FreeBSD 5.2 Review

JigSaw writes "OSNews published a review of FreeBSD 5.2. They found the OS very solid as a server but pretty lacking as a desktop. The author finds FreeBSD very fast overall, easy to configure and that it feels integrated and mature. On the other hand, it has limited modern hardware support, small annoyances at places and that not many binary packages are available and so compilations from ports may take long time."

Comments

Re:Thoughts on infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but the problem with Windows isn't its base. The base is rock solid. To prove that just run the OS from a clean install. You can run that thing for years without a problem. The problem is when you start adding things like Outlook, half-assed drivers from ATI or Creative, and every piece of spyware known to man. To me the biggest problem with Windows as a desktop is that it assumes that its users have even a modicum of common sense when obviously they don't. The safest desktop for a user is a locked down dummy terminal.

FreeBSD not designed as a desktop

[ducomputergeek]

"FreeBSD....The power to serve" has been its tagline for years. FreeBSD is designed as a server OS first, and if you really want too, you can turn it into an effective desktop. FreeBSD has always been a bit behind the technology curve, but do you really need drivers for the latest ATI or nVidia cards on a machine designed to run as a server?

We still have a couple print servers around here that are running Pentium Pro's with FreeBSD 3.4 from five years ago. Yeah its probably time we replaced them, but they've been reliable.

I mean for desktop, we use Mac OS X because that what its designed for, at the end of the day its the right tool for the right job.

Re:FreeBSD not designed as a desktop

[KrispyKringle]

It's surprising how much of that technology is transferrable. Of course, it used to be that an OS that was good as a server had things like multi-user support (and security), multitaskng, and networking, things you'd never dream of asking a PC to do.

But now, I can't think of that many differences. Multi-user systems have the security necessary to keep networked systems free of viruses and spyware. Good multi-tasking is something you want on the desktop as well. PCs now do as much networking as servers. Stability and security? Yes, please.

Similarly, many sysadmins prefer more automatic configuration, graphical interfaces, and the like (I personally wouldn't choose Windows on a server for its graphical configuration, but apparently many do).

The primary difference, really, is just hardware support and perhaps prioritising software upgrades versus stability. Debian, for example, has slow updates but rock-hard stability. Gentoo (my desktop of choice) has a few reliability issues (in my experience, but you can take issue with this if you'd like) but is great for up-to-date software. Similarly, FreeBSD doesn't support my nforce2 motherboard (a shame; I'd kinda prefer it to Linux) but supports SCSI, various WAN technologies, and similar.

But in terms of the basic code-base, I don't know why we should assume there's a big difference between what's good on a desktop and what's good on a server. Because stability, security, speed, usability--these are all traits we want in both.

As much as I hate to admit it

[stox]

The reviewer does hit a nail on the head, "If you are after an easy-to-use desktop system that doesn't require you to learn anything new, then you better look elsewhere."

This is the arrogance/beauty of FreeBSD, it is designed/engineered/distributed as an O/S to get the job done like no other. The Bauhaus school of software design. It is an SOB to get a new user going on, but once they see the light, good luck prying it from their hands. Good things are rarely easy.

The best thing ever to happen to FreeBSD was Linux, the best thing ever to happen to Linux was FreeBSD. A good, clean, honest competition which leaves both sides stronger.

The Eugenia Loli-Queru Style

[satanami69]

Sadly, I took one glance at the screenshot in the upper-right hand corner, and knew I would be reading a Eugenia article.

She continues to base a useable desktop by how many windows she can open at once. Skip the article, and read the reviews from the /. posters. FreeBSD 5.2 is rock solid, as any Unix, Linux, box would be. Every port in the ports tree has a pkd_add to go along with it. That's 10,000 precompiles binary ready to download. They all install, deinstall, with near zero user interaction.

In short, use FreeBSD.

Re:Wrong

[drinkypoo]

I can only assume that your moderation of "Funny" related to your statement that FreeBSD release versions have always been truly rock solid, unless 5.0 doesn't count as a "release version".

I wouldn't say that Linux is more stable or anything, but don't pretend that BSD is perfect. Even OpenBSD has its little idiosyncrasies, and it's supposed to have had more code review than any other open source Unix(-like OS).

Windows NT does certainly have plenty of security issues, but in general, it is a fairly reliable operating system. While in some ways it has gone downhill in that regard since NT 3.51 (though it's gotten better since 4.0, FWIW) because of decisions made to improve the speed of the system, NT is built on a solid architecture. The problem with NT is not the design of the foundation so much as the implementation, and the fact that PC hardware is, for the most part, utter crap, and it makes a commitment to supporting (nearly) all of it in a way that enables hardware developers to publish closed drivers and yet still have them work and deliver good performance, and not be tied to an individual version of the kernel. You can service pack NT and end up with upgraded hal and kernel, and still use many of the same drivers across NT 5.0 and 5.1's assorted builds.

Obviously NT is not without flaws, but they are not (in general) as great as you suggest, especially given what they are trying to do with it. And clearly, Windows is improving dramatically. I expect XP sp2 to help a great deal. And, as Microsoft implements more of the non-core functionality of the OS in .NET, it should ease transitions from one version to another, because they will be depending on a fixed API rather than juggling things around so heavily with each new version, mostly because the applications will not be coupled so closely to the OS itself.