Kind of amusing to read this comparison of FreeBSD with Linux <https://www.zdnet.com/article/freebsd-will-challenge-your-skills-and-make-you-learn-along-the-way/>:
And that's one of the big draws to FreeBSD: it is as rock-solid as
they come.
Sure, I talk a lot about how reliable Debian is, but even Debian
can't touch the stability of FreeBSD.
Only ...
Unfortunately, PackageKit continually crashed, which meant KDE
Discover was useless, so installation of all apps would have to be
done via the command line.
... and ...
On a whim, I decided to install GNOME, but the GDM login manager
wouldn't start, so I decided to stick with KDE Plasma.
So much for ?rock-solid as they come?, eh? Irony, this writer has
heard of it.
Also:
Essentially, FreeBSD is Unix, where Linux is based on Unix.
No it isn?t. BSD is no more ?Unix? than Linux is.
To that end, FreeBSD (and most of the BSDs) make for amazing
server operating systems. If you were to ask any long-in-the-tooth
geeks about server operating systems, they'd likely say that BSD
is what you want.
That may have been true 20 or more years ago, but it isn?t any more.
All the essential server-oriented functionality (e.g. modern
networking stack, service management, security modules and privilege isolation) is primarily being developed for Linux now, while the BSD
folks try to figure out how to port some small part of it to their
aging platform.
To that end, FreeBSD (and most of the BSDs) make for amazing
server operating systems. If you were to ask any long-in-the-tooth
geeks about server operating systems, they'd likely say that BSD
is what you want.
That may have been true 20 or more years ago, but it isn?t any more.
All the essential server-oriented functionality (e.g. modern
networking stack, service management, security modules and privilege isolation) is primarily being developed for Linux now, while the BSD
folks try to figure out how to port some small part of it to their
aging platform.
A major exception to that is ZFS: native and very dependable in
FreeBSD (and works great as the root filesystem), but a horribly
fragile dkms mess in Linux.
Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Kind of amusing to read this comparison of FreeBSD with Linux
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/freebsd-will-challenge-your-skills-and-make-you-learn-along-the-way/>:
The thing is, that's talking about the base system. All the stuff
with display managers and packages and so on aren't the base system.
Also:
Essentially, FreeBSD is Unix, where Linux is based on Unix.
No it isn?t. BSD is no more ?Unix? than Linux is.
FreeBSD derives from BSD which derived from AT&T Unix. There's no
longer any AT&T code in it.
Linux is a clean sheet reimplementation. Arguably both have diverged
from AT&T's source code, but BSD was a piecemeal replacement so kept
the original structure and feel while Linux started from scratch.
To that end, FreeBSD (and most of the BSDs) make for amazing
server operating systems. If you were to ask any long-in-the-tooth
geeks about server operating systems, they'd likely say that BSD
is what you want.
That may have been true 20 or more years ago, but it isn?t any
more. All the essential server-oriented functionality (e.g. modern
networking stack, service management, security modules and
privilege isolation) is primarily being developed for Linux now,
while the BSD folks try to figure out how to port some small part
of it to their aging platform.
If your stack is Kubenetes + Docker + systemd, agreed. If your stack
is plain nginx + DB then FreeBSD is still an contender. Albeit an increasingly niche one as everyone moves towards the former.
It sounds like the writer took some memes and ran with them, without
actually knowing too much about what people do for real nowadays.
On 19 Dec 2025 11:03:34 +0000 (GMT), Theo wrote:
Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Kind of amusing to read this comparison of FreeBSD with Linux
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/freebsd-will-challenge-your-skills-and-make-you-learn-along-the-way/>:
The thing is, that's talking about the base system. All the stuff
with display managers and packages and so on aren't the base system.
Interesting. All these pieces work fine on Linux. But as you say,
they?re not included in the monolithic blob of code that is the base
*BSD system.
Linux development has traditionally been much more modular, with
distros made up of a much wider variety of pieces. So there has been
plenty of time to knock off most of the rough edges, such that those
pieces fit much more seamlessly together.
Also:
Essentially, FreeBSD is Unix, where Linux is based on Unix.
No it isn?t. BSD is no more ?Unix? than Linux is.
FreeBSD derives from BSD which derived from AT&T Unix. There's no
longer any AT&T code in it.
So it is in fact no longer ?derived from? AT&T Unix -- the lawsuit saw
to that. Which means my point stands: BSD is no more ?Unix? than Linux
is.
Linux is a clean sheet reimplementation. Arguably both have diverged
from AT&T's source code, but BSD was a piecemeal replacement so kept
the original structure and feel while Linux started from scratch.
Why is it, then that it is so hard to move between BSD variants, if
they all in fact keep ?the original structure and feel??
Distro-hopping is a real, commonplace thing in the Linux world, but it
isn?t so easy to do in the BSD world.
To that end, FreeBSD (and most of the BSDs) make for amazing
server operating systems. If you were to ask any long-in-the-tooth
geeks about server operating systems, they'd likely say that BSD
is what you want.
That may have been true 20 or more years ago, but it isn?t any
more. All the essential server-oriented functionality (e.g. modern
networking stack, service management, security modules and
privilege isolation) is primarily being developed for Linux now,
while the BSD folks try to figure out how to port some small part
of it to their aging platform.
If your stack is Kubenetes + Docker + systemd, agreed. If your stack
is plain nginx + DB then FreeBSD is still an contender. Albeit an increasingly niche one as everyone moves towards the former.
There?s a lot more to Linux deployments than the above pieces. There
is in fact a greater variety of pieces that you can use on Linux, than
on BSD.
Consider how the BSD world has been trying to come up with its own equivalents to things like Docker, systemd, and also Wayland.
It sounds like the writer took some memes and ran with them, without actually knowing too much about what people do for real nowadays.
But that article is a first-hand account of trying to set up a FreeBSD system.
The thing is, that's talking about the base system. All the stuff with >display managers and packages and so on aren't the base system. That's more >like the random stuff you bought on Amazon to bolt on to your car - the >manufacturer does not have any say in their engineering or making them work >well together.
If you can stay within the base system (or a few limited services on top of >it) you'll be ok. If you stray off-piste into too much third party stuff >it's only as good as the third party makes it - and often that third party
is not interested in FreeBSD.
FreeBSD derives from BSD which derived from AT&T Unix. There's no longer
any AT&T code in it. Linux is a clean sheet reimplementation. Arguably
both have diverged from AT&T's source code, but BSD was a piecemeal >replacement so kept the original structure and feel while Linux started from >scratch.
If your stack is Kubenetes + Docker + systemd, agreed. If your stack is >plain nginx + DB then FreeBSD is still an contender. Albeit an increasingly >niche one as everyone moves towards the former.
It sounds like the writer took some memes and ran with them, without
actually knowing too much about what people do for real nowadays.
And gnome is pretty precarious under Linux in spite of a huge amount
of effort being expended on it. It's fine if you want everything
completely default, but if you want any changes then things start
going wrong. And if they didn't go wrong today, they will tomorrow
when you install the mandatory update because the way you make that
change is different now.
BSD pretty much follows the Unix philosophy of making everything as
modular as possible ...
... the argument can be made that Linux has devolved very far from
the Unix philosophy, while the BSD variants have mostly kept to the
Unix philosophy.
There is nothing more horrible and hellish that I could imagine than
being wrapped up inside Kubernetes + Docker + systemd. I agree that
everyone is moving in that direction and as someone who cares about
computers actually being reliable I find this terrifying.
Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On 19 Dec 2025 11:03:34 +0000 (GMT), Theo wrote:
Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Kind of amusing to read this comparison of FreeBSD with Linux
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/freebsd-will-challenge-your-skills-and-make-you-learn-along-the-way/>:
The thing is, that's talking about the base system. All the stuff
with display managers and packages and so on aren't the base
system.
Interesting. All these pieces work fine on Linux. But as you say,
they?re not included in the monolithic blob of code that is the
base *BSD system.
The base system is not a 'monolithic blob of code', it's a
collection of programs just like any other system. It just so
happens to all be managed together in one repository.
The similarity is more with someone like Debian, who picks upstream
projects and makes them work together, sometimes diverging them
substantially to fit 'the Debian way'. This is a lot of additional
work, on top of the work of the original software developers.
In the BSDs the upstream and the distro are one and the same,
although with BSD the 'distro' is just the base system and not the
packages too, which are more like third party repositories on Linux.
Just because Linux is bigger things tend to work better together.
Anyone who has tried to run command line tools on a Mac will have
experienced the same issues - either things work or they don't, in
which case somebody needs to go in and dig out the Mac-specific
problem and submit a patch.
'Unix' is a concept from 1990s.
Why is it, then that it is so hard to move between BSD variants, if
they all in fact keep ?the original structure and feel??
Distro-hopping is a real, commonplace thing in the Linux world, but
it isn?t so easy to do in the BSD world.
The point of divergence was 30-35 years ago. That's a lot of time
for divergent evolution. Meanwhile Linux distros are generally rely
on the same underlying projects (eg GNU tools) which haven't
diverged because they're still a single project.
In the analogy, if Tesla and VW make everything in house, their
parts design would be customised to their vehicles such that you
can't swap parts between brands. But if Ford and GM share a parts
supplier then it's more likely the part can be swapped from a Ford
vehicle to a GM vehicle because the supplier uses the same
attachment or connector for both.
Consider how the BSD world has been trying to come up with its own
equivalents to things like Docker, systemd, and also Wayland.
Those are mostly because some feature gets added to the Linux
kernel, then the systemd folks use it, and Docker on top of that.
They are not interested in compatibility with non-Linux systems. To
keep up, BSD has to implement the same feature the same way, even if
they already have a better solution.
BSDs have had jails for decades, but suddenly Docker is the new
hotness.
If you were starting from scratch using BSD you'd start with the
jail as your building block rather than a Docker container.
In a pragmatic world where you just want to get the job done, the
Linux ecosystem is clearly better.
On Fri, 19 Dec 2025 13:32:25 +0000, Geoff Clare wrote:
A major exception to that is ZFS: native and very dependable in
FreeBSD (and works great as the root filesystem), but a horribly
fragile dkms mess in Linux.
ZFS is a memory hog, though, isn?t it
Best confined to a dedicated storage
appliance, not something you want to run on a general-purpose machine.
Fun fact: even Oracle will not offer ZFS on its own Linux distro, but
it will give you btrfs instead.
Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
Fun fact: even Oracle will not offer ZFS on its own Linux distro,
but it will give you btrfs instead.
No doubt because of the licensing issue that is the reason ZFS has
to be installed via dkms on Linux instead of being native.
On Mon, 22 Dec 2025 13:38:24 +0000, Geoff Clare wrote:
Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
Fun fact: even Oracle will not offer ZFS on its own Linux distro,
but it will give you btrfs instead.
No doubt because of the licensing issue that is the reason ZFS has
to be installed via dkms on Linux instead of being native.
Guess who controls the licensing of ZFS?
Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2025 13:38:24 +0000, Geoff Clare wrote:
Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
Fun fact: even Oracle will not offer ZFS on its own Linux distro,
but it will give you btrfs instead.
No doubt because of the licensing issue that is the reason ZFS has
to be installed via dkms on Linux instead of being native.
Guess who controls the licensing of ZFS?
Indeed, although the situation is more complicated than that simple
phrasing implies.
The only Oracle product that includes ZFS, that I know of, is Solaris.
Which has been in ?legacy maintenance? state for some decades now.
He also repeats the old myth
Because FreeBSD is a descendant of the original AT&T UNIX code,
you can bet it inherited the stability of its predecessor.
None of the BSDs have *any* AT&T Unix code in them. AT&T filed an
actual lawsuit to see to that.
Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
He also repeats the old myth
Because FreeBSD is a descendant of the original AT&T UNIX code,
you can bet it inherited the stability of its predecessor.
None of the BSDs have *any* AT&T Unix code in them. AT&T filed an
actual lawsuit to see to that.
Counterexample: >https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src/blob/main/contrib/one-true-awk/awk.h
The copyright notice says 'Lucent' but that's an AT&T spinoff,
presumably the one that ended up owning that version of awk when they
did the split.
It?s not a recent addition, either. The version in 4.4BSDLite2, >https://github.com/sergev/4.4BSD-Lite2/blob/master/usr/src/contrib/awk.research/awk.h,
has an explicit AT&T copyright.
Compare
with https://github.com/calmsacibis995/svr4-src/blob/main/cmd/awk/awk.h,
the same file in SVR4, and the relationship is obvious.
--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Lawrence Dƒ??Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
He also repeats the old myth
Because FreeBSD is a descendant of the original AT&T UNIX code,
you can bet it inherited the stability of its predecessor.
None of the BSDs have *any* AT&T Unix code in them. AT&T filed an
actual lawsuit to see to that.
Counterexample: >>https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src/blob/main/contrib/one-true-awk/awk.h >>
The copyright notice says 'Lucent' but that's an AT&T spinoff,
presumably the one that ended up owning that version of awk when they
did the split.
Itƒ??s not a recent addition, either. The version in 4.4BSDLite2, >>https://github.com/sergev/4.4BSD-Lite2/blob/master/usr/src/contrib/awk.research/awk.h,
has an explicit AT&T copyright.
Compare
with https://github.com/calmsacibis995/svr4-src/blob/main/cmd/awk/awk.h, >>the same file in SVR4, and the relationship is obvious.
The one true awk has its own license. Yes, it was from Unix awk, but
there's no AT&T kernel code in FreeBSD.
The one true awk has its own license. Yes, it was from Unix awk, but
there's no AT&T kernel code in FreeBSD.
How about >https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src/blob/main/sys/contrib/openzfs/module/os/freebsd/spl/spl_uio.c#L27
then?
A major exception to that is ZFS: native and very dependable in
FreeBSD (and works great as the root filesystem), but a horribly
fragile dkms mess in Linux.
Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> writes:
A major exception to that is ZFS: native and very dependable in
FreeBSD (and works great as the root filesystem), but a horribly
fragile dkms mess in Linux.
How is ZFS fragile and messy in Linux, please? I only run it on my two
file servers, but no issues in the last decade or so. Haven't bothered
with it as root FS though.
Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> writes:
A major exception to that is ZFS: native and very dependable in
FreeBSD (and works great as the root filesystem), but a horribly
fragile dkms mess in Linux.
How is ZFS fragile and messy in Linux, please? I only run it on my two
file servers, but no issues in the last decade or so. Haven't bothered
with it as root FS though.
It is an "out of kernel" blob of code. So any kernel change /could/
break it (and the kernel developers won't help fix the breakage because
it is "out of kernel" code.
So fragile -- yes, any kernel upgrade could cause ZFS to not compile so you'd have no ZFS until you download the updated ZFS compatible with
the new kernel.
Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
It is an "out of kernel" blob of code. So any kernel change /could/
break it (and the kernel developers won't help fix the breakage because
it is "out of kernel" code.
So fragile -- yes, any kernel upgrade could cause ZFS to not compile so
you'd have no ZFS until you download the updated ZFS compatible with
the new kernel.
If one uses a little caution and checks ZFS compatibility before
updating the kernel then this is avoided.
...or you could just run FreeBSD and avoid the whole issue. Why
bother with Linux? What's so special about it that people feel
_compelled_ to run it?
I have real work to get done, I don't need to spend weeks learning
how BSD does the same thing I already know how to do.
In article <10ktbbd$ge1$1@reader2.panix.com>,
Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
...or you could just run FreeBSD and avoid the whole issue. Why
bother with Linux? What's so special about it that people feel
_compelled_ to run it?
I don't use ZFS, so maybe your question is what's so special
about the combination of ZFS and Linux?
But if you're really asking the general question, I can tell you:
1. The user land is usually based on the GNU tools: No arbitrary limits applies. I have no idea if there are still fixed limits in
the BSD user land.
2. These days, just about *everything* just works, without fuss or muss.
- Install on even fairly new hardware goes smoothly
- Installers are usually graphical
- One's choice of GUI environments (I use Ubuntu Mate)
- Software updates (at least on Ubuntu) work super smoothly
- Installing additional software is trivial
3. Linux performs quite well, and certainly better than Windows
(yeah, not the comparison).
I don't remember which BSD I recently tried to bring up in a VM
(maybe FreeBSD) but installation was like jumping back 40 years
in time to the ASCII-art spinning wheel. It didn't even come up
with a GUI, or else it was X with TWM and no menus, or something
ridiculous like that.
I'll agree. A lot of it is familiarity, but also the fact that I see no compelling reason to switch. Why climb a brand new learning curve
just to get to the same point I'm already at?
I have real work to get done, I don't need to spend weeks learning
how BSD does the same thing I already know how to do.
4. The elephant in the room: Everybody else is on Linux, which
means if I want something commercial that only runs on Linux, I
can get it. Not so on *BSD.
I've been using Linux as my daily driver since mid-1997. It's done
real well for me. Why switch to something that I don't see is
better?
In article <10ktbbd$ge1$1@reader2.panix.com>,
Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
...or you could just run FreeBSD and avoid the whole issue. Why
bother with Linux? What's so special about it that people feel
_compelled_ to run it?
I don't use ZFS, so maybe your question is what's so special
about the combination of ZFS and Linux?
But if you're really asking the general question, I can tell you:
1. The user land is usually based on the GNU tools: No arbitrary limits >applies. I have no idea if there are still fixed limits in
the BSD user land.
2. These days, just about *everything* just works, without fuss or muss.
- Install on even fairly new hardware goes smoothly
- Installers are usually graphical
- One's choice of GUI environments (I use Ubuntu Mate)
- Software updates (at least on Ubuntu) work super smoothly
- Installing additional software is trivial
3. Linux performs quite well, and certainly better than Windows
(yeah, not the comparison).
I don't remember which BSD I recently tried to bring up in a VM
(maybe FreeBSD) but installation was like jumping back 40 years
in time to the ASCII-art spinning wheel. It didn't even come up
with a GUI, or else it was X with TWM and no menus, or something
ridiculous like that.
I'll agree. A lot of it is familiarity, but also the fact that I see no >compelling reason to switch. Why climb a brand new learning curve
just to get to the same point I'm already at?
I have real work to get done, I don't need to spend weeks learning
how BSD does the same thing I already know how to do.
4. The elephant in the room: Everybody else is on Linux, which
means if I want something commercial that only runs on Linux, I
can get it. Not so on *BSD.
I've been using Linux as my daily driver since mid-1997. It's done
real well for me. Why switch to something that I don't see is
better?
Yes, Linux is becoming the new Windows - if you want something to
"just work", rather than become a project in itself.
Unfortunately there are still at least two major factions in the
Linux world, the debian/Ubuntu-like and the RedHat/Fedora-like, and
if your chosen tool was developed by fans of one camp you're on a
hiding to nothing trying to use it on the rival distribution.
Yes, some things really are truly portable, but not everything, and
the higher up the functionality-stack you go the less portable it
seems to be - understandably.
On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 08:13:35 -0000 (UTC), Ian wrote:
Yes, Linux is becoming the new Windows - if you want something to
"just work", rather than become a project in itself.
The difference is, that was never true of Windows: it?s just that
people had long experience with an ever-growing collection of voodoo/black-magic tricks (e.g. registry edits) to get things working.
Unfortunately there are still at least two major factions in the
Linux world, the debian/Ubuntu-like and the RedHat/Fedora-like, and
if your chosen tool was developed by fans of one camp you're on a
hiding to nothing trying to use it on the rival distribution.
Most command-line/scripting tools are very much in common. The package managers may be different, but that?s not a major stumbling block.
Yes, some things really are truly portable, but not everything, and
the higher up the functionality-stack you go the less portable it
seems to be - understandably.
Can you give examples of such interoperability issues, other than
perhaps GUI-based ones?
...or you could just run FreeBSD and avoid the whole issue. Why
bother with Linux? What's so special about it that people feel
_compelled_ to run it?
On 2026-01-23, Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Can you give examples of such interoperability issues, other than
perhaps GUI-based ones?
I'm talking about high-end applications, e.g. 3D modelling software,
video editing, media servers. At this level I just want to launch
the installer, click "yes" "yes" "yes", then get on learning / using
the tool ...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 08:49:01 -0000 (UTC), Ian wrote:
On 2026-01-23, Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Can you give examples of such interoperability issues, other than
perhaps GUI-based ones?
I'm talking about high-end applications, e.g. 3D modelling software,
video editing, media servers. At this level I just want to launch
the installer, click "yes" "yes" "yes", then get on learning / using
the tool ...
Such things are usually available in the package repos: no need to hunt
down installers from third-party sites, just select from the package
manager, click ?Install? and go.
I don't remember which BSD I recently tried to bring up in a VM
(maybe FreeBSD) but installation was like jumping back 40 years
in time to the ASCII-art spinning wheel. It didn't even come up
with a GUI, or else it was X with TWM and no menus, or something
ridiculous like that.
The FreeBSD setup is indeed tui-only. After setup, you can install
X11 and desktops like KDE if you like.
On 2026-01-24, Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 08:49:01 -0000 (UTC), Ian wrote:
On 2026-01-23, Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Can you give examples of such interoperability issues, other than
perhaps GUI-based ones?
I'm talking about high-end applications, e.g. 3D modelling
software, video editing, media servers. At this level I just want
to launch the installer, click "yes" "yes" "yes", then get on
learning / using the tool ...
Such things are usually available in the package repos: no need to
hunt down installers from third-party sites, just select from the
package manager, click ?Install? and go.
"Usually". Experience says otherwise.
Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
...or you could just run FreeBSD and avoid the whole issue. Why
bother with Linux? What's so special about it that people feel
_compelled_ to run it?
Third party commercial applications will run on it. Matlab will not
run on BSD unfortunately.
In article <10l2pga$i97$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
...or you could just run FreeBSD and avoid the whole issue. Why
bother with Linux? What's so special about it that people feel >>>_compelled_ to run it?
Third party commercial applications will run on it. Matlab will not
run on BSD unfortunately.
Yeah, I get that. I do wonder whether it would work with the
Linux compat stuff, but really have no idea about that. I
suppose then I would ask, given the requirement to run an
application like Matlab, which implies Linux, why bother with
ZFS?
In article <10l8sa1$ft6$1@reader2.panix.com>,
Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
In article <10l2pga$i97$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
...or you could just run FreeBSD and avoid the whole issue. Why
bother with Linux? What's so special about it that people feel >>>>_compelled_ to run it?
Third party commercial applications will run on it. Matlab will not
run on BSD unfortunately.
Yeah, I get that. I do wonder whether it would work with the
Linux compat stuff, but really have no idea about that. I
suppose then I would ask, given the requirement to run an
application like Matlab, which implies Linux, why bother with
ZFS?
I don't need ZFS. There are plenty of other reasons to like BSD.
In article <10lbjo4$r2n$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
In article <10l8sa1$ft6$1@reader2.panix.com>,
Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
In article <10l2pga$i97$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> wrote:
...or you could just run FreeBSD and avoid the whole issue. Why >>>>>bother with Linux? What's so special about it that people feel >>>>>_compelled_ to run it?
Third party commercial applications will run on it. Matlab will not >>>>run on BSD unfortunately.
Yeah, I get that. I do wonder whether it would work with the
Linux compat stuff, but really have no idea about that. I
suppose then I would ask, given the requirement to run an
application like Matlab, which implies Linux, why bother with
ZFS?
I don't need ZFS. There are plenty of other reasons to like BSD.
That's fine. This discussion in particular was about ZFS on
Linux, though.
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 11:02:52 +0100, Marco Moock wrote:
The FreeBSD setup is indeed tui-only. After setup, you can install
X11 and desktops like KDE if you like.
KDE is moving to drop support for X11, as I understand it.
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 22:32:28 |
| Calls: | 117 |
| Calls today: | 117 |
| Files: | 367 |
| D/L today: |
560 files (257M bytes) |
| Messages: | 70,898 |
| Posted today: | 26 |