God i love geek flamewars
So, why exactly is this lack of emulation a real advantage? Should somebody care if an application running is done through emulation or natively (as long as there is no penalty involved)? Maybe an advantage is in the graphics part (I don't care about this, so it doesn't represent an advantage to me). All I do is normal desktop stuff plus ocasional hobby programming or maybe some LaTeX stuff. I found FreeBSD and Linux essentially equivalent for doing my work.
Nobody can say that freebsd is just a worthless junk, like some people might say,because in fact i was attracted by some of those 'advantages' and i tested it, but just like i said, there's no real difference in the real world in terms of performance and reliability .
An outdated Xorg, no wayland in the horizon , outdated and less drivers, lack of a modern init system like systemd, no pulse audio, only one distribution... etc. Thanks, but no thanks. Tiny, spare and thin 'superior' technical features that are supposed to be better in freebsd doesn't make a real difference in the real world compared to linux.
Linux is already fucked up enough to be messing around with yet another unix like (a more unix like, if you prefer) OS with less support.
BTW. Enthusiast of freebsd are happy with it, and if freebsd brings a little bit more happiness to this world, welcome it is.
And if the top 10 out of 18 months at the top of the most stable list is not quantifiable evidence that FreeBSD is at least as good as linux in the web-server arena, pray-tell, what is? The motivation behind the use (licensing, support, on-going costs/TCO, etc) may well be the factor behind the final choice, but the performance is ALSO there.
As for desktops, FreeBSD traditionally doesn't drop drivers like the Linux kernel does, so you can bet your virgin arse it'll stay running and stable on your hardware for a longer time. IF it works. This is on top of the reasons stated previously (eg jails). Damn, it's good to live in a democracy where you get to choose your operating system based on merits!
I could go on, but I'm personally not really interested in hearing your rants any more until you have something constructive to say.
I understand when you refer to a REAL reason to use FreeBSD instead of Linux for the casual user. But then it could also go the other way around, assuming your hardware works under both systems (maybe the exception being ATI's drivers).
I absolutely agree that FreeBSD brings a little bit of happiness to this world.
1. The license issue - BSD vs GPL
2. Anti-establishmentarianism, or whatever you want to call it. They view linux as too popular among the masses, or too driven by corporations like red hat, and want to be different and in the minority.
3. Certain technical features like ZFS/jails.
I suspect reason #3 is by far the least common among actual end-users, although i'm sure some people do indeed choose it for that reason.