
FreeBSD Quickstart Guide for Linux Users - earcar
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/linux-users/
======
mahmud
Heh,

You know Linux has been getting soft and Gooey around the edges when there are
Unix manuals for Linux users :-)

When I went from Slackware to FreeBSD in 1998, the only document you needed
was INSTALL and the hardware compatibility list. In fact, FreeBSD was more
posh than slack, it had a curses install and came with a luxurious handbook.

Speaking of which, I absolutely don't miss the days of taking a list of
supported devices to the computer shop, and reading the fine print on boxes
looking for chipset specs and firmware versions.

------
sgt
I'm running a production server (RAID setup, i7, so decent specs too) with
multiple jails, each with their own ZFS filesystem. Honestly, I may be biased
since I've been a FreeBSD fan since about '99, but it is really a sysadmin's
dream. The system has been rock-stable for years. I'm currently running
FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE. Upgrading from 7 to 8 was not a problem, even from
remote.

I'm a fulltime developer, so the less time I spend sysadmining on this system,
the better it is for me. Upgrading packages, the kernel and even the jails is
a quick job and can be set up to happen automatically.

------
neovive
Considering the high-quality and availability of Linux distributions these
days, what are some of the advantages of using FreeBSD over Linux? More
specifically, are there any competitive advantages that could be obtained from
using FreeBSD over Linux that would outweigh the costs of deviating from the
Linux standard on web servers?

~~~
rbranson
At least for servers, FreeBSD is more polished than mainstream Linux (RedHat,
Debian, and ancestors), if you ask me. The ports system keeps far more up to
date than the typical Linux packaging system and the releases seem to be on a
somewhat sane schedule. Of course, Linux is sort of this amalgamation of the
kernel and whatever distribution you choose, so the ecosystem is fragmented
and lacks the centralized command-and-control that FreeBSD has.

However, I still recommend and use Linux, mainly for support reasons. 7-8
years ago it was more of a toss-up as far as support, because Linux was far
less established. These days it's a different ballgame. All the reasons to
prefer FreeBSD (network & VM performance, stability, security, etc) are no
longer clear advantages when compared to contemporary Linux. You are correct
in your assertion that there simply isn't enough benefit to using FreeBSD to
weigh out the lack of support both from a community and a hardware
perspective.

Also, the Gentoo crowd seems to be similar, at least in spirit, to the FreeBSD
folks. While they don't have the same deep integration of kernel &
environment, they do have the same values when it comes to clean aesthetics
and keeping up-to-date with packaged software.

~~~
apotheon
> All the reasons to prefer FreeBSD (network & VM performance, stability,
> security, etc) are no longer clear advantages when compared to contemporary
> Linux.

Really? Why don't you think stability and security are important? What about
consistency of interface between tools in a single system, and adherence to
expectations of standard tools that make sense to the user (e.g., man pages
instead of GNU Info pages, which are slowly creeping into Linux-based systems
everywhere I look)?

I'm afraid I have to disagree with this estimation. In fact, the more time
that passes, and the more the biggest Linux distributions are those that
pander to people with expectations grown in the MS Windows ecosystem, the more
the benefits of FreeBSD over Linux distributions grow. I suppose your mileage
may vary, though.

> Also, the Gentoo crowd seems to be similar, at least in spirit, to the
> FreeBSD folks. While they don't have the same deep integration of kernel &
> environment, they do have the same values when it comes to clean aesthetics
> and keeping up-to-date with packaged software.

. . . but not when it comes to stability, from what I have seen.

~~~
rbranson
I was a little unclear. My main point is that many of the things that made
FreeBSD such a strong leader years ago are no longer weak points in Linux.

I agree with you though otherwise. From a cleanliness, usability, and
aesthetics point of view, the state of Linux is pretty sad, especially when
compared to FreeBSD. Linux could also learn a little bit about documentation
from FreeBSD's excellent handbook.

EDIT: Let me also say that I'd really like to see the OpenSolaris devs jump to
the FreeBSD team and help drive FreeBSD further.

~~~
apotheon
Okay, fair 'nuff.

> EDIT: Let me also say that I'd really like to see the OpenSolaris devs jump
> to the FreeBSD team and help drive FreeBSD further.

I can definitely agree with that.

------
yummyfajitas
Great guide. It tells me how. Is there a similar document that tells me why?

The main thing I can think of is kqueue, but I'd love to see a list of all the
features BSD gives me but linux doesn't (and vice versa).

~~~
apotheon
There are a lot of reasons. The ports system has already been mentioned, and
some people really like ZFS. More to the point, though, licensing differences
ensure that more software (like ZFS) is legally compatible with FreeBSD than
with any typical Linux+GNU distribution.

It has also been mentioned that FreeBSD is "a sysadmin's dream". A big part of
the reason for this is its userland. The truth of the matter is that BSD tools
are often much more consistent and less overly complex, and have better
thought out basic functionality and interfaces, than GNU tools.

BSD Unix systems also resist the influence of the GNU project where many Linux
distributions do not. For instance, in some distributions you will find far
too many pieces of software that have nothing for man pages except a reference
to how the real information is in a GNU Info page. The GNU project very much
as a "not invented here" problem, where it not only wants to replace
everything in the world -- even when it's "free software" -- with something
weird and less usable that bears the GNU stamp on it. Meanwhile, the various
BSD Unix systems insist on standardized tools and documentation that is easy
to use, like man pages instead of Info pages.

Speaking of documentation, that's another good reason to use FreeBSD (or
OpenBSD, for that matter). The big BSD Unix systems are among the best-
documented OSes I have ever seen, and I have seen quite a few operating
systems. Consider the completeness and helpfulness of the FreeBSD Handbook,
which is actually one of the best pieces of documentation on the Web even for
many Linux distributions, but is even more helpful for FreeBSD (of course).

Also . . . this is not comprehensive, but it might serve as a nice
introduction to the whys and wherefores:

[http://www.over-
yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4lin...](http://www.over-
yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php)

I wrote a comparison as well, once, but I seem to have misplaced it.

~~~
Nick_C
Also, (I haven't run a BSD for several years, but, from memory) one of the
biggest philosophical differences is that *BSD runs a monolithic kernel
whereas Linux runs a modular kernel. Might not sound like much, but it is very
different mindset when it comes to security, user-land and such. Is that still
the case?

~~~
koenigdavidmj
All three of the major BSD derivatives have the ability to put parts of
themselves in modules. They are all monolithic kernels, as is Linux.

Monolithic, in kernel speak, does not refer to having everything compiled in;
it is more concerned about what is in kernel space (can do anything it wants
with the hardware) and what is in user space (what is restricted at the
hardware level to playing in its own memory). Monolithic kernels have pretty
much everything in memory, and microkernels have pretty much everything in
moderately-privileged userspace processes that talk to each other via message
passing.

~~~
koenigdavidmj
Er, I apparently cannot be bothered to read my own posts.

s/Monolithic kernels have pretty much everything in memory/Monolithic kernels
have pretty much everything in kernel space/

~~~
apotheon
If it's any consolation, I understood what you meant.

------
kroger
"Absolute FreeBSD: The Complete Guide to FreeBSD" by Michael Lucas is one of
the best technical books I've read:

[http://www.amazon.com/Absolute-FreeBSD-Complete-
Guide-2nd/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Absolute-FreeBSD-Complete-
Guide-2nd/dp/1593271514)

------
xiongchiamiov
The common commands page[0] lists a few translations for package managers. It
would be great if someone could add a FreeBSD column to the much more
voluminous Pacman Rosetta page[1] (which is intended for Arch users, but
provides a helpful matrix for all the common Linux distros).

[0]: [http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/linux-
users/commands....](http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/linux-
users/commands.html)

[1]: <http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman_Rosetta>

