Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Should You Use FreeBSD? Here's Some Reasons

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Not fragmented as Linux, (relation to many distro, that not have idea/goal)
    only a very stupid person would see that as something good.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by yoshi314 View Post
      as long as it cannot handle lvm, dm-crypt and ext4 i am not going to use it. it just won't be able to access my data on existing setup.
      Funny, leaving LVM/EXT*/dm-crypt behind for ZFS/geli was my main reason to go back to FreeBSD. LVM snapshots were so horribly slow and tended to get
      locked up by udev.

      And as a bonus I have sound that doesn't break down every time someone sneeze.

      Comment


      • #18
        The FreeBSD community focuses more on tech than on licensing and political activism like a certain freeware Unix "alike"
        LOL. GCC 4.2 says hi.

        Anyway, I've never used FreeBSD, but I know Gentoo's portage was based off their ports system, and that would be the main draw for me i think.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by septianix View Post
          And as a bonus I have sound that doesn't break down every time someone sneeze.
          That's funny. I (tried) use to use FreeBSD, for maybe 1.5yrs for most things. (But was also running Linux and Mac). BSD got dropped because it couldn't handle running multitrack recordings nearly as well as Linux, on the exact same hardware using the exact same software (Jackd).

          I can't even remember the last time i had sound problems with linux ~ ie: it was years ago. You say sound breaks on linux every time someone sneezes, well how do explain me not having any issues then? it's too bad that i just updated Archlinux / rebooted my machine a couple of days ago, because previous to doing that *my uptime had been almost 2/3 weeks* ... now it's only; 10:20:04 up 2 days, 4:41, 3 users, load average: 0.84, 0.61, 0.65

          I run jackdbus (alsa backend) as my default soundserver and am running kernel; 3.2.18-rt29-1-rt #1 SMP PREEMPT RT

          My typical daily usage is having 16-24 multitrack sessions that are almost always running (even if i am not using it at the moment), a slew of synthesizers + linuxsampler (with large sample libraries). I also will typically have a browser running ~ with Flash/other videos routed through Jackdbus (I often practice/learn piano/songs online). I almost always have Exhaile music player open and music playing - Unless i am not working on a recording or watching videos online. Amongst other things, like every once and a while Playing some classic NES games, Voip, etc.

          Freebsd couldn't even handle some lower latencies, and generally ran like crap in comparison, when you put the pressure on... Generally, it was pretty depressing when it came to doing anything with sound, aside from listening to music or watching videos :\ I don't think that the situation has changed all that much, because the last time i used it / tested it out was Freebsd 8.

          I do like BSD, but it was more comparable feature-wise to linux years ago. Now generally, Linux is seems to be significantly better IMO. Although, i do think BSD is great for serving, running a firewall (like pfSense) and that kind of thing. But for desktop usage, general computing or more specialized uses such as proaudio - linux is pretty good these days

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by disi View Post
            2. bitching about Linux (even in the forums). But I give the benefit that this happens vice versa Reason? No idea...
            sounds like just some friendly rivalry. It's probably healthy for both communities :P

            Comment


            • #21
              the proper question is - why FreeBSD sucks?

              - FreeBSD is NOT Linux = FreeBSD is stable, reliable, simple (there are no automated brainfucks... like udev, hal and dbus in base system)
              So, if FreeBSD is NOT LInux then it's not stable, not reliable and it's not simple. There are also no automated tasks, so I'm stuck with legacy OS. It's Linux that is used in EVERYTHING and FreeBSD is ONLY used on some servers, but Linux OWNS servers, so this person lives in some fanboy's world. Nobody uses FreeBSD in enterprise computing, because it's not mature enough (even if it's much older...).

              - Not fragmented as Linux, (relation to many distro, that not have idea/goal)
              OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD [put another crapBSD here].

              - The community - Unlike Linux which is very fragmented by all the different flavours and hence individual communities, FreeBSD has one community who are always happy to help with hints tips and advice. This simply cant be beaten!
              What community? Few devs and few users? What a bunch of crap.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                So, if FreeBSD is NOT LInux then it's not stable, not reliable and it's not simple. There are also no automated tasks, so I'm stuck with legacy OS. It's Linux that is used in EVERYTHING and FreeBSD is ONLY used on some servers, but Linux OWNS servers, so this person lives in some fanboy's world. Nobody uses FreeBSD in enterprise computing, because it's not mature enough (even if it's much older...).
                Race cars also don't have automatic gearbox. However, I agree this point is too trollish.


                Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                What community? Few devs and few users? What a bunch of crap.
                Few, but better.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                  Race cars also don't have automatic gearbox. However, I agree this point is too trollish.
                  Yes, but you can probably find or configure some distributions to not use this. More points were trollish, so such article doesn't deserve for anything, but blaming and trolling.

                  Few, but better.
                  That's disputable. They don't have comparable developers that are so good in scheduler thing and locking mechanism.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Gentoo is the answer. Portage is just great :-)
                    (Bonus feature: Portage 2.2 is now at alpha108 - and before the alpha phase it was marching up to rc99 or more)
                    Last edited by mazumoto; 05-31-2012, 06:01 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I'm not opposed to using FreeBSD for a server, but who can seriously use it for a desktop? Things you need just aren't available. Unless your needs are extremely modest, and by that I mean, you just sit at a shell and use pine as your email and vi as your text editor. You can't use any actually good desktop apps. And the configuration experience is a nightmare exactly because they don't have auto-configuration stuff like udev and pulseaudio and systemd.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by disi View Post
                        2. bitching about Linux (even in the forums). But I give the benefit that this happens vice versa Reason? No idea...
                        Probably not much "visa versa", actually. From what I see, one of the common complaints from the BSD community is that all the Linux-based developers making Linux-based changes in Gnome and KDE and the like. It's not that the Linux people bitch about BSD - it's that they don't even think about it.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          we can all agree that it sucks donkey balls on the desktop. the contention is whether is has some "killer" features on the server. my opinion is that freebsd doesn't have any great features that set it apart other than zfs (which has a sick feature set for the enterprise). even with zfs, linux mops the floor in terms of sheer number and momentum. the tutorials and support on the net for just centos or debian alone are mountains to a molehill compared to, say, openbsd or netbsd. not counting the driver situation, which is pretty bad.
                          freebsd is a good lesson for desktop linux advocates who think that turning a LAMP stack into a desktop operating system is a few tweaks and polish and ignore the huge efforts involved in making a windows/osx alternative.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                            Yes, but you can probably find or configure some distributions to not use this. More points were trollish, so such article doesn't deserve for anything, but blaming and trolling.
                            This is very hard. Why would I do that if I have os which comes like I want?
                            You can also configure HAL ... on FreeBSD.


                            Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                            That's disputable. They don't have comparable developers that are so good in scheduler thing and locking mechanism.
                            CFQ is not good for desktop (copying files lags everything) and it is also not good for server.
                            ULE seems to be good for server.
                            And don't forget about Dragonfly BSD.
                            Last edited by LightBit; 06-01-2012, 04:06 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
                              Probably not much "visa versa", actually. From what I see, one of the common complaints from the BSD community is that all the Linux-based developers making Linux-based changes in Gnome and KDE and the like. It's not that the Linux people bitch about BSD - it's that they don't even think about it.
                              Yes, exactly Linux people are ignoring BSD, like Microsoft did Linux before. They are like Microsoft.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                                CFQ is not good for desktop (copying files lags everything) and it is also not good for server.
                                ULE seems to be good for server.
                                And don't forget about Dragonfly BSD.
                                I meant CFS. When comes to CFQ there are also other schedulers, but CFQ is very good for desktop overall. There are/were some problems with copying large files, but the same happens on FreeBSD and Windows 7 64bit. There are threads about such issues. I wonder why do you think CFQ isn't good for servers?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X