OSNews

Actually, he's if anything an OpenBSD commie, Jem regularly sides with OpenBSD in his opinion pieces.

Be honest, FreeBSD doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of competing with Ubuntu - or any other major Linux distribution - FreeBSD lacks the backing of a community and the focus of actual leadership.

For more than 4 years now when people ask me to describe FreeBSD, you know how I've done it? "The BSD Linux," do you know why? Because FreeBSD has been seeking functional parity with the Linuxes, rather than doing their own thing they've been trying to compete with Linux.

Know how FreeBSD used to be described? "The Good BSD," you know what changed? FreeBSD stopped being FreeBSD, I don't know how it managed to do it, but somewhere along the line FreeBSD stopped looking to the future and started looking to what Linux is doing now. And as a Linux, FreeBSD isn't all that good, it lacks a lot of the functionality of your run-of-the-mill Linux roll and has all kinds of different commands than Linux.

When FreeBSD starts being FreeBSD again it may have a reason to be used, but there is greater functionality in other Linux distributions. It hasn't even decided on a single firewall solution like OpenBSD has, and has that not long been the BSD way? A single tool for a problem?

You really have a lot of opinion without substance. If you actually read the handbook, you'll find why there are multiple firewalls on FreeBSD (http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/firewalls...). So, according to you, choices are bad - even if its important, for stategy sake, to have the possibility of upgrading from 4.x without having to rethink the firewall rules on a new syntax.
Btw, I'd suggest you to investigate why OpenBSD changed to PF in the first place. And, while you're at it, see how long is the timespan of their legacy releases.

Oh I know, the excuse of supporting a branch of code who's replacement, 5, was begun in 2000 and released finally in 2003. 5 is still being supported, as is 6 with 7 on the way. I know, I do track FreeBSD, I also track OpenBSD, who supports only two releases, the current one and the previous one. Each release is supported for a full year, at which time a user must either upgrade their system or provide their own security and reliability fixes. All of this is covered by a FAQ entry I believe, so it would be easy to know even if I did not already.

OpenBSD selected pf because Daniel Hartmeier had started an alternative to ipf on his own. ipf was removed from the base system because Darren Reed wanted absolute control over his code and had declared that noone could modify his code, he relicensed his code under a new licence that explicitly stated so and let the projects which did modify his code know that he had meant this also for prior versions of his code and that this was simply a clarification, not a change.

So yes, I know, I know exactly why pf exists, I know how long OpenBSD supports it's releases, I even know how FreeBSD explains what it does, what I don't know is why it does the stupid stuff to begin with, regardless of excuses.

I also know that pf was nearly useless until OpenBSD 3.1, and 3.3 had it's first really polished version, and that FreeBSD included pf more than two years ago.

That was a interesting read about why OpenBSD uses pf over ipf. That is one thing I am happy Sun did with Solaris 10, and that is use ipf. In the past I used Linux and ipchains, and then iptables. Then when I started using Solaris 10, I began using ipf. IPF was so much cleaner in syntax of the rules then either ipchains or iptables. IPF is a pleasure to use. The rules can get long when you also have the rules for your Zones in the same ipf.conf file. So having the syntax clean and easy to read is good.

That is one thing I am happy Solaris 10 took from the BSD's, and that is the ipf firewall. The previous Sun firewall (Sunscreen, cool name ha-ha) I didn't like.

So the fact FreeBSD is porting Dtrace and ZFS to itself is a good thing. This is what makes Open Source so great, people can share those great features around. This is why I have great respect for Sun for doing this (embracing open source), and most users should respect them for doing this. You don't see HP or IBM doing this (with HP-UX or AIX). The way HP and IBM embrace open source is pushing Linux, but not opening their own products. But at least they are helping open source in some way by pushing Linux.

You have to explicitly choose one firewall (via kernel recompiling or rc.conf). You can even compile the wole system without support for a specific firewall. The fact that you don't have to think about firewall conversions is actually positive when you upgrade from 4.x to 5.x/6.x - and I've taken advantage of that on some tricky migrations.
Also, not everyone rushes to upgrade when new releases are out. I still have 4.x servers in production, and some of them I wouldn't even consider upgrade to 5.x (ACPI issues, VINUM issues, RAID controller issues, etc). The upgrade policy of FreeBSD allows me to have options other than reinstall the whole system (I'm aware that's the recommended way of upgrading 4.x machines). So, just because you don't use it, doesn't mean its useless.

Anyway, I'm still waiting for some facts supporting your previous declarations about FreeBSD and Linux.

I have to agree with your analysis on this one. I have been running PCBSD as the main OS on my other system for several months now and really like it. And I might add that it gave me the least trouble betting my monitor to run at 1600x1200 on the DVI port. I still haven't been able to get the Linux distros I am trying to do that. And installing all the audio/video codecs in PCBSD was a lone stop process. Linux has me running all over the place to get the codecs I need installed and running.

And while PCBSD doesn't have a lot of software converted to their package system you can use ports to get almost anything you want going. So far I haven't found a Linux distro that I like well enough to replace my BSD with.

"And while PCBSD doesn't have a lot of software converted to their package system you can use ports to get almost anything you want going. So far I haven't found a Linux distro that I like well enough to replace my BSD with."

Jsut for completition: With PC-BSD, you can use (1) the PBI packages, (2) the FreeBSD ports collection and (3) the precompiled FreeBSD packages.

Example:
(1) Download xmms.pbi and doubleclick
(2) cd /usr/ports/multimedia/xmms ; make install
(3) pkg_add -r xmms

The choice is yours.

First, allow me to say that I'm using FreeBSD since version 3 on a regular basis.

Let me comment on this:

"The default shell isn't as nice with tab competition, but compile bash and change your shell."

The default shell in maintenance / singe user mode is the Bourne shell, /bin/sh. It's because sh is the minimum standard for scripting.

The default shell for all users in multi user mode is the C shell, /bin/csh. It supports tab completition in a way I prefer over the bash way to do it.

So, it would be nice to have proper csh settings preconfigured in /etc/csh.cshrc:

set promptchars = "%#"
set prompt = "%n@%m:%~%# "
set autolist

Usually this is what I do first. :-)

To come back top the original article, the author mixes terminal emulation and command shells.

Modernize the command line experience. The default terminal emulator -- itself an ancient and no longer valid concept -- is designed for monochrome Unix terminals like the DEC VT100 and VT220. [...] Why is FreeBSD using a shell that doesn't at all compare feature-for-feature with more modern alternatives like zsh or Bash, and was designed to be used on terminals that could reasonably be found in museums? [...] Since the command line interface is a necessary part of the FreeBSD experience, it's time to drag it -- kicking and screaming, if necessary -- into the 21st century.

It seems the author is not sure what he's talking about...

"You can't really complain about not knowing how to do anything either, the Handbook is excellent, amongst the best I've seen in any Distro."

Furthermore, the state of documentation of FreeBSD is very good. Even the german translation is usable. The kernel and system functions are well documented, a state I'd like to see some more in Linux.

"If anyone wants a Desktop flavor of BSD, PCBSD is doing a great job and building on something very solid."

Don't forget to mention PC-BSD's PBI package installer, it's simple to use (go to a centralized web site, download what you want, doubleclick - installed, no dependency hell).

nobody likes to write constructive criticism...in the reviews or in the forums. i find that most people prefer a "if you do not think the same as i do, then your world is useless" opinion. i think i am guilty of the same mentality, i need to forgive myself for wasting my time
(and all other readers' time)

I hate those reviews/forums comments; they are just tedious to read.

They aren't constructive and add nothing to the conversation, which is my we are all here. All I ask is for a little creativity, or some solution to the problem, you know the kind with actual details.

"Most people use GENERIC and do not complain, it is also very easy to build new kernel, but it seems to hard for Your skills."

The use of the GENERIC kernel is okay for most purposes. For special (or ancient) hardware, just load the proper modules from /boot/kernel/ (or load all of them if you're not sure) and hardcode hardware settings into /boot/device.hints.

The handbook explains the complete procedure of building a custom kernel and even the world, if you want to do so. Most average users don't want.

"Yes, ONE GENERIC, TWO for SMP, THREE for firewall, FOUR for router, FIVE for FAMP, SIX for DSKTOP, SEVEN for WORKSTATION, EIGHT for ..."

That's what the modules and system services are for. Not the kernel.

"What is so hard in that process for you? Reading and understanding? Everything is well explained in handbook and NOTES info config file."

Most people expect everything to work out of the box. It's not that they're not able to read - they just don't want to. "I've got no time to learn something new, I want it working right now!" - that's some typical sentence.

"[Customizing configuration files myself] is the idea of FreeBSD, You get a clean system and customize it by Yourself, You really need to install ubuntu or PCBSD at least."

If you're familiar with the system procedures, you'll update files using ee or the Midnight Commander. If you're not, you can simply use the sysinstall utility (ex /stand/sysinstall). It does the changes for you, creates accounts, FTP server ability, mail exchange, interface configuration etc.

"Is it so hard to find them in /usr/share/examples?"

If it's unclear where to find which files and what they are needed for, one should feel free to "man hier" and "man (any system file)", because, as I said, the documentation base is very good.

In most cases, defaults are loaded from /etc/defaults/ and you can overwrite them with your own settings in /etc/.

"It is the idea of FreeBSD, You get a clean system and customize it by Yourself, You really need to install ubuntu or PCBSD at least."

Hey, no need to malign PCBSD here. :-)

"For me FreeBSD has little advantage over Linux"

That's kind of my opinion as well, and I think what the article was getting at. I've seen nothing that clearly shows why running FBSD over something like Redhat for instance would be to my advantage, either as a desktop or as an enterprise server.

In terms of *nix/free software deliciousness, they'd be, at best, on a par (though like it or not, generally when some free software project is developping something nowadays, Linux is the first target). In terms of commercial software that enterprises seem to love to throw money at, there's no question there, it's either Linux or Solaris (with the first getting the upper hand increasingly it seems). In terms of actual support (which I largely don't care about anyhow), you'd be better off with a Redhat, a Sun, or what have you.

In terms of raw performance and such, Linux seems to have the edge, but that often depends on who's doing the benchmarking. Hardware support, again Linux wins, especially in the desktop area, but still FBSD is decent enough in that regard as well. In terms of system stability, from personal experience FBSD always had some pretty severe problems (hard lockups when I'd activate a PCI modem for instance), but Linux has had it's share of silliness as well over the years. In terms of security, they're UNIX, for the good and the bad. Security of the apps, such as apache, you run on top will be about the same anyway.

I think it boils down to personal preference. Whereas I'm most comfortable in dealing with a Linux-based system with the the stock assortment of GNU tools, nice things like the manner /proc is setup, etc., other folks who've perhaps cut their teeth on BSD will prefer something more like that. Nothing wrong with that, if it works for you, and does what it needs to, that's fine. Hey, they're both UNIX-like operating systems, and if for some strange reason or other, one of them exploded and suddently ceased to exist, we'd be very grateful a reasonable alternative still existed for us to use. From the fact we have a 6.2 release out, looks like there's still folks out there willing to do the work to make what you want to be running.

Well that seems about right since you're installing a big ass desktop with about 600+ Megs of source code to chew through. Your best bet would be to install something lighter or just use the packages that have already been built. If the release packages are too old just change your PACKAGESITE variable to point to the stable packages or the bleeding edge packages right of the pointyhat build cluster.

Bingo.

But it also has a more stable kernel with fewer bugs, better structured code (far fewer global variable declarations) and in house development (the kernel and base userland are fully developed by one entity).

http://scan.coverity.com/

Look at Linux and notice how those scans show 429 fixed and 0 pending defects. Now look at FreeBSD and notice how it has 0 fixed and 605 uninspected / pending defects. Also note that Coverity writes some of the best software out there for finding security problems and bugs in code.

It is fine if you say "FreeBSD has a more stable kernel with fewer bugs" so long as you can back it up. FreeBSD is great for what it is, but it simply can't match the development power of Linux. That was mostly due to marketing.

Note that I'm saying Linux is a more featureful kernel with less bugs. I'm also backing it up with results that have been proven.

Edit:
You might also notice that the Linux kernel is twice the number of lines of code as the FreeBSD kernel and yet it had approx 200 less bugs found at all. That says a lot about the code quality of FreeBSD.

Edited 2007-02-25 18:32

The mere fact that the Linux-kernel has twice as many lines of code is actually part of the reason I prefer FreeBSD.

Even though it supports more architectures and devices? Hardly a fair comparison.

I guess that also means you would dislike NetBSD, which has ~1,300,000 more lines of code than Linux.

Edited 2007-02-25 18:46

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/reports.cgi?product=-All-&output=mos...

1473 Open Bugs (Linux)

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr-summary.cgi?category=kern&s...

713 Open Bugs (FreeBSD) -- Some of which dont apply anymore. I seen open bug reports from 1996!

For twice as much code Linux has twice as many bugs and many more potential security holes than that.

To learn more about the problems surronding the Linux kernel, including security risky global variables and stubborn kernel developers:

http://port25.technet.com/archive/2007/01/18/empirical-software-eng...

Edited 2007-02-25 18:59

Great links, thankyou.

Firstoff, the number of bugs in bugzilla does not mean the number of bugs that actually matter. I'm sure quite a few of those in Linux and in the FreeBSD BTS are dupes or bogus. That is like Microsoft saying "Look at Linux, it had 50 critical updates in the past 6 month and we had 12" or something like that. The truth was that Microsoft was only counting base os patches where Linux patches all of the additional software that isn't really in the base os. Counting numbers of bugs for any operating system is always a subjective and sometimes biased (depending on how you use it) number.

The professor also has a good point with Linux having more global variables. However, that doesn't mean that every single global variable means security problem += 1. Good code or bad code, it doesn't really matter. Open source code always evolves and gets better or the project dies. It doesn't seem like Linux is dying anytime soon.

Linux has 10 times more hardware drivers and supports 10 times more archs than fbsd. You must be joking if you say that 1473 open bugs are many.

There was a time that freebsd was perfoming better than linux. But not anymore, linux 2.6.x has outperfomed any bsd. Even the networking stack is better.

And port25 is a joke. Surprise, a linux bashing article from microsoft.

For all the talk about the Linux community being full of activists, idealists, zealots, commies, and whatnot, it sure seems like the BSD community has more of these fanatics per-capita. But I don't know how to prove this.

So FreeBSD and Linux have approximately the same bug density according to their bug trackers. Given that the vast majority of the additional code in Linux is architecture and device support which won't be loaded simultaneously, you could argue that the bug density in loaded kernels is significantly lower for Linux--and especially lower in the drivers, which is the biggest security threat to monolithic kernels. But the BSD guys would probably consider this invalid logic.

For the record, I have also run a different proprietary static analysis tool on both FreeBSD and Linux kernels, and indeed we found that the "complaint" density in Linux is lower. These complaints may not be bugs (on average, about 20% are false positives), but the percentage of false positives seems to correlate with the degree to which the intention of the code is ambiguous. In other words, flawless but obscure code tends to produce more false positives than flawless and well-written code. So either FreeBSD has more flaws per LOC than Linux, or it is merely not as clearly written.

Both FreeBSD and Linux are well-designed from the perspective of security, although Linux has more surface area and a more lucratively-sized installed base. I'd really like to see an independent analysis of the relative merits of the security design employed by FreeBSD, Linux, and Solaris, so if you guys know of any, please share the links. Frankly, I'm tired of non-technical arguments based on the size of the codebase, the development model, or the relative marketshare. None of these truthfully impact the ability of a competent sysadmin to secure his machines.

The only thing that's clear from these arguments is that Linux has more features, and that this is probably one of the reasons why more people use it.

Edited 2007-02-26 00:14

Though it is an excellent operating system, even this latest version offers few or no competitive advantages over Solaris or the other BSDs in a server role, and can never hope to compete with commercial GNU/Linux distributions for desktop computers.

Could some FreeBSD zealot please try to prove this statement wrong? Is there a single feature where FreeBSD is actually better than Linux or Solaris?.

1. BSD License.
2. No GPL nazis.
3. No bloat.
4. Stability.
5. Less code- less bugs.
6. Excellent IP stack and IPv6 support.
7. Ports.
8. MAC (Mandatory Access Control). Yes, Linux have it as BETA within SELinux and not production ready yet.
9.Less stupid users asking stupid guestions.
10. No problem shipping "closed source" drivers and software.
11. OpenBSM.
12. Jail.
13. IPMI.
14. OpenSSH.
15. Securelevels (even within jails).
16. ...

http://www.trustedbsd.org/

Need more?

That`s the problem with linux- it compete with everything instead of concentrating effort one system that "just works" TM.

Edited 2007-02-25 15:14

It is a waste of time trying to reason with someone who already has their mind made up on the subject. While I use PCBSD rather than FBSD, I have found it better suits my needs than any of the many Linux distro's I have tried. Ubuntu is nice, but for some reason PCBSD just feels more comfortable to me. I really couldn't say what it is, but I just seem to like it better.

And after all, isn't that what choosing your OS is all about. It is the intangibles that really matter.

"1. BSD License.
2. No GPL nazis."

if points one and two are about the license, who's the one being a license zealot? and how useful would a running BSD system with no GPL'ed software be anyhow?

"3. No bloat.
4. Stability.
5. Less code- less bugs. "

you could also say, less features and hardware support then. I like to actually use a system, not admire it's pristine and sparse beauty from afar...

"7. Ports."

...which tend to break after you compile the "wrong" package or something else esoteric goes off.

"9.Less stupid users asking stupid guestions. "

wow, with an attitude like that and folk still whine about why the BSDs aren't more popular? hint: every new user is, um, new the first time they use a different system.

"10. No problem shipping "closed source" drivers and software. "

it's not too hard to be less fussy about that, when hardly _anyone_ is providing you with said closed source drivers and software... at least in Linux, there's a fighting chance said software might actually exist. and how many Linux users have to run some "BSD-compatibility layer" to run their programs?

"11. OpenBSM.
12. Jail.
13. IPMI.
14. OpenSSH.
15. Securelevels (even within jails)."

you honestly think BSDs have a monopoly on security? what, you think all those linux servers are being accessed via plain text telnetd or something? ever hear of kerberos, chroots, virtualization, selinux, apparmor, etc? (yeah I know, some of those are certainly not Linux specific, but they do exist on Linux.. as does your point 13. OpenSSH...)

"1. BSD License.
2. No GPL nazis."

if points one and two are about the license, who's the one being a license zealot? and how useful would a running BSD system with no GPL'ed software be anyhow?

On another "news": On yet another GNU/Linux distribution "GPL nazis" decided to throw out "not enough free" code from Linux because GPL said so.

"3. No bloat.
4. Stability.
5. Less code- less bugs. "

you could also say, less features and hardware support then. I like to actually use a system, not admire it's pristine and sparse beauty from afar...

Who need features if they are half assed.. uhh, sry- in CVS? Less drivers is FUD from Linux community who never used BSD before. Arguing whos code is bigger and better is futile...

"7. Ports."

...which tend to break after you compile the "wrong" package or something else esoteric goes off.

If "wrong" guy don`t know how to use ports then... I have years of using FreeBSD servers in production and never had any port broken during upgrade.

"9.Less stupid users asking stupid guestions. "

wow, with an attitude like that and folk still whine about why the BSDs aren't more popular? hint: every new user is, um, new the first time they use a different system.

Uh, I forgot Handbook aka Read The f--king Fine Manual. http://www.freebsd.org/docs.html

"10. No problem shipping "closed source" drivers and software. "

it's not too hard to be less fussy about that, when hardly _anyone_ is providing you with said closed source drivers and software... at least in Linux, there's a fighting chance said software might actually exist. and how many Linux users have to run some "BSD-compatibility layer" to run their programs?

Good point- LINUX CAN`T RUN BSD BINARIES! BSDs CAN!

"11. OpenBSM.
12. Jail.
13. IPMI.
14. OpenSSH.
15. Securelevels (even within jails)."

you honestly think BSDs have a monopoly on security? what, you think all those linux servers are being accessed via plain text telnetd or something? ever hear of kerberos, chroots, virtualization, selinux, apparmor, etc? (yeah I know, some of those are certainly not Linux specific, but they do exist on Linux.. as does your point 13. OpenSSH...)

Who said monopoly- someone asked what BSDs got and I provided this list. Read www.trustedbsd.org again. OpenSSH is developed by OpenBSD guys BTW.

8. MAC (Mandatory Access Control). Yes, Linux have it as BETA within SELinux and not production ready yet
Hey guess what... It's funny that you call it beta even though it prevented a recent 0day kernel level privilege escalation (root) vulnerability in only fedora and redhat enterprise linux. Any distro running a kernel up to and including 2.6.17.4 were vulnerable. Here is the exploit code if you think I am lying:
http://packetstormsecurity.org/0607-exploits/h00lyshit.c

Far less people use MAC in production on FreeBSD than on Linux. If anything, the MAC in TrustedBSD is beta.

Linux has also supported IPMI and had OpenSSH for a very long time.

OSNews is being stupid and giving me 400 bad requests so I had to shorten this post tremendously. In the end, the facts speak for themselves. Linux is only good because it's license forces users to give back code where in FreeBSD, they don't have to. For the future of Linux, this is a good thing.

OSNews is being stupid and giving me 400 bad requests so I had to shorten this post...

<snarky>
That's probably because OSNews runs MySQL on top of Linux.
Now, if they used PostgreSQL on FreeBSD, you wouldn't be having those problems.
</snarky>

*ducks*

Edited 2007-02-26 21:51

Full ack. Couldn't say it better.

>MAC (Mandatory Access Control)

And you see this in MacOS X too. Why? Because it's very good technology

Reliability and stability instead of hacking a kernel. It's of course a niche, most of the time a niche for ex-long-time-Linux-users
Vice versa, how many Linux user do know anything about *BSD, apart from FUD? If I want faith, I go to church.

Well, on the same basis, one could argue that Linux is dying.
http://www.google.com/trends?q=linux&ctab=0&geo=all&dat...

Of course it ain't true for Linux, and even less for FreeBSD. This is just to show that a Google Trends link is a very poor way of substantiating an argument.

> Could some FreeBSD zealot please try to prove this statement wrong?

Then I'll let some FreeBSD "zealot" answer. I'm just a FreeBSD (happy) *user*, who doesn't think rebutting reviews that are patently clueless is a smart way of spending one's time.

> Is there a single feature where FreeBSD is actually better than Linux or Solaris?

A single feature? Nope, I'd say there are quite a few.
The most compelling? To me, definitely FreeBSD Ports.

<Using trolls logic>Hmmmm, let me do a google trend on Solaris. Does not look good. I guess Solaris is dying too. Now let's try Linux. My gosh, Linux is dying too. I am so glad that someone pointed me to this google trends tool. It has proven to be soooo useful in predicting stuff.<End Using trolls logic>

"Could some FreeBSD zealot please try to prove this statement wrong? Is there a single feature where FreeBSD is actually better than Linux or Solaris? "

Not that I am a FreeBSD zealot... but this is what I like from FreeBSD
1) Ease of administration through the shell
2) Downright simplicity in design (ex. SMF versus Sys V versus BSD)
3) History of stability, support, performance, and being free
4) Timely update releases within a stable branch
5) A codebase that anyone is free to take and use for their needs without being held hostage(ex. NetApp, Juniper, Nokia)

Those are some of the reasons that I like FreeBSD. There are plenty more but I didn't want to write down a big 100 page list. What I have found is that while there are alternatives that satisfy certain requirements, no alternative really satisfies all requirements. For example, Solaris is a great operating system. But after playing in it for a while, you realize everything is overdesigned and overly complex. It is apparent that it is an operating system designed by a big company with too much engineering time spent on it.

Anyways, I don't get why FreeBSD has to justify its existence. In a capitalistic society, products are usually pretty much on par with each other. Put in another way, why should I use RedHat, SuSE, Solaris, or Windows? What advantage does one have over every other OS?

Uh, that's one pragmatic reason and a bunch of completely subjective ones.

There is no idelogical/religious burden. There is no community to tell you what to say and what to think.

Did they tell you to say that? ;-) Lately I've read entirely too many BSD users call Linux users either commies or Nazis. They couldn't have all come to that erroneous conclusion independently. There must be some brainwashing committee that distributes some sort of standard pamphlet. I'm a member of a certain monotheistic religion whose name can't be uttered in these forums--I resent being called a Nazi. And if anything, the GPL is socialist in nature, since it holds that software should belong to the people, not to the state. Similarly, the BSD is libertarian, since it imposes as few restrictions as practically possible. One of you gun-toting potheads should really update that pamphlet.

When they ask me what it is, I simply answer "UNIX".

If they buy that, you might as well say the same thing about Linux. Yes, there is heritage, but there isn't much code left in FreeBSD that comes from a release that everybody agrees should be called UNIX. IMHO, UNIX refers to any OS that creates processes via fork(), accesses I/O devices via the filesystem (which descends from a directory called /), and comes with a standard C library. That's pragmatism.

Linux is percepted as cheap alternative to Windows

And FreeBSD is perceived as... a cheap alternative to UNIX? Something weird and scary?

Install a distribution (FreeBSD or Linux) with some sort of nice bootsplash and nobody will even notice you're not running Windows.

Edited 2007-02-25 16:04

Install a distribution (FreeBSD or Linux) with some sort of nice bootsplash and nobody will even notice you're not running Windows.

The point is that there are a lot, realy a lot of Windows users out there, and some of them are hostile to Linux. It is not my war and I don't care for Linux.

Why should I install Linux ? To make you happy ? No, I will leave things the way they are.

DG

Any Windows user that's hostile to Linux is also hostile to FreeBSD. These people either resent the commoditization of mass market software or have some preconceived notions about the quality of software that is distributed without licensing fees. If there is a war, you are fighting it by using open source software, whether it be FreeBSD, Linux, or any of the thousands of other OSS products.

I've used FreeBSD in the recent past, and I think it's great. I respect your decision, and I respect the fact that your have embraced OSS in spite of the negative reactions that you might encounter in your line of work. This isn't a holy war, it's simply a choice we make. But both of us have chosen, in our own way, to be different than the mainstream, and this is a burden that we share in our dealings