|
||||
I have tried many many systems, including FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, OpenSolaris (and recently OpenIndiana), MacOSX, Windows XP, Windows 7, ...
From all of them I have chosen FreeBSD because it sucks less then all the others. My thoughs on these systems: Linux - I do not even consider that mess as a solution, maybe Ubuntu to not watch under the hood and scream NetBSD + pkgin 'infrastructure' + XEN dom0 + will have ZFS at some time + suspend/resume works better then on FreeBSD - bad sound architecture (will be fixed in NetBSD 6.0) - pkgsrc often break and packages are not available for everything - no Opera for NetBSD (can be thru Linux compatibility) - no virtualbox - mature XEN domU OpenBSD + suspend/resume works better then on FreeBSD - too basic services management (no /etc/rc.d and /usr/local/etc/rc.d) - no virtualbox - no Opera - small amount of packages - sometimes VERY OLD packages FreeBSD + virtualbox + native Opera + mature ZFS + a lot of packages and working ports infrastructure - suspend/resume does not work OpenSolaris/OpenIndiana + latest ZFS + Zones + virtualbox + Comstar (iSCSI) + nice wireless/wifi setup in console with dladm (better then wpa_supplicant) - no native Opera - almost no packages at all even with additional repositories - very slow and memory hungry - no as clean/ordered as BSDs (check output of mount without arguments and various bin directories spread across the filesystem) Mac OSX + nice GUI but after using it a while You still find same 'inconsistencies' as in GNOME/KDE + virtualbox (and many others) + native Opera + nice *.app 'format' for applications - everything that is not an 'official' is pretty hard to setup (wine) - no real filesystem for serious storage (like ZFS) - SICK keyboard shortcuts/layout! - often limited to Apple hardware but You can also setup a hackintosh on PC Windows XP/Windows 7 + virtualbox (and others) + native Opera + wine not needed - no real filesystem for serious storage (like ZFS) - not very CLI/scripting friendly (but possible thru *.bat|*.cmd) ... in the end I have settled on FreeBSD, but experience from the systems above was also helpful, nice to know what other OSes offer.
__________________
religions, worst damnation of mankind "If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened." Linus Torvalds Linux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not UNIX”. vermaden's: links resources deviantart spreadbsd |
|
|||
I started with FreeBSD (Release 3.2 IIRC). After a couple of years I tried OpenBSD and since then I nearly only use OpenBSD.
I love the simple OpenBSD installer and the easy way to do a PXE install. Doing a FreeBSD PXE install is a nightmare compared with the simple instructions at http://openbsd.org/faq/faq6.html#PXE I still plan to try ZFS on FreeBSD though, but with only 1 GB memory in my fastest machine, that seems to be a no-go. I installed NetBSD once or twice, but never had or made enough time to be become thoroughly acquainted with it. Same goes for DragonFlyBSD, although I really would like to play with the Hammer file system.
__________________
You don't need to be a genius to debug a pf.conf firewall ruleset, you just need the guts to run tcpdump |
|
||||
My choice of BSD is generally FreeBSD, chiefly because BSDs more in line with my beliefs and taste than most Linux distributors. It's also going to be the first of, if ever any, a major BSD has a software readily available for it without twisting arms.
However, I am very partial to a couple other systems as well: * OpenBSD -> Lean, mean, and nice package management. I also like the shell. * Slackware / Zenwalk -> Simple package management (Zenwalk makes it nicer as well), and I prefer the Slacky style way of managing services. Less overhead than FreeBSD, as simple as the old Unix/BSD style (similar to OpenBSD), and a hell of a lot less WTFs/minute than SysV style. * Ubuntu -> Because I'm to tired to abuse shit into working all the time, and even if the stupid S.O.B. was brain damaged, it'll probably both work and have a package that works with some version of Ubuntu. The downside is so many packages are basically from Debian!
__________________
My Journal Thou shalt check the array bounds of all strings (indeed, all arrays), for surely where thou typest ``foo'' someone someday shall type ``supercalifragilisticexpialidocious''. |
|
|||
Quote:
There are several thousands ports, I'd say that OpenBSD's ports tree is more up-to-date than NetBSD's pkgsrc. |
|
|||
My preferences top to bottom
OpenBSD +Simple, Stable +Good base to learn from -None core security updates are no longer available until the next release -/+Runs a little slower but in exchange for security (encrypted swap by default) +Good base to learn from Slackware +It just works +Maintainer releases security updates promptly and for everything on the install disk -One Man show +Good base to learn from +"Learn Slack and you learn unix" -Documentation, howtos diffusely scattered over the internet Arch +Bleeding Edge yet still seems to work -If you want to see how buggy KMS and the latest ATI driver are run Arch +Amazing binary package manager Debian +Latest Release works amazingly well out of the gate -Very complex - look at the code for the new grub2 bootloader -IMHO not a good way to learn the basics, tough to trouble shoot -You learn the Debian way FreeBSD +Seems to run faster than anything else. Consider strongly for a server Ubuntu -Plagiarst's out to make a buck Last edited by shep; 11th March 2011 at 03:10 AM. Reason: spacing |
|
|||
Quote:
A lot of systems encrypt swap by default these days, the performance hit isn't usually that noticeable. Indeed I've been using Unix-like operating systems for quite awhile now, OpenBSD is closer to being the modern day equivalent of that once simplistic operating system.. Linux/FreeBSD/NetBSD/Solaris are monstrous beasts by comparison. I exaggerate of course, but, comparatively there is a lot of pollution going on in those communities.. I recall seeing a recent Linux livecd boot and was amazed at how complex and over-engineered it is, so many dependencies and services. |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|||||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Not really useful for anything serious (I am talking about desktop) due to the lack of any native scripting languages and utilities (sorry Cygwin just doesn't cut it). It is amazing and very scary at the same time to see how much MS-DOS has outgrow its original intent. People who use MS-DOS on servers and those who encourage them should be jailed. Last edited by Oko; 11th March 2011 at 06:09 AM. |
|
|||||||||
Quote:
Quote:
Sure, I like to discuss Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I really can not live without it, test something, create cluster in virtualbox, test a new sollutions in the safe way (like ZFS root without UFS /boot on GPT/MBR), anything that can come into You mind, closed safely in virtualization sandbox. Linux or FreeBSD compatibility layer? Quote:
Quote:
http://freebsd.org/releases/8.2R/relnotes-detailed.html Its also UFS + SUJ, many thing will be 'out' in 9.0 also: http://ivoras.sharanet.org/freebsd/freebsd9.html Quote:
Quote:
__________________
religions, worst damnation of mankind "If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened." Linus Torvalds Linux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not UNIX”. vermaden's: links resources deviantart spreadbsd |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
All the important stuff is maintained quite adequately, they have ports hackathons quite frequently.. it's a lot of work to deal with all the library dependencies out there these days. |
|
||||
Ok I will do mine again in more detail.
OpenBSD +Documentation +Upto date ports/packages (-current) +Easy to administer +CWM -No nouvaeu support yet -Videos won't play fullscreen Archlinux (don't use it anymore) +Bleeding edge +AUR +Simple (KISS) -Packages arn't signed -Stablility Debian +It has most programs +Stable -Services start after being downloaded OS X +Fantastic OS -Its Apple -Lion isn't the direction I wan't desktops to go (same with unity) |
|
||||
Quote:
2007/10/08 - Fluxbox 1.0.0
__________________
religions, worst damnation of mankind "If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened." Linus Torvalds Linux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not UNIX”. vermaden's: links resources deviantart spreadbsd |
|
||||
There was a discussion on ports.AT.openbsd about the latest release which still looks rough (see time difference in 1.3.0 and 1.3.1). The ports tree was locked for the release but now is unlocked. Update will follow. Do not worry. If your fingers are itching to try latest Fluxbox do diff yourself.
|
|
||||
Irix, it just started with Irix in the early 90s, apart from some nasty trips to Siemens Sinix. Tried NetBSD later at home, but it didn't run well on my machine at that time. So Slackware was my "UNIX" at home for a long period of time, until FreeBSD 5.0. Since about three years I'm also using OpenBSD, even for daily work. Sometimes it would be nice to see the efficiency of the OpenBSD crowd in FreeBSD.
From 1994 (I really miss my Quadra AV) until 2005 I even was a so-called Apple-User, in the 90s at home, later professionally. No, I don't like this "UNIX"-mock-up, it's a pain in the backside working through the plethora of layers between the "UNIX" and the desktop. It's of course a fine machine for my sister, just doing their work on the desktop (she likes it).
__________________
use UNIX or die :-) |
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
I know Opera runs on OpenBSD, but only on bsd.sp, not with bsd.mp. For some reason Xorg is very slow when I run bsd.sp ... (I detailed those problems on these forums some time ago ... This has little to do with OpenBSD by the way and more with Xorg. I have the same problem on FreeBSD. But strangely not on Linux or OpenSolaris). Another advantage of FreeBSD is a more friendly community in general -- I can send in patches and bugreports without the fear of being scolded at if I make some mistake. |
|
||||
>Another advantage of FreeBSD is a more friendly community in general -- I can send in patches and bugreports without the fear of being scolded at if I make some mistake.
Yes, this also my experience. There is a real community, whereas Linux left the community after the 90s.
__________________
use UNIX or die :-) |
|
||||
Quote:
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
No love or happiness in freebsd? | xmorg | FreeBSD General | 7 | 4th March 2011 10:20 AM |
Webmail choice | wesley | OpenBSD Packages and Ports | 4 | 25th January 2011 10:40 PM |
FreeBSD FreeBSD Will Pay For Some KMS & GEM Love | Oliver_H | News | 2 | 23rd October 2010 10:23 PM |
Would a Mac be the right choice for me? | bigb89 | Other BSD and UNIX/UNIX-like | 29 | 20th May 2009 04:05 AM |