FreeBSD--Are the benefits real?

[ifred]

Hi all,
I've heard a lot of praise over the last year or so about FreeBSD but I always believed that nothing could be as elegant and reliable as Debian. The main arguments in favour of FreeBSD appear to be better resource management, a more secure default install and overall faster performance. Has anyone who has used both Linux & FreeBSD experienced any noticable differences in performance. I must say I am curious, especially since I've managed to configure my Debian system to do all the desktop chores I require and I may require another challenge. While there is probably no real reason to try and install FreeBSD I seem to spend a lot of time (and gain a lot of satisfaction) from trying these types of OS "experiments". Anyway, any thoughts or insights into the pros and cons of FreeBSD would be appreciated. If this has already been discussed on this forum I apologize but I did a forum search for FreeBSD and this has not come up. Thanks in advance.

ifred

[ursidae]

There´s no speed difference between linux and freebsd on the desktop, but I have heard that freebsd can handle high loads better than linux. It might be true, or maybe it isn´t.

One thing that I like with fbsd is that there is only one freebsd. There are no slackware freebsd, debian freebsd, red hat freebsd etc.. so the documentation for it actually describes the reality.
If a readme tells you to edit a specific file you can actually find it where it is supposed to be! Very nice but it can be a bit confusing if you come from linux. To be able to follow a howto without problem is something most linux users have never experienced.

I still prefer linux though. Slackware to be specific, I always go back to slackware.

[ifred]

I still prefer linux though. Slackware to be specific, I always go back to slackware.

How come?

[binary_boy]

I'm a Slackware user and I've been experimenting with FreeBSD. Once I got over the learning curve and figured out how to make it work the way I wanted, it was pretty easy. I don't notice a heck of a lot of difference in performance or anything else.

I will say though that I run the seti client all the time, and I run gkrellm. In FreeBSD, the CPU monitor is always near 100%. In Slackware, with the same setup and with seti running, the CPU monitor in gkrellm stays low, from 0 to 10% when otherwise idle. Don't know why.

I always go back to Slackware too. Its stable, secure, and it works. It doesn't break, apps don't break, it just works. I know I can depend on it. Also, less issues with whether apps will work with Linux.

I think FreeBSD is really best for running servers and stuff, not as a desktop.

[ursidae]

Of all the linux dists I like Slackware the most because it doesn´t get in my way. No fancy config programs and no annoying pack. system. I´m a semi control freak so I like this.

If I were to choose between any other dist and freebsd I think I would choose freebsd. It just feels so complete, so mature.
Most linux dists make me feel lost. It feels like they are just a bunch of programs with different "philosophies" thrown together.

I think linux needs a major "cleanup". You never know what to expect in linux. In FreeBSD you do.

[ursidae]

Also, less issues with whether apps will work with Linux.

Yeah, the ports aren´t always perfect in freebsd. For example the net monitor in icewm doesn´t work in freebsd. I really like that feature.

[Ashcrow]

The ports system is really nice and supper easy to use, but it's better or more stable than Debian or Slackware by any means.

Personally, I like NetBSD and OpenBSD as my BSD's of choice. They are more minimalistic compared to FreeBSD oddly enough.

[Ashcrow]

Oh, and also, the 2.4.x kernels brought Linux up to speed with the *BSD's in work loads if I remmeber correctly.

[Guitarlynn]

Oh, and also, the 2.4.x kernels brought Linux up to speed with the *BSD's in work loads if I remmeber correctly.

In the "better" benchmarks I've seen between the two on a
real world based server comparison, FreeBSD still outdid
the Debian 2.4 server. In comparison to earlier benchmarks,
this was very close performance wise where earlier versions
of Linux were spanked pretty handily.

I have never really noticed a speed difference between the
two on a desktop unless a bloated distro like Mandrake was
used.

I'll see if I can dig up the link to that benchmark if anyone is
interested.

~Guitarlynn

[ifred]

Thanks for the feedback. Just another question if anyone has time to answer. What exactly is this ports thing? I've heard people explain it as what appears to be the FreeBSD version of apt-get but somehow better. Hype or reality?