I've been using Linux since the mid 90s and am still working in Systems Administration today. What happens often with Linux is that software gets thrown out of the window and something new comes in, but not always for the sake of beeing better, but newer. With FreeBSD, that's not the case. As an aging guy, I no longer prefer to learn just another tool for firewalling or package management, just because. Also I disdain systemd. FreeBSD's rc ist simpler, more robust and - in the end - more secure.
goll From the Wikipedia entry for BSD: "BSD was initially called Berkeley Unix because it was based on the source code of the original Unix developed at Bell Labs."
@@JaredMcDonald-CS Yes, you are right. FreeBSD has a linuxulator compatibility layer (albeit a good thing). But FreeBSD has many secrets, even if it is open source.
I've tried to expose people to Linux and FreeBSD. I do some streaming on Twitch, and I've done streaming and gaming on both platforms. I try to advertise the fact that I'm using these platforms so people know that they're viable alternatives.
I use both weekly; Ubuntu 21.04 on OpenZFS 2.0 and FreeBSD 13.0 on OpenZFS 2.0. Both work great, Ubuntu is more polished, while FreeBSD requires less resources. I use FreeBSD + XFCE +XRDP as backup server for my Ubuntu desktop. Both system are monitored using Conky. For the backup I use OpenZFS "send | ssh receive". Ubuntu is run on a 2019 Ryzen 3 2200G; 16GB DDR4; nvme-SSD and 2 sata-HDDs, while 32-bits FreeBSD is run on a 2003 Pentium 4 HT; 2GB DDR; 2 IDE-HDDs 3.5" and 2 sata-HDDs 2.5" in total 1.21TB :) The Pentium has two cables Ethernet and Power and is in use since June 2019.
I appreciate this really informative and simple comparison. The comparisons of # of processes, memory usage, and source code are particularly interesting! I might just have to dip my toe into BSD. Thanks!
from my understanding, Linux is not based on UNIX at all. it's a UNIX-like kernel and doesn't use any UNIX code or libraries. hence "GNU is Not UNIX". that's why apps compiled for Ubuntu don't work on macOS. whereas as BSD is indirectly based on UNIX, it's still a lot closer to UNIX than Linux is
Correct. Linus wrote Linux as a clean room reimplementation of UNIX since 386BSD was bound up in court over AT&T lawsuits. Had AT&T not sued, Linus would have just ran BSD.
" that's why apps on iOS have to be re-written or "ported" to Android and vice-versa. " FACE-PALM, ill-informed comment. You should research before making statements. The reason they have to be rewritten is because Google uses a proprietary Java VM, and Android apps are are reliant on that JAVA API, instead of POSIX. Hence, Linux applications ALSO have to be re-written for Android. Also Linux is POSIX compliant meaning many if not most applications can be recompiled in UNIX with only a couple changes. On the other hand, Android is a completely different beast.
@@deckard5pegasus673 no, I knew that. I was just trying to point out that Linux has nothing to do with UNIX, on a technical level, in laymans terms. maybe I should have used a direct Linux to BSD comparison to satisfy the software devs that came across my comment?
Arn One, not really, no. The facts are almost correct, but your reasoning isn't. BSDs derived from re-written code of AT&T UNIX, yes, but there is no original code left in the project, while Linux and GNU have always been separate projects. But the real reason why binaries aren't cross-compatible is the application binary interface (ABI) and executable/binary format which differs from one *nix OS to another. macOS uses parts of FreeBSD, but the two are not binary-compatible, while FreeBSD is compatible with Linux binaries - because they baked the compatibility layer into the kernel. Even macOS and iOS aren't entirely binary-compatible, despite the fact that they are both based on Darwin, which in turn is based mainly on Mach (kernel parts) and FreeBSD (mainly userland parts). macOS also doesn't use ELF binary format; it uses Mach-O (Mach object). The real reason why macOS is considered UNIX now is the SUS (Single UNIX Specification) compliance certification from The Open Group (previously X/Open Company) which owns the UNIX® trademark. iOS and iPadOS aren't certified, but they do share the same Darwin base with macOS. Most Linux distributions are also POSIX- and SUS-complaint, but their vendors don't undergo the UNIX® certification process because it's lengthy and expensive, their release schedule tends to be more tight and dense, and Linux and GNU also have their own set of standards that sometimes contradicts POSIX and SUS, like the block size (GNU's 1024 instead of POSIX's 512). It's just legal and standards stuff; not related to functionality or compatibility very much.
Interesting comparison. I guess main reason for FreeBSD is sticking to KISS principle, while on Linux everything is a bit complicated and a bit different on each distro. Especially init process. Even thou systemd is now used almost everywhere, directory structure is not the same, there are various scripts (magic?) for automatic network configuration and if there's a guideline how to configure something for your distro which is from year 2018, it may not work. FreeBSD is stable - i mean it rarely changes and it's init scripts are similar to ones I vaguely remember from Slackware 20 years ago. That's the biggest problem for me with Linux - compatibility between distributions which seems the same on surface, but very different under and too complex to understand. If you worked with Linux 15 years ago and took a break, everything you learned is useless. If automatic network configuration takes 25s, your distro is poorly documented and does not have large community - good luck and have fun. But there are strong arguments against BSD: hardware support and maybe lack of docker if you want it. Desktop that can't hibernate, where fans runs at full speed all the time, where network card is not supported and for some reason you can't even transfer file on exfat formatted USB feels like using Linux in late 90s. I would like to use it, but spending hours or days to solve half of the problems and giving up second half and reading I should buy supported hardware ... sorry :-( There are also some weird arguments for BSD: it's said to be faster (likely network stack is faster with proper card), less memory hungry (today cheap single board computers have 1GB or 2GB at least, it's not so important if OS takes 80MB or 150MB - and it's completelly irrelevant on server with 64GB), that ZFS is Z-best FS ever created (is BTRFS really much worse?). From my experience, gcc produces faster code than clang when it comes to crunching numbers - which does not matter for kernel with exception of file system compression/encryption or so. But anyways, I like the relative simplicity and that things are straight forward.
I've been using different Linux distros for years now but in the past couple of years I feel like Linux distros have been getting worst. Used to praise Fedora's reliability but since Fedora 31 things have been less and reliable. I am now trying BSD. Hopefully things are better.
I have been using Linux and BSD on and off again since the original Slackware distribution came out and I downloaded it at my university onto X 3,5" floppies. I like the experimental feel of Linux, but in the end, I think I just like BSD better. The solid docs, the clean file structure, the lack of the lib woes that plague Linux, the slower but more robust development, it just fits my preferences better. If only Steam was better supported on FreeBSD I might ditch Windows.
seeing these graphs make want to creation a presentation showcasing how the linux desktop marketshare has a consistent trend of increasing, while windows has a consistent trend of decreasing over the last 14 years xd (to convince app devs to port over, or invest into wine)
I have about the same success with Kubuntu and FreeBSD. The various BSDs don't have support for protected content. There is a published patch to make Widevine function, but that extra step is needed.
Linux has much more drivers running by default than BSD.Every time when I try to install any new versions of FreeBSD on my laptop the screen starts to blink like the installation wizard wouldn't be able to work in VGA graphic mode.System that you can't install because of such silly issues sucks for me.Switching into save mode turning acpi off, doesn't help.I have never had such troubles with any linux's distribution .
I mean idk about BSD (You have offered me my first look!), but I use MATE which I think is the GNOME project, or like an extension of it or something. It's pretty dang good.
Power consumption should be closely tied to resource usage. That being said this was more of an overview of server installation so I am unsure how much can be extrapolated. All in all they are both quite close though, will likely come down to package maintainers and the portability of your software packages that affect battery life.
Comparing RAM usage is somewhat misleading. Doing basic math is not statistially the right direction. For instance, all (open) shared libraries may stay in memory (and may reflect higher RAM usage) but significantly improves performance. Good start, though. Cheers,.
Finally figured out my question. Do I need bhyve if FreeBSD may solve all my tasks or jail would be enough? Or I just need bhyve because it is a modern jail?
I’m in! I started out with niche Linux distroes like Puppy Linux, Bunsen Labs, etc. Got interested in UNIX in general, discovered the land of BSDs and was very fascinated with the illumos distroes - by chance OpenBSD was the first one to actually boot my old T42 laptop and after I few years I could not resist anymore and… …totally converted to OpenBSD for all my stuff. It’s an amazing system. I use it as daily drivers on laptops smoothly.
This is so wrong in many aspects. 1. Unlike what the title says, you're not comparing Linux to BSD, you're comparing a specific flavor of GNU/Linux - RHEL - to FreeBSD only. That's not a representative comparison sample by any means. This applies to both RAM usage and number of packages available. Why not include e.g. Debian in the list then which includes neither NetworkManager nor firewalld by default, and has a few times more packages than RHEL? 2. Just comparing /bin/echo implementations makes no sense because they don't provide the same feature set. FreeBSD one doesn't support backslash escapes, for example. 3. MacOS doesn't "run BSD". It has some BSD userland utilities and some networking stack components, but other than that it is very different e.g. uses a different kernel, init system, most of the system services, graphics system etc.
"but other than that it is very different" Each BSD is very different of the other, they use different kernels, different userlands, inits, etc. DragonFlyBSD use a hybrid kernel despite being a fork of an old FreeBSD release, Darwin also uses a hybrid kernel. The BSD world is not just FreeBSD. So stating that macOS is "not BSD" using that logic can also be applied to other BSDs, because they are all different operating systems in its owns, but they are still part of the BSD family because they all derive from the original BSD.
Im no doubt gonna try and install freebsd mainly because Im curious and I kniw macos is based on BSD and I cant afford a mac rn! Im a music producer and hopeless distrohopper so Id hope bsd would be a much more stabile and cohesive experience compared to my Linux experience where anything can break anything ime im not the type of user that installs linux and just leaves it as is. i customize it to my preferences. anyhow. BSD is interesting without a doubt.
Please don't get the wrong ideas about BSD. Linux has way better support, much larger software selection and is just easier to use as a personal computer. Just pick a Linux distribution of your liking and don't tinker too much unless you want to spend time learning how to fix a broken system. Also I doubt many of the music production utilitiez even exists on any of the BSD's (not counting macOS). If you wanna get your hands dirty and learn the most and build a really solid and personalized system i suggest using arch with btrfs for snapshotting so you can revert when things go south.
I second this, I'd really recommend checking out Ubuntu Studio if youre interested in music producing and doing so on FOSS software. I'll tell you I even run Windows on my main desktop for school work because its the only place that has the applications I need.
@@daorkykid Ardour has been claimed superior to all commercial AWS, some guys run Ardour on Mac, but this is a Free Open Source software available for every OS, including Freebsd. On Linux, you would normally use it with jackd. You are right that hardware support in Linux is superior, you might have a professional multichannel Sound Board supported in ALSA but not in Freebsd, so this you need to check beforehand. I wouldn't recommend btrfs, its great unless it breaks, and it can break from an Out Of Memory condition, Don't ask me how i know... Ext4 might be boring, but no surprises, it just works. Snapshots could help, but i wouldn't trust it again until more years have passed and everyone else is using it.
@@daorkykid Why not Slackware over Arch??? With Slackware you have stable release and current, with Arch you have roling release with many unstable software.
Linix started as MINIX and I was using it since 1991. Through the years, different needs provided different versions of the operating systems. Comparison is stupid. Different needs to cover, different systems
21, and just love operating systems! Virtual machines are a great way to check out different ones, but I also have a massive spending problem on new computers :)
We wish virtual synthetic tests on the same guests. Both in bhyve and jail ,;) PHP tests with nginx, mod-fpm and fpm_php would be kindly enough. Was Nice to meet you! Went back to my BSD free-cage ❤
Just tried your website, it took an age to load up, and when I clicked on the modules link it started hanging again. I did not wait for it to load. Does not fill me with confidence.
Depends on the BSD. NetBSD aggressively caches. It won’t free memory and will cache it unless it runs out of free memory, then it will free what it needs from cache.
I hope you know that MacOS is BSD. So far BSD is better system especially now, because Microsoft started contributing in Linux. So my advice is sticking with BSD.
Not entirely true. It’s a Mach kernel with BSD user land and it grabbed from other UNIX derivatives. It is much better to think of as if several UNIX derivatives had an orgy and MacOS is a resulting baby
Why the hell why would you stop using an free and open source OS because a company contributed to it? You know that thousands of developers from different places contribute all the time?
Вы не правильно понимаете Memory Usage. Какая задача у операционной системы? Правильно, управлять ресурсами и процессами. Так что, чем больше ресурса захвачено на самом старте системы, тем лучше для ваших процессов. Радуйтесь, что ваше дорогущая память не простаивает без дела.😊
They both suck like Primus {The Band} 😆 Add more pep to your step. Your explanation and disposition is good. But you start to go all "Ben Stein" in your delivery. Just trying to give positive feedback thanks for sharing
Totally fair - my dad was a Database Admin and got me started running Linux and writing code around the age of seven. I have been using Linux desktop for about 13ish years and Linux server for about three at both my job and at home
@@JaredMcDonald-CS wow you're like me but 1 year younger and 30x more knowledgeable Essentially what I wish I was lmao, nice work, glad you know your interest already
