New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
AFAIK Linux is very tweakable in terms of latency or throughput and has better hardware support
However stability only depends on your skill and preference (if you haven't used BSDs then it may eventually break)
Linux has bigger community and better documentation IMO
$2
Used both, I don't see any difference on servers. A well optimized BSD performs as fast as Linux
It is just our mind that lures us into thinking faster or slower. Find your use case, then see what suits you best
Without testing yourself, you can't make sure if it is fit for you. Sometimes numbers create illusions for us
Debian thnx
I don't even know difference between the two.
I like FreeBSD. I like Debian too. It is difficult to choose. This represents my biggest inner conflict after buying a low-end offer.
If you want to use ZFS with all functions enabled i would choose FreeBSD, but just remember that you will need to compile every freebsd port yourself. If you want to setup server and forget about it use debian.
Linux has way better CPU perf on x86-64 cause Intel is making kernel optimisations for x86-64 all the time
https://www.phoronix.com/review/bsd-linux-eo2021/7
Especially see result from Clear Linux (Intel distro), eventually these optimisations go into all distros.
FreeBSD is better if you need best network performance and not that much CPU performance - Netflix is using FreeBSD to push 720Gbps from single server!!! Not possible on Linux
http://nabstreamingsummit.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/2022-Streaming-Summit-Netflix.pdf
You may also check out FreeBSD Jails, very interesting security concept that may be the selling feature for you.
Unless you are chasing some ridiculous tweaking and absolutely cutting-edge performance you will most likely not notice much difference. All the BSD's have absolutely top notch net performance, but if you are on the level that you really need it you are probably already aware of this.
I love BSD and have been using it for 30 years, but I also use linux. Most of the time, it does not really make much of a difference so I chose whatever is easiest in that particular situation.
One thing that could make a bit of difference depending on what kind of project you are talking about is the licensing. BSD does not have the GPL "poison" which means you can use the software in closed source and proprietary software.
Also, I have to point out that "linux" is actually just a kernel while FreeBSD is an entire os. To make the question valid you should ask "whats the difference between Ubuntu and FreeBSD" or "whats the difference between Debian and FreeBSD".
And don't forget that there are other BSD's too, all specialized in their own niche.
Didn't Netflix dump Freebsd? They used it for a while and then moved over to linux.
Freebsd IMHO isn't that good, less development happens there overall: it has only one filesystem, poor hardware support, no LXC/Docker/Cgroups, lower compatibility with software, and licensing problems.
With the lower eyeballs count browsing thru its source code, kernel and security bugs are also more frequent.
I'm using both now, but would prefer Linux (mostly Debian).
I love FreeBSD. Linux is getting too complex now (with systemd). However I do find some issues with FreeBSD, including unstable (extreme packet loss and even loss of connectivity sometimes) IPv6 on VPS (for example, netcup) and high memory footprint (even with UFS, ARC memory just keeps going up and finally everything killed).
So I'm keeping my FreeBSD installations just because I love it, for no real reason. But for any actual workload I choose Debian.
I still have horror time when trying using FreeBSD which little bit sensitive with hardware problem and I lost even tried searching the solution
And Linux I have many options distro to choose, If X broke, probably Y solve the problem.
Yeah, I too lazy to read documentation.
What licensing problems does FreeBSD have?
It's silly to complain about Docker...one could complain that Linux lacks jails.
Do you have some stats to back that up? In theory you're right but I'm skeptical that's the case in practice.
They didn't update GCC for a decade because of the GPL3, then moved to LLVM.
There was a security researcher who gave a speech about the higher density of security bugs in the FreeBSD kernel w.r.t. linux, measured in number of bugs per 1000 lines of code. I cannot find the video.
... I don't like Docker or Snap, but some software is distributed with these means, which make it incompatible with BSD.
An important point. You can rebuild the entire FreeBSD OS with a single make command.
That's also why it's more consistent and better documented. It's not a zillion independent projects stitched together.
The biggest negative to FreeBSD is its small market share. If you get some error with Linux, you google and find 10,000 people have the same problem. With FreeBSD, you might be the first person posting on a forum. And there aren't many forums.
I still use OpenBSD here and there for security but it's that issue x1000 plus the community's attitude of "well, what does the source code say?"
BSD people will point out that for a large percentage of problems, reading the man pages has your answer, and unlike Linux, the documentation for both FreeBSD and OpenBSD (especially) is fantastic.
For most people who are going to throw a template on a VPS and following a tutorial to get nginx + wordpress + mariadb + tentacle-hentai-autocrawler-plugin or whatever setup, Debian is a lot easier to use.
It's like EMACS, for people with nothing better to do
Nope, it's still FreeBSD. https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/appliances/#software
Netflix run their "Open Connect Appliance" based on FreeBSD. They are even tracking HEAD, the latest and most unstable of the FreeBSD branches.
BSD's license is basically "you can do whatever you want with it as long as you say thanks", how can that possibly be a problem in any kind of scenario?
I call bullshit.
According to https://www.zenarmor.com/docs/linux-tutorials/freebsd-vs-linux, FreeBSD had 432 vulnerabilities from 1999 to 2022, while linux had 2897.
Generally, I would say that the code is of extremely high quality in all the BSD's.
Are you just throwing random statements out there and hope they stick, or do you have a different internet or something where you live?
I would choose Linux, bigger community.
@rcy026
IQ masterrace, let's cater to that
Bugs per 1000 lines means that, if linux is bigger than bsd, linux has more bugs
Okay
Yes. But the figures where total number of vulnerabilities, not bugs per 1000 lines.
But ok, here are total number of cve's for FreeBSD vs Debian, all known versions, all cve's.
FreeBSD 464 (https://www.cvedetails.com/version-list/6/7/1/Freebsd-Freebsd.html)
Debian 8263 (https://www.cvedetails.com/version-list/23/36/1/Debian-Debian-Linux.html)
I choose Debian since Linux is not an os, just a kernel. Feel free to chose any other distribution if you want, the figures still does not favor linux.
Could you please provide any source or figures to backup your claim that bugs are more frequent in BSD? Any kind of source with even an ounce of credibility will do. And no, you just saying it does not count as a credible source.
Please explain the problem with the licensing. It was your statement so I assume you based it on something.
I'm not saying that FreeBSD is better then Linux or vice versa, but if you throw out made up statements that are simply not true I will question you.
Sarcasm does not make your statements less bullshit.
@rcy026
Haha you so funny. By the way, the teacher has left some homework for you today:
Exercise: open the two cvedetails links you posted and try not to laugh.
I swear I didn't laugh.
Solution: mmm.... total_number_of_cve = average_number_of_cve_per_release * number_of_releases
I mean, I don't know. Give me chatGPT next time. ChatGPT doesn't pass the Turing test by the way.
bsd for high pps routers, otherwise Debian.
Isn't recompilation is better than package installation due to nativeness? I mean you compile for specific hardware etc. This approach is chosen by Directadmin, they compile all packages to squeeze any drops of performance.
In theory it is, but you may end up with too low performance gain if any for your use case.
I stopped compiling when I got my first 64 MB RAM pentium. For a small vm where you would like to squeeze every last bit of "juice" it might be worth it, but I found out the gain is minimal and not worth my time.
Emacs is the emblem of the stereotypical GNU over-engineered software with marxist tendencies, with all the C99 memory bugs so near to the hearth of the GNU people, written by men who believe they'll never write another bug in their life, ever, and with manual pages in plain prose written by wannabe poets that are less practical than the bible.
I use emacs myself, but solely as a text editor, I don't play videogames or watch youtube with it. It's like staying right at the edge, seeing how deep the abyss is for the true emacs cultists.
(((((( And LISP or ELISP?! What the actual parenthesis clusterfuck ))))))) (((((((((( it needs to be said, LISP is for morons!! )))))))))))
Man, you are touched by vim. I read comic books at morning, you read man pages. This is not normal
Is that why DirectAdmin does that? I guess I don't know the reason.
You have to put it in its time period. emacs in the 80s/90s was cutting-edge as an IDE.
Well, someone with a bit of common sense could easily see that FreeBSD have 464 cve's in all their releases combined. Debian had 1020 in their 11.0 release alone. But you still claim that there are more problems in FreeBSD? Seriously? I do not know how you do your math but I would love for you to explain how it makes you think Linux has less problems.
But ok, lets turn it around. You made the claim, now show some figures to back it up.
I'm still waiting for you to explain the problem with the license.
And again, sarcasm does not make you look less stupid.
Compiling everything is optional, FreeBSD does have precompiled packages for everything, both applications and os.
If you want to squeeze every bit of performance out of something, remove bloat you don't use or build it for specific hardware, then you compile. If not, just use the packages.