View Full Version : Ubuntu vs. FreeBSD
xeemo
03-06-2008, 01:29 AM
Currently I'm running Ubuntu Linux, but I've been thinking about installing FreeBSD along side of it. Is there any major benefit from using FreeBSD rather than Ubuntu? I know all the FreeBSD people seem to think Linux is way behind stability and programming wise.
I've heard that FreeBSD is really good for running servers. I believe it seeing as Google and Yahoo both run on it. Is there any improvement for home use though?
It seems to be a pain to install. I tried to get gnome running, but it wasn't connected to the internet so it couldn't install the ports. I'm also on a wireless connection and the drivers don't usually work without some configuring and I wasn't about to find out how to do that in the console mode. I assume PC-BSD is much easier to use, but I haven't tried it.
Right now I love Ubuntu. I dual boot with Windows only because Windows has better audio recording and composing tools.
tehboris
03-06-2008, 07:01 PM
FreeBSD = very secure ((BSD) compared to Linux, OS 10 or Windows). BSD is allot more work to setup. Plugins are allot more of a pain to get working (mainly because there is no BSD binaries available.
FreeBSD (or any BSD for that matter) is excellent as a server, not very good as a desktop unless you need a ultra secure desktop for some reason. For example, you need to use a proprietary x application).
chuckles
03-07-2008, 01:28 AM
FreeBSD (or any BSD for that matter) is excellent as a server, not very good as a desktop unless you need a ultra secure desktop for some reason. For example, you need to use a proprietary x application).
I think the folks over @ PCBSD (http://www.pcbsd.org/) and DesktopBSD (http://www.desktopbsd.net/) will strongly disagree. I have been quite happy using NetBSD (http://freebsd.org) w/ Fluxbox (http://fluxbox.sourceforge.net/) as a desktop for years now.. :)
-chuckles-
tehboris
03-07-2008, 05:36 PM
It's personal preference really. I wouldn't consider the use of BSD as the desktop unless I had reason to do so, better example: "I need a Oracle server and I want to use this x program to manage it".
...
/eyeroll
...at least you got the security part right...
jdhore
03-08-2008, 12:20 AM
At my house, i run Ubuntu and FreeBSD (among other distros, but they're not important right now). I both think and don't think FreeBSD is a good OS for a desktop distro. First, it IS pretty up-to-date and more secure and more stable than linux and pretty speedy, but it's difficult to install, you may not want to spend 8 hours compiling X and GNOME, so that's prolly a downside, and it can have a bit of a learning curve (if you're used to "sudo apt-get install firefox", cd'ing to /usr/ports/www/firefox [and no, i did not look that up] and running "make install clean" and waiting 2-4 hours is a world changing difference), oh, and hardware support is MUCH, MUCH less on FreeBSD...Not only does the latest version of FreeBSD (7.0) prolly not support any hardware in the past 6 months-year, if you want to use the 3D nVidia or ATI drivers to get compiz, you're screwed...The 3D nVidia and ATI drivers for BSD are a joke.
Simply, FreeBSD is good for servers/mainframes/rendering boxes...nothing else IMO.
I don't know where you guys are getting the idea that FreeBSD has no binary packaging, but seriously if you're going to use an operating system, try reading some documentation before telling others about it...
slonkak
03-16-2008, 07:12 PM
I don't know where you guys are getting the idea that FreeBSD has no binary packaging, but seriously if you're going to use an operating system, try reading some documentation before telling others about it...
Agreed. It's very clear to me that most people on this forum who "use" some form of *nix don't actually know anything about it, other than they can make it look/work the same as Windows.
Let me break it down. For the average "I want to try *nix" person, you will see absolutely no advantage of FreeBSD over Linux, or Linux over whatever... blah blah blah. I learned *nix on FreeBSD and loved it. FreeBSD can "natively" run linux binaries, and cool enough, [usually] runs them faster than linux machines.
To use as your main desktop machine, all window managers will work on both platforms: Gnome, KDE, XFCE, Fluxbox, Enlightenment, FVWM, TWM, etc.
The real difference lies in the kernel.
computoman
03-22-2008, 05:14 AM
I bet Linus, Richard, Maddog, and Bruce all have you on direct dial on their cellphone for linux emergencies.
stumpy
03-24-2008, 04:24 AM
I used FreeBSD as a desktop for over a year and had no problems at all. And this was way back in the days of FreeBSD 4.7...
I suggest FreeBSD if your interested into getting into managing *nix systems. You learn the command line very well.
Ubuntu (or any other main stream distro) is great for people just trying to break into the *nix realm.
latenitetv
07-14-2008, 11:54 PM
the userland of freebsd and any linux distro is virtually the same.
ive been using freebsd since 4.6. you dont need to spend countless hours compiling various ports before you can use them.
pkg_add -r portName
will add the package in a matter of seconds, as well as pull any dependencies automagically. the only real reason to compile from source is for the added performance, which is pretty much impossible to notice.
slonkak
07-15-2008, 12:33 AM
the only real reason to compile from source is for the added performance, which is pretty much impossible to notice.
And unless they've changed the ports system since the last time I used FreeBSD (4.10), typing `make install clean` isn't too difficult to compile a port from source.
latenitetv
07-15-2008, 05:29 AM
And unless they've changed the ports system since the last time I used FreeBSD (4.10), typing `make install clean` isn't too difficult to compile a port from source.
yes sir its still the same. the freebsd ports system just rocks.
metatr0n
07-27-2008, 08:24 AM
I'd go with OpenBSD, I've tried FreeBSD over the years but always went back to Open as it just feels right for me. I just like building off the default setup, but to each his own.
latenitetv
07-28-2008, 10:54 PM
I'd go with OpenBSD, I've tried FreeBSD over the years but always went back to Open as it just feels right for me. I just like building off the default setup, but to each his own.
every bsd has its strong sides. i do the same with freebsd. install the base system, then individually compile everything else for the system. that way i know EXACTLY what is going on with what.