Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 113

Thread: Why Should You Use FreeBSD? Here's Some Reasons

  1. #21

    Default the proper question is - why FreeBSD sucks?

    - FreeBSD is NOT Linux = FreeBSD is stable, reliable, simple (there are no automated brainfucks... like udev, hal and dbus in base system)
    So, if FreeBSD is NOT LInux then it's not stable, not reliable and it's not simple. There are also no automated tasks, so I'm stuck with legacy OS. It's Linux that is used in EVERYTHING and FreeBSD is ONLY used on some servers, but Linux OWNS servers, so this person lives in some fanboy's world. Nobody uses FreeBSD in enterprise computing, because it's not mature enough (even if it's much older...).

    - Not fragmented as Linux, (relation to many distro, that not have idea/goal)
    OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD [put another crapBSD here].

    - The community - Unlike Linux which is very fragmented by all the different flavours and hence individual communities, FreeBSD has one community who are always happy to help with hints tips and advice. This simply cant be beaten!
    What community? Few devs and few users? What a bunch of crap.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    So, if FreeBSD is NOT LInux then it's not stable, not reliable and it's not simple. There are also no automated tasks, so I'm stuck with legacy OS. It's Linux that is used in EVERYTHING and FreeBSD is ONLY used on some servers, but Linux OWNS servers, so this person lives in some fanboy's world. Nobody uses FreeBSD in enterprise computing, because it's not mature enough (even if it's much older...).
    Race cars also don't have automatic gearbox. However, I agree this point is too trollish.


    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    What community? Few devs and few users? What a bunch of crap.
    Few, but better.

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    Race cars also don't have automatic gearbox. However, I agree this point is too trollish.
    Yes, but you can probably find or configure some distributions to not use this. More points were trollish, so such article doesn't deserve for anything, but blaming and trolling.

    Few, but better.
    That's disputable. They don't have comparable developers that are so good in scheduler thing and locking mechanism.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    49

    Default

    Gentoo is the answer. Portage is just great :-)
    (Bonus feature: Portage 2.2 is now at alpha108 - and before the alpha phase it was marching up to rc99 or more)
    Last edited by mazumoto; 05-31-2012 at 06:01 PM.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    989

    Default

    I'm not opposed to using FreeBSD for a server, but who can seriously use it for a desktop? Things you need just aren't available. Unless your needs are extremely modest, and by that I mean, you just sit at a shell and use pine as your email and vi as your text editor. You can't use any actually good desktop apps. And the configuration experience is a nightmare exactly because they don't have auto-configuration stuff like udev and pulseaudio and systemd.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disi View Post
    2. bitching about Linux (even in the forums). But I give the benefit that this happens vice versa Reason? No idea...
    Probably not much "visa versa", actually. From what I see, one of the common complaints from the BSD community is that all the Linux-based developers making Linux-based changes in Gnome and KDE and the like. It's not that the Linux people bitch about BSD - it's that they don't even think about it.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    351

    Default

    we can all agree that it sucks donkey balls on the desktop. the contention is whether is has some "killer" features on the server. my opinion is that freebsd doesn't have any great features that set it apart other than zfs (which has a sick feature set for the enterprise). even with zfs, linux mops the floor in terms of sheer number and momentum. the tutorials and support on the net for just centos or debian alone are mountains to a molehill compared to, say, openbsd or netbsd. not counting the driver situation, which is pretty bad.
    freebsd is a good lesson for desktop linux advocates who think that turning a LAMP stack into a desktop operating system is a few tweaks and polish and ignore the huge efforts involved in making a windows/osx alternative.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Yes, but you can probably find or configure some distributions to not use this. More points were trollish, so such article doesn't deserve for anything, but blaming and trolling.
    This is very hard. Why would I do that if I have os which comes like I want?
    You can also configure HAL ... on FreeBSD.


    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    That's disputable. They don't have comparable developers that are so good in scheduler thing and locking mechanism.
    CFQ is not good for desktop (copying files lags everything) and it is also not good for server.
    ULE seems to be good for server.
    And don't forget about Dragonfly BSD.
    Last edited by LightBit; 06-01-2012 at 04:06 AM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Slovenia
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Delgarde View Post
    Probably not much "visa versa", actually. From what I see, one of the common complaints from the BSD community is that all the Linux-based developers making Linux-based changes in Gnome and KDE and the like. It's not that the Linux people bitch about BSD - it's that they don't even think about it.
    Yes, exactly Linux people are ignoring BSD, like Microsoft did Linux before. They are like Microsoft.

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LightBit View Post
    CFQ is not good for desktop (copying files lags everything) and it is also not good for server.
    ULE seems to be good for server.
    And don't forget about Dragonfly BSD.
    I meant CFS. When comes to CFQ there are also other schedulers, but CFQ is very good for desktop overall. There are/were some problems with copying large files, but the same happens on FreeBSD and Windows 7 64bit. There are threads about such issues. I wonder why do you think CFQ isn't good for servers?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •