FreeBSD, Stealthy Open Source Project

zam4ever writes "Sean Michael Kerner has written an article on how FreeBSD has become a Stealth-Growth Open Source Project with various reasons outlined for FreeBSD's growth over the last years."

Comments

security and uptime

[p9fos]

I admin a web server at my university. I have to say *knock on wood* that it has stayed up and not been cracked into (yet). Unlike the previous web server running slowlaris 8, which has been broken into several times. We also have a linux server for the computer science majors, that also has been broken into. freebsd seems to be pretty solid in my experience. anyone have diffrent or same experinces as this?

What has FreeBSD got to offer?

[RAMMS EIN]

WARNING: This post contains what may be perceived as FreeBSD criticism and GNU/Linux advocacy. However, I have an open mind and would like to hear constructive responses to the issues I raise. I like FreeBSD, I just like Debian GNU/Linux and NetBSD better.

I wonder what FreeBSD really has to offer that makes it better than the competition.

It doesn't enjoy the popularity and mindshare that GNU/Linux enjoys. People in the server world sometimes prefer it, but outside of this world Open Source = Linux (and, usually, = Red Hat), and FreeBSD is unheard of.

It uses a much more monolithic kernel than Linux, making it lose some flexibility. You wouldn't really want to use FreeBSD for an embedded system. (And I mean really low-end, not "we call it embedded because it's small, but it's actually powerful enough to run a desktop OS".) Linux and NetBSD are more suitable choices here.

Fewer drivers are available (especially those available as binary modules for Linux). Many applications developed for the GNU system won't work on a vanilla FreeBSD system. While this is the applications' fault, it still is a disadvantage for FreeBSD. It also has fewer binary packages available than Debian GNU/Linux.

It loses against Linux and NetBSD in terms of supported architectures.

It loses against Linux and NetBSD in this benchmark.

FreeBSD systems are easy to administer using ports, but the same can be said of other BSDs. There are Linux distributions using ports (or variants thereof), and apt is at least as convenient.

So what is left? FreeBSD (and also NetBSD) definitely has a more professional feel about it than many Linux distros. It has also proven itself many times in server environments. However, with GNU/Linux (at least Debian) beating it in technical and usability aspects, are these emotions really warranted? Then there is the license. I don't think either license (BSD or GPL) can be said to be better than the other, but there must be cases where the BSD license is to be preferred, so the license could be an argument. Is that what it all comes down to, then?

PS. I've heard many people complain about the Debian installer (the one used in woody), and I've heard the FreeBSD installer time and time again. Personally, I find the Debian installer vastly superior to FreeBSD's (which has failed a number of times, and given me a hard time making the right choices, especially when partitioning). Yes, I am a Debian zealot, but let me add that the installer I've liked best is OpenBSD's.

So, what's up with the FreeBSD installer being easy to use (except for me) and the Debian installer being hard to use (except for people who read the messages it gives you)? Is it really me, or are they measured against different standards (FreeBSD being for more technically apt people than GNU/Linux)?