The secret behind FreeBSD VS Linux and how are they different?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 фев 2024
- #FreeBSD #OpenSource #Unix #garyhtech #2023 reasons to use freebsd
Is there really moch of a difference between Linux and FreeBSD? Let's talk about it and see!
Don't forget to check out my Discord server where you can talk open source operating systems and software
/ discord
FOSS
FreeBSD Handbook
FreeBSD Networking
FreeBSD PKG
FreeBSD ports tree 
Наука
![Eminem - Tobey (feat. Big Sean & Babytron) [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9xn0OHEZZ8Q/mqdefault.jpg)
For deployments, its chalk and cheese.
Im just completing my certs for AWS arch / developer for 2024, and I'm getting right into all the new options, and how to put them together on big projects. Linux containers + all things, its getting really complicated now.
But if Im deploying something where im paying for it out of my own pocket - forget all that AWS complexity and cost :). Just spin up a few low end FreeBSD servers using IPv6 for internal comms, and roll out apps using BastilleBSD. Im writing parts of my apps in Zig too, so memory / CPU requirements are insanely low.
For under $100 a month, I can roll out a globally distributed infrastructure, with load balancing and failover, using BSD to host everything. It might be "old", but it's simple and solid and doesnt need to keep getting more complex every month for no good reason.
I think both are solid systems... But I dislike this "distro" jungle very much in Linux. Every few weeks a new distro, claiming better than others. Ahhh - a few weeks I (re-)found Slackware - nice! A real Linux! old - but gold. But leaving my personal points: I installed FreeBSD, Ubuntu and Debian on Servers. Ubuntu and Debian were definitly more complex to be installed than FreeBSD! I am running FreeBSD, maybe with some hand made software solutions - but it works since years. I will stay with *BSD as long as possible 🙂 Linux is only a second choice for me... Cheers from Germany, Norbert
I think, for servers they are both good. The deployment nowadays is completely automated and orchestrated by some tool. At least in a big company.
About the distro, stay with the core one : debian, red hat, arch, maybe opensuse ?.
And just send everything else in the trash..
@@LtSich completely agreed
@@LtSich this is the way I do - when I have to use Linux 🙂
Stick to the popular ones. Main reason? Support. My fav distro is Void Linux but after 2 years it stopped updating packages, little by little my interest for it was starting to dwindle and it didn't feel as stable as I wanted it to be after some time.
Fedora on the other hand, 0 issues. Though, I still miss Void a lot. But I feel safer in Fedora
I like FreeBSD for that Unix feeling. It just feels designed and correct once you learn the way things work.
I completely agree. It boils down to personal choice and preference for me.
As a private user who just plays around I would agree. As a professional who has to earn money with reliable software I prefer a BSD based system (OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD).
Been using FreeBSD since version 2.2.8 and it's just a solid, predictable, stable system. It's a true Unix descendant, with Unix DNA still in the system. For most, that doesn't mean a thing. I like the nostalgia. That being said, I should probably learn Linux. I have put it off for decades. I don't want to learn it, but it's a good career move.
I totally get that. I’m on FreeBSD since 4.8 and since i was 16 I think during that time when I got my software engineering degree. Having to use Windows professionally was always painful knowing UNIX-like systems feel so much better, stable, smooth. But you need right hardware or a fully virtualized environment for having a good experience. Nvidia even started releasing official drivers, cuda and all. I use it on servers for work too, even though administration of Linux ones is a bit easier when need if upgrade arises (only for core distros)
the main difference for me is hardware support.
Pretty much. I Just use the one that I like better and the one that will work with my hardware.
Just rock on with Debian. Always solid
When I started using Linux(2000) on a old pc so I could see if it work for me at the time my main pc had Windows 7 on it.I went full time to Linux when Windows 7 was no longer supported the reason I changed is because I found Linux more fun to use.
For me the last straw was when I did an update in Linux and it bricked the OS. Stability is king to me and I wanted to have the thing just work. Also the documentation and help guides at FreeBSD are top tier. I don't have to hunt for the info I need. I just want things to work w/o some hassles and pain.
I like very much the philosophy behind FreeBSD. What's blocking my switch to this operating system is the lack of support with the latest hardware. And sometimes the latest could also mean hardware of some years.
Linux routes sound from the audio driver to the video driver causing sound to come out of the HDMI cable. FreeBSD can't. This affects ALL i3, i5, i7, i9 systems.
FreeBSD can't even support x11 on my GMKtec K8 with Radeon 780M graphics. Linux Mint does.
@@ByteMeCompletely I follow the page on which is indicated the status of hw support on FreeBSD. But with the hardware of the last three years I see that lots of devices are not recognized. Maybe it is better on PCs.
In the end - which OS runs the most programs that you need to use?
Hi Gary, I've got a question. You point out in the video that choosing an operating systems is highly subjective and that a lot of the tools that follow each respective operating systems do or achieve the same things on each system but are there any areas in which there are objective reasons for choosing one operating system over the other, especially in terms of security, stability and performance?
Nobody beats OpenBSD in security, Linux and BSD are both really stable, and performance depends on your workload
In one of his talks on the FreeBSD kernel, Kirk McKusick compares the internals of FreeBSD to that of Linux and says that if you understand one about 70% would carry over to the other. Not surprising since they're both Unix based or inspired.
Another thing I've heard is to think of FreeBSD development as trying to be more "evolutionary" than Linux's tendency to be "revolutionary"
Eh, no. Linux is not Unix based. Look at the history, there is none.
@Michael19830106 thats true, i was over simplifying. When I said linux based on unix I meant "inspired". There's is a separate genealogy, but Linux (and Minux from which it was inspired), plus the GNU userland programs, were modeled on what existed for Unix at the time.
FreeBSD has a more straight forward genetic lineage with Unix, even if the 90s lawsuit forced out a lot of the remaining AT&T code
@@jholloway77 Well, you can eat fake meat or real meat 😀
Well put!
Hello Gary
I have been a fbsd user for 5 years. Went ahead with an update to 14. Very annoying xorg no screen and framebuffer errors. Have an nvidia card and tried all config but after many hours given up. Installed nvidia drivers and the xorg.conf.d still no startx. Oh well.
Any ideas?
Can you try an AMD card would be easy, so what card do you have so I can recommend something.
looks like a linux driver error where driver shipped by kernel is newer.
The same things happens using MacOS. You have to be careful to realize awk is not gawk. Homebrew works around that.
You have a point there my friend, FreeBSD, reminds me of Xenix and Open SCO Unix. Awesome~Thank you.
Well done. I've seen to much competition (real competition, not just trolls for fun), and I think that so dumb.
Nobody need to downsize others to comfort his own choices.
Linux and BSD are wonderful OSS, made by awesome people for the community. Use it as much as you want, as it fits your own needs and taste, and chill.
I have recently installed FreeBSD to learn, as I'm using Linux (Debian) for years...
After few reading it was really easy to setup a web server on FreeBSD...
But, at the end, as you say, it's close to the same.
And except to run away from SystemD, I don't know exactly how FreeBSD could be better or different as Debian to run my services...
i use linux and i run away from systemD shit
i use void btw and devuan
Linux is bloated as hell. The reason people hate systemD is because it's a bloated init system. I don't think BSD even needs an init system.
Debian is ok if you highly obsolete software. Freebsd is at least to the latest software versions if you tell pkg to pick up the latest releases.
@@RHTORASAre they any good? Most Linux distros suck really bad?
Yes they are. You can do your work with simplicity in mind...@@MitchellJBridges
@@MitchellJBridges bloated then install a different innit there's gentoo, artix , alpine, etc . FreeBSD hardware support for bluetooth and printer. You want use to buy dongles? Meh this is the reason why freebsd will never be a good as a desktop.
I just can't live without ZFS and PF. I tried using Linux with ZFS a few years ago but the maturity of things like root on ZFS was inadequate. The thing that sucks for both Linux and *BSD is the lack of orchestration as a core feature. I find myself running a zillion commands and changing dozens of files on every new machine I turn up, which isn't very scalable, and I find there's a lot of toil keeping everything up-to-dated, even with hand rolled automation in place.
NixOS is the one for u.. I think
@@tonyantony8748 Thanks for the tip, looks like an approach worth investigating
For people usually 'X is better than Y' is down to liking that difference in accomplishing that task.
Well said Gary I like to use GhostBSD along with my Linux distro's and I have dabbled with FreeBSD as well. We are all different and have different preferences but nothing is better than anything else if it does what we need it to do.
I think Linux is faster moving and broader as far as hardware support and it also has wider filesystem support. FreeBSD is very stable and is less of a target for malware. I've got to do a lot more playing with FreeBSD but I'm thinking that FreeBSD is good for systems that you want to be stable, not to change too much and perhaps provide services to a network whereas Linux will support bleeding edge type workloads and pimped out desktop systems.
I've got to try out some real hacking tools - wifi capture, hashcat and metasploit - on FreeBSD to see if it will handle that type of thing. I suspect I'll have trouble with wifi stuff - getting wifi adapters to work in monitor mode and so forth.
FreeBSD is great for virtual servers.
Im sending you to JAIL
They are both good OS, I just don't understand why (and this is mostly coming from the *BSD community) there is this need to compare this and the other. I'm frankly tired to hear the usual song (*BSD is a whole OS, Linux is a kernel and bla bla bla bla). I would love to use FreeBSD but the hardware support -as desktop user- isn't there at all. Nothing works on my laptops and desktops (WiFi, suspend/resume and sound in first instance) plus more weidness once a desktop is loaded (ie if I use the multimedia keys of my keyboard the entire laptop freeze for 20/30 seconds for no reasons). All of that, in 2024... this is why I use Linux today everywhere. And I don't care if it's kernel + utilities or how many teams works on it. I just don't care... It works beautifully everywhere, it's fast and stable. When and if FreeBSD will get better with the hardware support I will be more than happy to give it another go (hopefully FreeBSD 15?).
Because the whole BSD community is 2, if not more, orders of magnitude smaller than a user base of any main Linux distro. And these comparisons are what makes BSD vocal, attracting occasionally aspiring users. Unfortunately, we can't implement bleeding edge technologies fast or have better hardware support - we are too small. Simply ignore our rant!
@@IvanIvanov-nn9os I think you are referring to the adoption of FreeBSD as desktop OS; when it comes to servers, companies do different evaluations when it comes to adop this or the other OS (be it Windows, Linux, *BSD etc). As a Desktop (which I think it's what it's making Linux great these days -especially after Steam is now available for Linux -I'm not a gamer at all- but I can see on various Linux subreddit how Linux is now 'converting' a conspicuous Windows user base. *BSD, to be a real option as Desktop at 360' degrees, need to improve the hardware support; this is the only way. The BSD community can keep shouting and assert that BSD is better and 'whole' but then, if the final user is unable to install it and use it... well it's a loss isn't it?
I really hope that FreeBSD 15 will improve the situation.
Good point man, exactly what i think!
@fdg394 Well, and of course, we are talking about desktops and desktops only. Enterprise BSD is a different cookie indeed. And I fully agree - desktop BSD does not work that well (at least on laptops), but this is a fun experience for those who love tinkering, nothing more.
@IvanIvanov-nn9os it's like what Linux used to be decades earlier, hopefully there will be a time when more people can daily drive BSD.
If one needs proprietary, or some other third party software, it seems difficult enough to find for Linux. I would think even more so for FreeBSD. I suppose WINE can be built on FreeBSD?
GNU Guix is similar to FreeBSD in being made in one go also.
Hi Gary. Is it possible to create a live/recovery memstick/flashdrive? If yes, how? I'm in sort of urgent pickle right now.
I've been using FreeBSD since 2005, and watching your videos since 2022.
In the old days, the architecture was the real challenge. Installing unix or linux was more like landing the OS. I started with SCO, Slackware, Solaris 2.6 and Netware. Today we have search engines and now even AI, but I miss the days where you showed up at a userGroup like the "LUGs" with a box of computer parts and the group got together to build a computer? Those groups later became an integral in the linux community as they also served as swap meets. So to me, the difference between Unix and Linux was that the Unix guys were more lonesome whilst the linux users were a group of guys running LAN parties at home and were also members of UserGroups. In Unix (this is how its done) in Linux (this is how we do it)
I had a “coherent” unix running on 286 . I guess the manual with the command line tools of that OS will work on the terminals of BSD, Linux and macOS.
Certified cat owner moment right there, paw under the door. I stick with Slackware because it's what I know and binary compatibility. There's not much I use that couldn't work just as well on any BSD or any other Linux distro, or heck even Windows. It's mostly about familiarity, but there are a few edge cases that require sticking around. Although, I do wonder what video editor you use, and if WINE works on FreeBSD, though neither would be a requisite for me regardless. I like playing old games, but most work great in open source emulators that could run anywhere.
I like FreeBSD better because I feel I have more control how it is getting setup. I can have a FreeBSD server and when it boots up it will just have what I need for it to run properly. If I have a FreeBSD laptop or Desktop, I still have all the apps that I want or need to use. The server and desktop look vastly different when booted because they are customized to do what they need to do. Linux is great, but something like Ubuntu is a one size fits all OS. Nothing wrong with that because you can setup a system quickly, but FreeBSD removes the "fluff"
Good points in video. You do you. Im on linux as i just want it to work.
I welcome when free bsd is better at just working with all hardware and devices.
I am on Linux 12 years, after i removed windows partitions ..
now I want to try FreeBSD, the installation starts in text, similar as Arch starts, or Gentoo Linux ....
I think 🤔 .... do i need to learn FreeBSD's documentation, spending weeks to get into the system, command line, parameters, setups, etc and for what purposes 🤔 ?
- What can i achieve in FreeBSD ?
- What can i find in FreeBSD what isn't in Linux 🤔 ?
When i was on Arch for 3 years, I was excited of Gentoo, compiling with thousands of parameters, compiling a kernel to the maximum sharpness .... and later comparing Arch vs Gentoo 🤔 .... 0.3 second of better Gentoo performance, but almost 1 hour of compilation time in almost every day upgrade on Gentoo 🤔 even using the all RAM memory to make it faster ....
Arch was crashing often
Gentoo was not much better
Now i am happy on Linux Mint 4th year 🥳 .... no problems, no crashes, no compilations, no defining thousands parameters .... 🤔 I do my work beautifully easy, everything is done, it is like watching television, on, watch film, off sleep ✌
Sooooo - what's a point to learn FreeBSD, except be happy to learn a new system 🤔 .... BECAUSE WE LOVE TO LEARN THEM 😂😅
I've used FreeBSD for a couple months last year for working on a uni project and after I was done working on that project I had no reason to stay on FreeBSD. I could've done all my work on Linux but I chose to give FreeBSD a try as a Desktop OS for software development and it's a great OS, but there's nothing I could find as a desktop user that makes it a better choice than Linux. The hardware support and software compatibility are worse than on Linux, but all in all it's more or less the same experience.
What's the point to learning FreeBSD? None, really, unless you just enjoy this stuff. That's reason enough in itself.
True... It's up to us users if they want to learn software engineering. Just like my students they look into something easy for them to understand.When I introduce them to Big Linux a friendly Arch/Manjaro-based OS almost easy for them compare to Google's chrome. If they want to explore software programming and engineering there's more to choose from that's including freeBSD. I've introduce them to different OS to make them curious and interesting to our computer and science and technology subjects. From KDE Neon, Ubuntu, Edubuntu, Linux Mint, Pop, Fedora, Big Linux, GhostBSD and so on. It's up to us users if we want to learn new stuff. Hope I wish aside from GhostBSD we have some easier installers to download for them to learn about different OS in BSD. Chees from Khon Kaen Thailand/Iloilo City Philippines.
Please Unix svr vs Linux
Do you drive a VW or a Ford?
Neither 🤣
Intriguing. I was trying to decide between Scirocco or Capri. Back to the drawing board…
@@Sm2n I drive an mg hs, it's rubbish though, I would not recommend
I would drive a simple car 🙂 What will happen, if the automatism for parking in a lot breaks and you never did it manually? It will be impossible or very difficult, or? Some is automatism is good, everything done automatically - not. Cheers, Norbert
But did you ever have a Capri? Or maybe a Vauxhall Calibra?
I use both! I do alias date to gdate on my bsd machines because gdate can do epoch time conversions and FreeBSD’s native date command cannot. Other than that yeah _its a Unix system_
Freecad sometimes runs twice as fast under ghostbsd as under linux
I’m the odd one out… BSD was my “intro” to *nix-CLI through the prerelease of MacOS X at the turn of the millennium. That opened my path to Linux backends. I still use both BSD and Linux on different server & virtualisation applications - all headless.
So, that doesn’t make me an archetypal “end user”, I guess. My desktops are all three main paradigms as to use & need - Mac, Windows PC and Linux (laptops or VMs).
They are tools, aren’t they…? 🤓👍
When it works its pretty similar. Terminal commands are a bit different but if you are good with any distro the bsd wont be a problem if you read the documention. I will stick with Linux for now. The only true difference is BSD is more true to Unix while Linux is not Unix.
OT: If you use a voice gate, try to turning it off when recording such videos. The complete cutting out of any audio when you're not talking is irritating.
Linux is more convenient for gaming imo. This is why I use it. (EndeavourOS for me.) But, I started to learn about BSD on your channel and I sure keep an eye on it. I won't be a gamer forever and I really dig the "all in the same house" approach of BSD. Instead of the shotgunned maze of parts that makes up most Linux distros. Hell, I might even install it on my backup computer when I have the time.
Not at all a "hot" take, I almost completely agree with you. I did never and will never understand the "Distro bashing" some people are doing: 'You do you' sums it up nicely. As I have to maintain diverse systems for my company both have it's merits; Netgate for instance is doing great things on the BSD-side though I do miss systemd a lot every time I set up FreeBSD.
I love FreeBSD for it's stable, rock solid, regal feeling and the logical setup of the system. Been using it since FreeBSD 2.2.x.
It's just... perfect.
I like Linux, especially SuSE and Debian, but nothing compares to FreeBSD, except the other BSDs. It has also influenced Linux so much.
Do not forget, iOS and Mac OS are based on BSD.
My kernel way to mean for you
Leaving out the main thing free open source
they are both free and open-source, tho
BSD might arguably still be the best way to get optimal performance, but it's a lot more specialized and expensive to maintain because everyone knows Linux, few know BSD distros
I think freebsd is simpler in a lot of ways and is better made to be understood. Like the man pages and the way things work in freebsd is a lot more down to earth and like here user you will learn and understand this now. Like it’s built in a way such that they don’t expect you to have to google everything. And almost like they keep things dumb. Linux a lotta time I think just relies on you finding the information and figuring it out yourself and is less hand holdy about that sorta stuff. And in a way Linux is such a richer more popular ecosystem that it kinda can’t be like that. It’s like in Linux there are almost too many different ways it could be setup, whereas in fbsd it’s just the one.
Fedora Desktop*
Linux right now can replace Windows's average users needs out of the box and you can't take that away from them.
But Freebsd is the next stage of configuration and control of your system that Linux power users are seeking and should try.
Lack of device drivers in FreeBSD is the biggest difference IMO.
There must be some reason why experts decided to choose Linux as the os for supercomputer systems instead of Unix
Unix? I thought development of Unix as Unix stopped years ago.
@@donaldmickunas8552 I mean later descendants of unix, I often misuse the word "unix" to refer to similar operating systems or kernels
Linux is easier to install and it has way more drivers that work out of the box.
I install linux and freebsd and microsoft every day on computers. Linux is by far the easiest to automate and get going in under 5 minutes. A freebsd and microsoft install wants to partition the disk and do all sorts of other nonsense like I'm an idiot. Linux lets you install the way you want.
But once you get into making your own software, freebsd is king.
@@0.Maiden Unix derivatives might be a good term,.
@@complexity5545 How familiar are you with FreeBSD? I’ve never heard of FreeBSD preventing someone from partitioning their drive. Have you read their documentation on partitioning and installation? Their standards are not exactly the same as Linux. I’m also surprised that you haven’t dealt with that issue already since you are installing it daily.
Biggest difference for those actually using the system: FreeBSD doesn't have a system layer yet.
What do you mean by that? Genuinely asking.
@@JoeyGarcia I recommend you watch "The tragedy of SystemD", but just to explain a little:
There was a time when people used to connect cards on the computer and then had to program addresses and IRQ to make the device work on the operating system, and then, slowly, this configuration was done automatically (don't see configuration as system software config files but configuration as the state needed to do something, just like a plane need some kind of configuration to land).
To solve this issue Mac used LaunchD, WIndows uses ServiceHost and other tools and Linux have SystemD and other units, FreeBSD doesn't have that (yet), and OpenLaunchD project is basically dead at this point.
FreeBSD still uses a Init system with scripting, it's okay for tech savvy people to use personal computers, it's ok to a static configuration in 1 or 2 services, but when the "machines take care of other machines" units and context are king.
When you install a new window manager on Mac you can change the "window manager unit" to a new one, same for Linux when you install a new login manager or window manager, most Linux distros will show you "these 2 units are the same, pick one for this context", FreeBSD doesn't make that for you, you don't have a layer of "this software needs this one to work after this one starts and then this one can't start with this other one", you have a init system and scripts, and that's all you have.
Do i want FreeBSD to use SystemD? Hell no! SystemD sucks! But it sucks even if operating system doesn't have a system layer in 2024, i would migrate to FreeBSD ASAP if the OpenLaunchD was the default way to use FreeBSD.
Like a friend of mine said: "FreeBSD guys can hate SystemD as much as they want, but the end user will never write configs on ~/.xinitrc in order to have a f*cking working window manager".
@@JoeyGarcia it looks like my comment was deleted lol
Linux routes sound from the audio driver to the video driver causing sound to come out of the HDMI cable. FreeBSD can't. This affects ALL i3, i5, i7, i9 systems.
FreeBSD can't even support x11 on my GMKtec K8 with Radeon 780M graphics. Linux Mint does.
I'm not tech savvy to say but there is one major point of difference.
Linux is built on Unix but also based on the GNU packages to build the foundation.
BSD is purely based on Unix.
GNU is the source of the open licensing part. But it also means there's a core code difference of the two how they're structured.
Unfortunately FreeBSD's hardware/software compatibility is nowhere near Windows or even Linux. The average user is certainly not going to use FreeBSD, which is a shame because if FreeBSD had the support of Windows this would be a different discussion.
Freebsd has better zfs support than linux. I would opt for freebsd when building storage servers.
FreeBSD vs Linux. But WHICH Linux? Some Linux Distributions are more like BSD eg Slackware, Gentoo, and some are more like Windows, and some are just their own thing.
FreeBSD documentation is superior compared to Linux Distros. Easy configuration with sysrc. FreeBSD is absolutely stable. FreeBSD has better ZFS support. Much security related Distros like TrueNAS, pfSense, "MacOS", Playstation OS therefore use FreeBSD. On the other hand Linux has the latest cool shi1 for the cool kids. As a professional it's always better to use a BSD rather tnan Kids OS Linux :)
FreeBSD is the closest thing you can get to unix. Without making a video that's all he had to say
FreeBSD is for sluggish people that do not run after shiny toys. Nothing changes in FreeBSD in five years. Linux is undergoing constant change and most Linux users like new shiny toys and update their OS stack constantly. FreeBSD users are old-fashioned in the sense of having an Oldsmobile.
FreeBSD has really missed out by refusing to create a good user experience. People just don’t want to have to manually configure a desktop gui .
Why did you add clips with different audio over your voice? That's very confusing and annoying.
The zooming in an out is extremely annoying.
- Most of FreeBSD desktops are developped on Linux by non-FreeBSD devs
- FreeBSD does not support docker which is basically a standard for services
- FreeBSD supports much less hardware
FreeBSD is vastly superior. NetBSD even moreso. If I wanted to be cheeky, I'd say the big difference is GNU/Linux has MAJOR vulnerabilities in it's C library drop every couple of months, the BSDs do not
The question is whether or not that is more a matter of quality over quantity. In other words the more people that use a given system, the more errors will naturally accumulate with more frequent releases that are attempting to cover a larger swath of issues. Bsd would be in the exact same situation were there market share the same, because naturally their devs would also likewise be spread more thinly as well.
@@ghost-user559 Um no. The source of NetBSD is so well designed, a student with two semesters of C under his belt can understand it clearly. Contrast that with Linux kernel source, which looks like the winner of last years Obfuscated C Contest. I don't think you understand WHY it's like that either. Much of the Linux kernel source looks like it couldn't possibly have been written by a human becaues it WASN'T. They've been using ML techniques, dynamically modelling processors and other hardware and auto-generating source code based on that for quite some time. The late 90s in fact. Why do you think they always boast about all the high powered clusters they use for "development"? It's never dawned on you that "hey needing 5 racks of clustered equipment isn't a normal development requirement"? LOL
@@telesniper2 Well that’s not exactly my point. What would happen if the Bsd community was under the same constraints as the Linux Foundation as a whole? It’s no comparison at all, as the scale is nowhere equivalent. It’s like comparing handmade furniture with ikea, its a pointless comparison without acknowledging the difference in scale. Obviously any product with a small knit hand made quality will be superior in some ways to a mass produced machine made product. And yet most of us understand we have to get by with inferior quality products because of the scale required to manufacture them to provide for a global market. Bsd relies upon community ports of applications and otherwise they have very little official support for anything. You would have to do all the work yourself if you had problems with drivers, hardware or literally anything. Linux does one thing well and that is not stability but accessibility. Bsd at the same scale would likely mean the same exact problems as Linux at scale.
@@telesniper2 I’m not saying Unix is not stable, I’m just saying that Bsd is such a small community in comparison to Linux that the end user experience is a nightmare unless you are literally a coder or you have extremely basic computing needs. For people with advanced software or who need hardware compatibility with obscure equipment, or need compatible software for music and audio recording, filmmaking, book publishing, graphic design, gaming, like literally everything and anything not coding related or basic computing, its just not desktop ready yet. I’ve heard its amazing for servers, and obviously Unix is very stable in all its derivations. But The Bsd community as a whole is the exact opposite of inviting or usable for the neophyte. An at scale I can’t see the difference between what Linux became, and what Bsd would inevitably become with too many cooks in the kitchen at the scale we see Linux at today.
@@ghost-user559 Huh?? NetBSD supports more hardware. Also if that's not enough, you can use Linux "drivers". And almost any open source driver for anything on linux gets ported to Free and NetBSD in a short amount of time. So you're really only glad about the availibity of a few closed source drivers. Well I'm not interested in those.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux,
is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux.
Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component
of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell
utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day,
without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU
which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are
not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a
part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system
that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run.
The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself;
it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is
normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system
is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux"
distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
Whilst the Linux mob are pushing up their spectacles and flapping about telling you how to define Linux, us FreeBSD folks are getting on with useful work. No offence intended mate, but this is the reason why I stopped using Linux years ago. The users are a special breed...
@@UnixAntlol, he or she is quoted Richard Stallmen lol. Most people know the facts about Linux by now. I dont see ant value in arguing about which system better because both use the same programs. If I was using Bsd or A linuc distros as a true noob, I would not know the difference.
@@UnixAnt thats a copy pasta joke in the Linux community like "crazy, I was crazy once...."
Linux is not an operating system so is not illumos. And everytime i see a bsd user compare bsd's with systemD AND not Linux distributions. Some would say fedora or ubuntu are bloat. Yes they are. Void and Devuan are not. So it's fair to compare real linux with bsd. Very nice video btw.
Lennart Poettering is the root of all evil.
true there's slackware, alpine, artix, & gentoo.
it is not about you or me! It is which is adopted in the general corporations!!!!!!
how short sighted you are! Linux is used in all corporations today. They play a mayor part in telecom. Where is free bsd there? Its not there!!
I know free bsd and it is horrible! Even though almost all linux prgs may be run. It is horrible.