Slashdot Mirror
Why FreeBSD
An anonymous reader writes "The FreeBSD operating system is the unknown giant among free operating systems. Starting out from the 386BSD project, it is an extremely fast UNIX-like operating system mostly for the Intel chip and its clones. In many ways, FreeBSD has always been the operating system that GNU/Linux-based operating systems should have been. It runs on out-of-date Intel machines and 64-bit AMD chips, and it serves terabytes of files a day on some of the largest file servers on earth."
Linux and BSD based operating systems provide many of the same services, and pretty much work the same way. I think that you can't go wrong with either of them. I see no need to pit them against each other, as they both provide freedom and excellence to the user.
IIRC, there was just enough controversy over the sealed agreement in the Berkely vs. AT&T kerfuffle that developers were a teensy bit nervous about working on BSD. By the time that was all properly dealt with, Linux was already gaining speed, and had the additional advantage of riding the back of a wave of MS hatred.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
But all the new and fun stuff comes out for Linux. If you're looking for something close to the style of FreeBSD, but with the new and freshness of Linux, try Gentoo.
It's only true flame bait when you don't quote the whole thing.
In many ways, FreeBSD has always been the operating system that GNU/Linux®-based operating systems should have been
The key phrase is "In many ways". It's not a definite and there are many who would agree with that statement.
No, FreeBSD runs THIS.
I think those days are over...
The PC-BSD project makes it a snap to install a functioning FreeBSD system. DistroWatch mentions a very nice step-by-step guide to installation process but really, you don't even need that if you are already handy at installing various GNU/Linux distros. (Although the guide does go into some custom configuration things that are useful/interesting.)
The torrent for PC-BSD is ready to roll, give it a try. Now there are no more excuses ;-)
Despite all the good things that have beein brought about by the most recent Linux 2.6.XX series kernels and boxed up by Redhat and Suse and CentOS people, there are still areas where the two differ a lot and will continue to do so.
FreeBSD's motto has always been rock solid stability, robustness and serving capability.
Thus, for the ones who mentioned their discomfort in installing FreeBSD for workstation - hey it's just another market demand driven issue; when there's enough pressure, the things will start getting cleaner.
For robustness one just can't beat FreeBSD, despite Linux's latest achievements. Remember the time when Linux had almost screwed itsef out of the server platform due to the incredible VM issues plaguing it's early 2.4.X series? Well, even today the VM is still not as stable as it should be. FreeBSD has the best VM out there, and it can take any types of loads.
Linux tends to be "quite fast" when people throw small tiny workloads at it like a few disk requests, or a few HTTP requests to a webserver, say Apache. If you throw any reasonable amount of workload, you gotta sit down and tune it. I mean literally re-write the code, coz it's not going to be able to handle thousands and thousands of requests. So it ends up being a very fast, low latency platform for a lot of non-serious non-server oriented uses. But it quickly looses the latency advantage when any serious load is thrown at it. I have had to re-write sizeable portions of the Linux kernel to make it handle better loads.
OTOH, FreeBSD seems to be slower and more sluggish when one throws non-server type one-off requests at it; however this latency can be multipled over thousands of requests. If you throw one request at FreeBSD or you throw thousands of thousands of requests, the latency is nearly the same - that is the DEFINITION of robustness.
I remember when I had installed FreeBSD 4.2 a few years ago, and the httpd could handle only about 1000 simultaneous requests. I just had to change a few kernel sysctls, and it smoothly managed to increase that to about 100000 simultaneous requests; all chuggnig along at the same latency. That is what I want in a server platform.
I have never seen that kind of capability in Linux. When it comes to internet serving, one can still not beat FreeBSD.
Of late it's been plagued a bit by the big change in architecture for SMP scalability in the 5.X series; and it always seems to have an issue with driver availability - but that is just due to the fact that it is a small enthusiast community compared to Linux. Hence the lesser number of hands working on it.
Linux does have some advantages though, and their driver availabilty is very very good. It addresses almost every bit of desktop hardware money can buy, and is the only one that can compete with microsoft in the driver availability market.
Good luck to both!
The reason you'll see just as many BSD fanatics as Linux nuts is for just the same reason: the license.
*BSD is a stable, secure OS with a proprietary-friendly, open source license. Linux is a stable, secure OS with a proprietary-hostile, open source license.
90% of the actual software that runs on the two is exactly the same. However, each has its own kernel and basic libraries.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Maybe you've been out of the loop.
FreeBSD doesn't have journalling filesystems, but it has filesystems that can do "softupdates". Hence no need to do journalling. The data structures in-core and on disk are kept consistent so no corruption can occur, and hence no need to fsck even when you reboot.
And FYI, most of the Linux journalling filesystems are now trying to adopt softupdate type features for their filesystem data (not metadata) for data ordering concepts.
Regards,
Rock
Mach, not FreeBSD, is the "guts" of Mac OS X. The code borrowed from FreeBSD is mostly userspace code.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
I have been fairly cautious about 5.x. We maintain a customized install image for our servers, and I've waited until march this year to switch to 5.x. I would say that everything from 5.2 and higher is stable for all normal purposes. I have a 64bit Sparc running on 5.2-RC2 and its uptime is 347 days. It handles 3-4 Mbit/s of web traffic with no problem and I never had to look at it after the initial install. All our other machines are running 5.x as well. But under extreme load, 5.x still has some lingering locking problems. We have a small number of loaded managed servers for a porn hoster which are stuck on 4.x because of strange lockups when huge amounts of processes are created. So far we haven't had any luck in getting rid of this problem. We are not seeing it on any other machines fortunately.
( ^_^)/
"Sorry, but when you said "use" there I guess you really meant "close". Which is really more like "prevent others from using". Which is exactly what I was saying to begin with."
This is the major deceptive argument made by some GPL fans. Software licensed under BSD remains free forever and ever. The fact that people are allowed to modify it without distributing the modifications in no way makes the orginal code "closed".
We can debate the merits of GPL vs. BSD, but let's keep it honest.
that would be portupgrade, my friend..
The GPL, however, does take away freedom from anyone: If I modify GPL software, I am no longer allowed to own it and do with it what I see fit.
Because you ummm... NEVER OWNED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE? You don't own the GPL software. Just because the combined work contains some of your work too, doesn't mean you get to own the whole kaboodle. You can do whatever you want with your diffs. Just don't pretend that you have any right whatsoever to distribute your work with my work except on the terms I allow.
A stupid license shouldn't remove their ownership and control over what they create.
Funny, the BSD license is the best way to lose control over what you create. Someone like Microsoft can take all your "hard work", modify it slightly and sell it back to you. A big part of what OS X is worth is what BSD is worth. But the BSD developers all have to pay full price to use their own work. Granted, not the best of examples since Apple has contributed a lot, but you get the general idea.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
"The OpenBSD project does not make the ISO images used to master the official CDs available for download. The reason is simply that we would like you to buy the CD sets, helping fund ongoing OpenBSD development. The official OpenBSD CD-ROM layout is copyright Theo de Raadt. Theo does not permit people to redistribute images of the official OpenBSD CDs. As an incentive for people to buy the CD set, some extras are included in the package as well (artwork, stickers etc).
Note that only the CD layout is copyrighted, OpenBSD itself is free. Nothing precludes someone else from downloading OpenBSD and making their own CD. If for some reason you want to download a CD image, try searching the mailing list archives for possible sources. Of course, any OpenBSD ISO images available on the Internet either violate Theo de Raadt's copyright or are not official images. The source of an unofficial image may or may not be trustworthy; it is up to you to determine this for yourself.
We suggest that people who want to download OpenBSD for free use the FTP install option. For those that need a bootable CD for their system, bootdisk ISO images (named cd36.iso) are available for a number of platforms which will then permit the rest of the system to be installed via FTP. These ISO images are only a few megabytes in size, and contain just the installation tools, not the actual file sets."
So they do not provide isos for free, they prefer to have you buy a set of boxed cds to fund their effots. Yeah, I can see it... Bad, evil people trying to make some sort of money for a project.
They then say you can download from unofficial sources as you will. Gosh. They must be mad as well as evil...
They even propose to build a full system from an ftp using just a floppy or a cdrom . My head start spinning. This people REFUSE to give you an iso, but helps you 3 ways to get their sofware.(3.4 - Downloading via FTP, HTTP or AFS...)
So, I agree, BSD is made by Bad, Evil, Mind Spinning people that actually help you get their software. In multiple forms... but they won't provide you poor soul with an ISO, you'll have to use your bleeding fingers into 20 seconds of googling to get it...
Madmen, all...
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
And if you want a portable BSD, don't overlook NetBSD, arguably the most portable and ported modern high-performance operating system in existence.
you had me at #!
The fact is FreeBSD is just a K E R N E L.
No, it isn't.
They both use G N U tools to do the majority of their user related tasks.
No, it doesn't.
"The question I have is that if FreeBSD is so much better, and the GPL is so onerous to business, why do so many companies use embedded Linux?"
Clearly the GPL's not that big a problem for businesses...otherwise they wouldn't use it. They might not like to, but in the end it's worth it...and really the LGPL is no more restrictive to their business model than the BSD license.
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
If they came with a full set of graphical administration tools then it wouldn't be necessary to go to a command line at all.
Systems like SuSE do come with a full set of graphical adminstration tools; it isn't necessary to go to the command line to administer them, ever.
And something like Webmin runs on any UNIX system and gives you a far more comprehensive and consistent administration interface to a larger set of subsystems than Windows tools.
Of course, many end-users find command line administration actually easier.
With the comments about poor usability and friendliness as compared against windows and linux sure to abound, I have to put in my $0.02.
.
FreeBSD has taken some huge steps toward a more user/newbie friendly experience in recent times. I'm posting this from my significant others' PC, which is running PC-BSD, based on 5.4 RELEASE.
The funny thing is, she prefered PC-BSD over any of the linux flavors I've had her try (including Mandriva/Mandrake, Debian, Mepis, Knoppix, etc.) and even over windows.
She tells me she likes PC-BSD because it "feels" more stable and predictable to her, and after doing a windows install last nite (for games and the occasional MSOffice/OO.org compatibility/formatting hiccups), I gotta say the PC-BSD install (the installer is a nice graphical installer, with nearly everything being fine if one just accepts the defaults) is much faster with far less pickiness, and of course, only one reboot..at the end, into the new fully-installed and functioning system.
Windows failed to detect or set up the very vanilla Linksys NIC, and required significant (for a newbie) setup after the install to get a working internet connection. PC-BSD "just worked" in regards to the NIC, and most everything else, including sound.
PC-BSD also has a package system for software management, using ".pbi" pre-built packages as well as the FreeBSD "ports" system. The ".pbi" packages available are somewhat limited still, but does include some standouts, such as the java installer, which automates the java installation, which has been an issue for me with the various FreeBSD desktops I've tried.
OO.org 2.0 beta is also included, running in KDE 3.4.0. Guess I've rambled enough, just wanted to get the word out on PC-BSD for the FreeBSD-squeamish. You can check it out for yourself at http://www.pcbsd.org/
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
A lot of the FreeBSD plusses you listed also apply to Gentoo Linux.
:)
Both are decent operating systems.
If you are not poking around at the kernel level, the next difference is the init system. OpenBSD uses a pure BSD init system, which is nice and simple. FreeBSD and NetBSD use rcNG, which allows individual init scripts to specify services they provide and services they depend on, allowing a more parallel init process. GNU systems usually use the abomination known as System 5 init. Just to confuse matters, OS X now uses Launchd and Solaris uses SMF, both of which are more flexible at the expense of being more complicated.
Finally, you get the ports system. These are basically BSD Makefiles that define how to apply BSD-specific patches to code and install it. They are integrated with a package system which installs compiled versions. On NetBSD and OpenBSD, installing from binary is standard (on OpenBSD, building the port first builds the package and then installs it, not sure about NetBSD), while on FreeBSD building the package installs the port, builds the package and then uninstalls the port. All of these systems do automatic dependency resolution and fetching.
I generally find BSD systems to be cleaner and less full of cruft than GNU systems, and to have a better security model (check out the reasons why GNU su doesn't restrict use to members of the wheel group some time). Generally, it's a matter of personal taste. If you can't tell the difference then just stick with whatever you are most familiar with.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Testing. The FreeBSD CVS has three branches. -CURRENT is what the kernel developers use. -STABLE is the stuff that they are happy to say works without problems. -RELEASE is a fixed point in -STABLE where only bug-fixes can be added (no new features). Linux has the branch that Linus runs which contains all of the newest and shiniest features, and then a huge number of other branches that people who want production systems use. When Linus makes a change, it may break a custom patch in the Red Hat or SuSE branch (for example), and this will have to be fixed by someone other than the person who broke it.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
900 days? I really hope you've been keeping up with the FreeBSD errata. Uptime is nothing to be proud of - downtime is. If your system is compromised because you didn't apply a security update then this costs a whole lot more than the two minutes of scheduled downtime required for a reboot.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Personally, I'd say that 5.3 was the first of the 5.x branch that was actually production-ready, and 5.4 is even better. However, the 5.x branch is still a bit of a disappointment compared to 4.x, which was an absolute gem in terms of stability and scalability. Thankfully, it looks like 6.x is shaping up nicely and a great effort is being made to avoid making the mistakes that were made in the 5.x branch (namely cramming in too many big new features without sufficient testing).
For my money (or lack thereof, teehee), if the FreeBSD kernel performs about as well as the Linux 2.6 kernel, then I'd choose FreeBSD hands down, merely because I prefer the FreeBSD Way. It's the oldest argument in the FreeBSD vs. Linux game: I like the consistency, the elegance, the ease of keeping third-party software updated via the ports system, and the knowledge that the project is in the hands of good, intelligent, trustworthy people. I don't mind Linux at all; in fact, I really like Gentoo. But it doesn't give me the same warm fuzzy feeling of stability, security, and elegance that FreeBSD does.
I love FreeBSD and the BSDs in specific. I've used FreeBSD on at least one machine since version 1.1.5, however I do have to call bs on your statements.
I prefer *BSD to Linux, but...
No BSD works correctly with my D-Link DMF-560TXD. Every version of Linux I've tried works perfectly with it. Both the modem and the ethernet ports work and I can use them both simultaneously. This keeps me from using *BSD on my laptop, because for me a laptop without network access, is a useless doorstop.
No BSD supports plugging/unplugging USB devices as easily as Linux, and none of them seem to be friendly with hot-plugging usb devices. This means that unless I want to reboot my desktop EVERY time I want to get pictures off my digital camera, I have to run Linux on my desktop. With Linux, I plug in the camera, turn it on, and the OS sees it and sets it up.
There are other issues similar to these, but I think these make my point fairly well. Yes they boil down to hardware compatibility and support issues, however they ARE things that Linux does better than the BSD's.
Do I prefer to run FreeBSD for a server? Yes. I'm quite happy that I can use a P-II (celeron) 350 with 64 meg of ram for a firewall/nat box, run web/email/ftp on it, run two mucks and a mud on it, and still have useable shell accounts on it.
However... on hardware compatibility and support, multimedia support, and general suitability for use as a Desktop OS? Linux is superior.
I have no problem with this... I simply tend to suggest people consider *BSD for use on servers and Linux for use on the Desktop/Laptop.
* OpenBSD is focused 100% on security. They very tightly audit their code and control what goes in the distribution. In theory it shares code with FreeBSD, but in practice it lags behind (ie: last I knew it doesn't even have multiprocessor support because of security complications).
/usr/ports/somesoftware" make; make install; make clean" to download source code, apply any BSD-specific patches, compile and install the binaries). FreeBSD is also used by some large companies for webhosting due to it's mixture of security and performance. For example, Yahoo has always been hosted on FreeBSD, and they're only the #1 and #4 most visited website on the internet (source).
* NetBSD is designed with portability in mind. It runs on 17 different CPU families and over 60 different machine architectures. I've a feeling that the embedded systems folks love this OS. Because of the multiplatform focus it does lag somewhat in single-platform features.
* FreeBSD is the "mainstream" BSD distribution. It supports a range of modern x86-32 and x86-64 hardware with multiprocessor support (and has ports to some other supported CPUs where things like multiprocessor may not work), and enjoys features like a Linux compatibility layer (so you can run Linux x86 binaries, including 3D accelerated games like Unreal Tournament 2004). For it's users, the FreeBSD Ports Tree is the greatest software repository and distribution method in the know universe (eg: "cd
* OSX is Apple's custom version of FreeBSD that only runs on Macs. The focus here is a friendly, hugable user interface slapped over the Unixy FreeBSD core. The concept is a bit like Microsoft Bob but without making you want to kill yourself quite so badly, the implementation is not terrible. I would say more, but I'm tired of people saying how "great" OSX is then pointing to the shiny UI. A shiny UI does not a great OS make, although it certainly is no worse or better than Windows XP when it comes to running applications (provided applications are available for it).
If you're not sure which one to try, install FreeBSD with the Gnome desktop. It has the potential to be an interesting afternoon's learning experience and there is a lot of documentation to guide you if something goes wrong. Get FreeBSD from the official site or via BitTorrent (and always check the MD5's from the official site after downloading).
I really like FreeBSD - however, I'm now officially tired of messing with my computer for the sake of messing with my computer. Linux and FreeBSD have both worn out their welcome in favor of Windows XP with it's autoupdate feature. Hey, Windows XP runs Firefox AND all my games.