FreeBSD vs. Linux - Overclock.net

chemicalfan · 05-22-09

What are your thoughts/experiences of FreeBSD? How does it differ from Linux? Can I get some comparisons to Ubuntu, and something lightweight like Arch or Gentoo? Looking at system performance, ease of management, compatibility of hardware, quality of packages, stability, those sorts of things.

gruven · 05-22-09

About the only reason I haven't given much thought to FreeBSD is their driver support (not their fault at all, but it holds me back). I use Gentoo Linux, and portage (gentoo's package manager) works a lot like ports does.

I have installed and used FreeBSD, and it is nice, but until Nvidia releases a driver for 64-bit FreeBSD, it isn't much use to me.

thiussat · 05-22-09

Well, FreeBSD has been around a lot longer than Linux and has a different development philosophy. The BSD's are created as an entire OS and not just a kernel. Thus, the BSD kernel is thoroughly tested against all the userland stuff and is developed alongside it. This is one reason BSD is slower to develop.

BSD is also closer to the original AT&T UNIX than Linux is. Really, Linux is a UNIX clone where as BSD has been derived directly from the original UNIX. BSD can be used as a desktop OS but I think Linux is far more desktop friendly than BSD. For one, you have native Linux nvidia drivers. With BSD they have to be used with the Linux emulation layer. Also, Linux has 64 bit Flash, BSD doesn't. Linux also makes it much easier to watch DVD's whereas with BSD you have to use the Linux emulation layer. BSD uses OSS and not ALSA so I have always had more issues getting my audio working.

BSD is highly stable, though, and probably more so than Linux (depending on the distro). BSD's main package manager is Ports which allows you to install any package from source with a simple command. Gentoo has copied Ports with its Portage, and has improved upon it imo.

If you really want to use BSD on the desktop, you could look into using a BSD kernel with Linux userland. There is Debian-BSD and Gentoo-BSD. Or, you could look into PC-BSD.

And don't forget about OpenSolaris -- it is a SystemV Unix descendant.

OasisGames · 05-22-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by thiussat

Well, FreeBSD has been around a lot longer than Linux and has a different development philosophy. The BSD's are created as an entire OS and not just a kernel. Thus, the BSD kernel is thoroughly tested against all the userland stuff and is developed alongside it. This is one reason BSD is slower to develop.

This is incorrect.

Linux 0.01 came out in 1991. FreeBSD wasn't started until 1993 and was a fork of 386BSD, released in 1992 (of note, Linux had X in 1992, before FreeBSD was started). However, 386BSD was further based on original BSD implementations from the 80s, but that doesn't change much. The true difference between Linux and FreeBSD is that FreeBSD (like OpenSolaris) is "everything and the kitchen sink" while Linux is distributed by separate projects with differing compilations.

thiussat · 05-22-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by OasisGames

This is incorrect.

Linux 0.01 came out in 1991. FreeBSD wasn't started until 1993 and was a fork of 386BSD, released in 1992

You nitpicker!

I should have said "BSD is older than Linux" because it is. I think the original BSD was begun in like 1978 or something at Berkeley. And BSD was sued in the late 80's which resulted in most of the code having to be rewritten and probably contributed to the "forks" like FreeBSD etc.

DesertFox · 05-26-09

I run the Big 3 BSD and a few Linux.

As to FreeBSD it's one of the best desktops around. Once you get used to thinking the FreeBSD way (just like you had to learn to think Linux) you can get a lot done. There are tons and tons of apps available for it in the repositories. Driver support has improved dramatically in the last year or so.

> Can I get some comparisons to Ubuntu, and something lightweight like Arch or Gentoo? Looking
> at system performance, ease of management, compatibility of hardware, quality of packages,
> stability, those sorts of things.

Compared to Ubuntu, FreeBSD has a much more complicated installation. It's actually the worst of the Big 3 BSDs as far as installation goes. When you get the base system you have to start building apps. This is true of NetBSD as well, with OpenBSD you use mostly precompiled packages. There are some precompiled packages but I never used to find the ones I wanted so I got in the habit of building my own.

I don't mean to say the installation is difficult, it's just complicated if that makes any sense. The fdisking and partitioning are not intuitive for a Linux user, so the best suggestion is to partition with Linux fdisk or cfdisk (don't forget to set the partition id to FreeBSD) and then boot the FreeBSD installer and then when you get to the fdisk step just exit from that and continue to disklabel. I recommend this for any BSD installation. Also, don't take FreeBSD's default recommendations for partitioning up your slice, it will box you into a corner and toast your installation to where you can never fix it. I don't know why year after year they still screw this up so royally.

One thing to remember in BSD land a DOS (fdisk) partition is a slice. Partitions are individual mountpoints within the slice. You normally make only one big slice and then partition it like you are used to in Linux (root, home, var, etc) using BSD disklabel.

FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all have unique and mostly non-compatible disklabels, FreeBSD's is the worst, I think you only get 8 partitions (mountpoints). If you have a big disk this setup doesn't work out too well unless you like huge / or /home partitions, etc. There are ways around it, that's for another post.

Compared to Gentoo it is very similar (Gentoo's portage is based on FreeBSD ports) where in both you install or build somewhat of a base system and then compile everything you want. I find FreeBSD a lot simpler than Gentoo (never actually had the time to complete a Gentoo install).

System performance, depends a lot on your workload. I haven't benchmarked it but I feel the BSD filesystems are much slower than modern Linux filesystems but I feel the dispatching and multitasking is somewhat better. These are just feelings from running desktop workloads over the past 5 years on all the major BSD and some heavy duty Linux like Slackware and Slamd64. Still I have to say my Slackware and Slamd64 systems are the most responsive under load. You almost never feel a slowdown even when you're doing a huge compile. OpenBSD also feel very snappy and lean, especially from the command line. I don't use it enough to know how it holds up under heavy loads but I imagine it's fine.

Ease of management, just a matter of style. My preferred Linux, Slackware/Slamd64 is very BSD like, so I had very little learning curve. For a desktop it's trivial. For a server maybe a little more work. Nothing scary here.

Compatibility of hardware, I never had any problems with any of the BSDs on newish and older hardware. I didn't have any very new hardware until recently and the 7.1 of FreeBSD worked with everything except I didn't get DRI until I upgraded to 7.2. Now I have it all.

Quality of packages, on the 386 port of FreeBSD, the quality is excellent. Very few problems and if you have any the maintainers are usually pretty responsive. On the AMD64 port there are many half-assed or broken packages. If you're thinking about running the AMD64 port you should make sure all the packages you want will build before you dedicate a real machine to it. I'm pretty happy with my AMD64 FreeBSD desktop. Apps start slow the first time but after that they run great. It's a toss-up between the 32 bit and 64 bit versions.

Stability of FreeBSD is outstanding. I have never had a crash or lockup ever. I have had NetBSD lock up enough that until I give 5. something a major rehearsal I don't trust it for a production setup.

Now for the bad news. Even though like thiussat said the BSD philosophy is more coherent than Linux, in practice you wind up with more problems living with FreeBSD than a good Linux like Slackware, because of the ****ty gnu tool chain and the bad integration with BSD. If BSD would come up with their own compiler and toolchain and completely bypass gcc it would probably be the best desktop OS going. What I mean is I can take almost any piece of source code and compile it and make a package on Linux. That may be because most apps are developed on Linux and with gcc. If you use FreeBSD ports you are fine. But if you like to go find some app and compile it from source without using a buildscript from FreeBSD ports, in my experience you find problems about half the time.

chemicalfan · 05-26-09

Wow, thanks for the lengthy reply!!!

I've already worked out that FreeBSD is a difficult install - so similar to Arch, it's mad! Well, from the user perspective anyway - I know it's compiling away in the background. I've got BSD installed now, but couldn't get X to play. It would start, but present 2 mis-sized 'tiled windows', and then refuse to respond to any keyboard & mouse input. Found out today that I need to configure it first, so might give that a go later. It's a shame about the file system - I had the option during the install to go with ext2, but decided to stick with the BSD system as I thought it would be more optimised for the kernel!

If I can get X working (with Fluxbox - my WM choice), then I'll give it a fair run. My initial opinion, is that FreeBSD is similar to Arch (that is, if you can get Arch working, you can probably get FreeBSD working too). I'll have to get it working properly to get a true opinion though

Edit: I'm against Slackware, because it's a 7Gb download! If they allowed you to do it Arch/BSD-style, where you download a minimal install, and then the extra modules are downloaded as required, I'd give it a shot. The minimal install could even be CD ISO size, but to force a DVD-size download isn't a great selling point

**gonX** · 05-26-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by chemicalfan

Wow, thanks for the lengthy reply!!!

I've already worked out that FreeBSD is a difficult install - so similar to Arch, it's mad! Well, from the user perspective anyway - I know it's compiling away in the background. I've got BSD installed now, but couldn't get X to play. It would start, but present 2 mis-sized 'tiled windows', and then refuse to respond to any keyboard & mouse input. Found out today that I need to configure it first, so might give that a go later. It's a shame about the file system - I had the option during the install to go with ext2, but decided to stick with the BSD system as I thought it would be more optimised for the kernel!

If I can get X working (with Fluxbox - my WM choice), then I'll give it a fair run. My initial opinion, is that FreeBSD is similar to Arch (that is, if you can get Arch working, you can probably get FreeBSD working too). I'll have to get it working properly to get a true opinion though

Edit: I'm against Slackware, because it's a 7Gb download! If they allowed you to do it Arch/BSD-style, where you download a minimal install, and then the extra modules are downloaded as required, I'd give it a shot. The minimal install could even be CD ISO size, but to force a DVD-size download isn't a great selling point

Zenwalk

chemicalfan · 05-26-09

Doh, I don't need another distro to try!

Just spent the last hour wrestling with X (ok, a good 20 minutes of that was spent sorting out authority - or lack of it!), and haven't got it working. I can get it to load, with the black-grey grid and the X cursor, but then it stops responding. The only thing I can do is start a new terminal session, Ctrl-Alt-Backspace does nothing!! Could be VirtualBox messing about though, that said if I'm honest, I'm sure it's just be being a muppet

DesertFox · 05-26-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by chemicalfan

Doh, I don't need another distro to try!

Just spent the last hour wrestling with X (ok, a good 20 minutes of that was spent sorting out authority - or lack of it!), and haven't got it working. I can get it to load, with the black-grey grid and the X cursor, but then it stops responding. The only thing I can do is start a new terminal session, Ctrl-Alt-Backspace does nothing!! Could be VirtualBox messing about though, that said if I'm honest, I'm sure it's just be being a muppet

You need to config X (look for xorgsetup or run xorgconfig with some special option) lemme know if you need to know what it is and I will start my 7.2 box and tell you.

Then you need to have altready built the port for whatever wm you want (Fluxbox, etc.) and then you need to update your .xinitrc to start Fluxbox. Just because you build the port it won't necessarily start when you start X. You could have 10 wms built and switch back and forth.

05-26-09	#6 (permalink)
DesertFox Programmer Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Delete me Posts: 177 Rep: 21 Unique Rep: 11 Trader Rating: 0	I run the Big 3 BSD and a few Linux. As to FreeBSD it's one of the best desktops around. Once you get used to thinking the FreeBSD way (just like you had to learn to think Linux) you can get a lot done. There are tons and tons of apps available for it in the repositories. Driver support has improved dramatically in the last year or so. > Can I get some comparisons to Ubuntu, and something lightweight like Arch or Gentoo? Looking > at system performance, ease of management, compatibility of hardware, quality of packages, > stability, those sorts of things. Compared to Ubuntu, FreeBSD has a much more complicated installation. It's actually the worst of the Big 3 BSDs as far as installation goes. When you get the base system you have to start building apps. This is true of NetBSD as well, with OpenBSD you use mostly precompiled packages. There are some precompiled packages but I never used to find the ones I wanted so I got in the habit of building my own. I don't mean to say the installation is difficult, it's just complicated if that makes any sense. The fdisking and partitioning are not intuitive for a Linux user, so the best suggestion is to partition with Linux fdisk or cfdisk (don't forget to set the partition id to FreeBSD) and then boot the FreeBSD installer and then when you get to the fdisk step just exit from that and continue to disklabel. I recommend this for any BSD installation. Also, don't take FreeBSD's default recommendations for partitioning up your slice, it will box you into a corner and toast your installation to where you can never fix it. I don't know why year after year they still screw this up so royally. One thing to remember in BSD land a DOS (fdisk) partition is a slice. Partitions are individual mountpoints within the slice. You normally make only one big slice and then partition it like you are used to in Linux (root, home, var, etc) using BSD disklabel. FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD all have unique and mostly non-compatible disklabels, FreeBSD's is the worst, I think you only get 8 partitions (mountpoints). If you have a big disk this setup doesn't work out too well unless you like huge / or /home partitions, etc. There are ways around it, that's for another post. Compared to Gentoo it is very similar (Gentoo's portage is based on FreeBSD ports) where in both you install or build somewhat of a base system and then compile everything you want. I find FreeBSD a lot simpler than Gentoo (never actually had the time to complete a Gentoo install). System performance, depends a lot on your workload. I haven't benchmarked it but I feel the BSD filesystems are much slower than modern Linux filesystems but I feel the dispatching and multitasking is somewhat better. These are just feelings from running desktop workloads over the past 5 years on all the major BSD and some heavy duty Linux like Slackware and Slamd64. Still I have to say my Slackware and Slamd64 systems are the most responsive under load. You almost never feel a slowdown even when you're doing a huge compile. OpenBSD also feel very snappy and lean, especially from the command line. I don't use it enough to know how it holds up under heavy loads but I imagine it's fine. Ease of management, just a matter of style. My preferred Linux, Slackware/Slamd64 is very BSD like, so I had very little learning curve. For a desktop it's trivial. For a server maybe a little more work. Nothing scary here. Compatibility of hardware, I never had any problems with any of the BSDs on newish and older hardware. I didn't have any very new hardware until recently and the 7.1 of FreeBSD worked with everything except I didn't get DRI until I upgraded to 7.2. Now I have it all. Quality of packages, on the 386 port of FreeBSD, the quality is excellent. Very few problems and if you have any the maintainers are usually pretty responsive. On the AMD64 port there are many half-assed or broken packages. If you're thinking about running the AMD64 port you should make sure all the packages you want will build before you dedicate a real machine to it. I'm pretty happy with my AMD64 FreeBSD desktop. Apps start slow the first time but after that they run great. It's a toss-up between the 32 bit and 64 bit versions. Stability of FreeBSD is outstanding. I have never had a crash or lockup ever. I have had NetBSD lock up enough that until I give 5. something a major rehearsal I don't trust it for a production setup. Now for the bad news. Even though like thiussat said the BSD philosophy is more coherent than Linux, in practice you wind up with more problems living with FreeBSD than a good Linux like Slackware, because of the ***ty gnu tool chain and the bad integration with BSD. If BSD would come up with their own compiler and toolchain and completely bypass gcc it would probably be the best desktop OS going. What I mean is I can take almost any piece of source code and compile it and make a package on Linux. That may be because most apps are developed on Linux and with gcc. If you use FreeBSD ports you are fine. But if you like to go find some app and compile it from source without using a buildscript from FreeBSD ports, in my experience you find problems about half the time. Last edited by DesertFox : 05-26-09 at 04:29 PM*

		Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > Software, Programming and Coding > Operating Systems > Linux, Unix
FreeBSD vs. Linux

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)