3 ms·

One aspect thats always stood at is the system/userland divide. The BSDs have both kernel and userland developed by the same folks. The leads to a consistent, e

One aspect thats always stood at is the system/userland divide. The BSDs have both kernel and userland developed by the same folks. The leads to a consistent, enjoyable, user experience. In linux land the divide between kernel and user is quite stark. Throwing problems overthe fence, and blaming the "other side", is far too common. The state of documentation and man pages is indicative. Nearly everything in the BSDs has a well written up to date docs. Determining behavior in linux all too often comes down to reading opaque kernel code and old mailing list threads that may or may not be relevant.

_delirium 12y ago
That's the standard line, but I have never felt that as a user. Debian and FreeBSD feel about equally integrated to me as systems. Some stuff in both is developed by different upstreams (large parts of both the Debian and FreeBSD base installs are developed elsewhere), but the "buck stops here" when it comes to integration, integration-testing, engineering a consistent user experience, and generally making the system work for end-users. If anything Debian feels slightly more tightly integrated to me, though it depends on whether you frequently use a lot of non-base packages. FreeBSD's model is tight integration of the base install and light curation of everything else in userland, while Debian's model is to "Debianize" everything in the archive and ensure it plays well together, even non-base packages.