Features Coming For FreeBSD 10

[Alex Sarmiento]

What REAL advantage from Linux over FreeBSD?

One could start by saying that at least Linux doesn't need a freebsd api or layer compatibility emulation.
God i love geek flamewars

[Sergio]

One could start by saying that at least Linux doesn't need a freebsd api or layer compatibility emulation.
God i love geek flamewars

Ok. I'm not interested in any kind of 'flamewar'; I do like debating and getting to know other's ideas.
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.

[Alex Sarmiento]

Ok. I'm not interested in any kind of 'flamewar'; I do like debating and getting to know other's ideas.
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.

You see, you can try freebsd as a desktop OS and a small home server... and it doesn't worth it. Adding an emulation layer means adding yet another pain for the user.

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An outdated Xorg, no wayland in the horizon , outdated and less drivers, lack of a modern init system like systemd, no pulse audio, only one distribution...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.

[stiiixy]

I'm saying that there's always something about an OS which one can extrapolate into making others believe it's a better OS than another one. I even gave you the Microsoft example, how come you didn't get it?

In your very first post you mentioned huge numbers using and developing for GNU/Linux relative to FreeBSD, then back-peddle and slag another member about using stats to push your opinion. Kind of hypocritical? Additionally you've only thrown insults whilst other members provide evidence as to the reasons why they use, or at least support ther idea, FreeBSD.

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.

[Sergio]

You see, you can try freebsd as a desktop OS and a small home server... and it doesn't worth it. Adding an emulation layer means adding yet another pain for the user.

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.

For desktop you can try out PC-BSD. I have not personally tried it but it is supposed to be just like using any friendly-like Linux distribution. Generally it is not worth using FreeBSD as a desktop because it takes time to configure, but that is just what PC-BSD was made for. Quoting Dru Lavigne: "PC-BSD is a user friendly desktop and FreeBSD is a user friendly server.". On the other hand, the last friendly Linux I tried was Fedora 15 and didn't "just work" after fresh install (the splash screen wouldn't work at boot so it fallbacked to text mode at booting, could not get ATI drivers to work (damn, it's just a pain in the ass...)), so after five times trying to make ATI work I just gave up and turned to Windows 7 (FreeBSD only works in VESA mode!). So neither FreeBSD nor (Fedora) Linux where up to my desktop needs this time. If I were a new user to the Unix world I surely would not try again at least for 2+ years...
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.

[smitty3268]

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.

[johnc]

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.

These are all desktop arguments though. Obviously FreeBSD isn't the best choice for desktop work... but then again Linux isn't either. The best desktop OSes are OS X and Windows.

[jacob]

Yeah, BSD is pathetic and unneeded. Linux compared to BSD progresses faster, has a huge user & developer market-share.

BSD had a chance back in the 1990's but it just didn't happen, but it won't go away either, like DOS and OS/2.

Not quite. While I agree that overally BSD has few advantages over Linux, here are still niches where it shines. For firewalling, for example, BSD's packetfilter is much better and easier to use than Linux's netfilter monstrosity. Similarly OpenBSD makes an excellent router. Also, PCBSD comes with tools that allow it to operate as a diskless client or a diskless clients' server pretty much out of the box. AFAIK no Linux distro makes that so easy to set up.

[Alex Sarmiento]

These are all desktop arguments though. Obviously FreeBSD isn't the best choice for desktop work... but then again Linux isn't either. The best desktop OSes are OS X and Windows.

I disagree, at least with the OS X part. Just look at the window management in OS X, is too simple, rough and primitive. And the dock is pretty , fun and useless, the "traditional" windows like taskbar is simple better window AND task management. I appreciate the virtual desktops and the expose in OS X, something that linux already have .

[a2r-l]

[snip]
lack of a modern init system like systemd, no pulse audio
[snip]

That should be promoted as a feature