut on Linux you need to load external modules. Before upgrading or changing kernels you need to check if ZFS supports it. Specially bad in rolling distros.
- charcircuit 10mo ago>you need to check This can be automated by whatever is updating your kernel.
- waynesonfire 10mo agoand pf.
- quotemstr 10mo agoLinux has btrfs and multiple containerization and security sandboxing options. ZFS and jails aren't Linux differentiators.
- myaccountonhn 10mo agoIME the integration with FreeBSD and ZFS just works better than BTRFS and linux distors, and I've read far too many reports about data loss with BTRFS to trust it. But I definitely believe that everything you can do on FreeBSD, you can also do on Linux. For me it's the complete package though that comes with FreeBSD, and everything being documented in the man pages and the handbook.
- assimpleaspossi 10mo agoYou don't have to reinstall with every software upgrade. Reliability and long term uptime are the norm.
- loeg 10mo agoThese statements could equally describe Linux, macOS, or even Windows.
- ggm 10mo agoA small thing, but the mechanistic approach to bundling packages into bigger meta state, is (in my personal opinion) better than the somewhat ad-hoc approach to both writing and including things in an apt/dpkg. If the product is python, thats what it is. there is no python-additonal-headers or python-dev or bundle-which-happens-to-be-python-but-how-would-you-know. There is python, and there are meta-ports which explicitly 'call' the python port. The most notable example being X11. Its sub-parts are all very rational. fonts are fonts. libs are libs. drm is drm. drivers are drivers. (yes, there is the port/pkg confusion. thats a bit annoying.)
- loeg 10mo ago1990s nostalgia.