Hacker News Reader

Comment by Cieplak | Hacker News Reader

I stopped using Ubuntu after Amazon affiliate marketing showed up on the desktop. I stopped using Arch after I read the source code for SystemD. FreeBSD had quite a learning curve, but now it's on my laptops and is my preferred server OS. I love DTrace. I love ZFS. I love pf. I love Jails. I love ports, even though I generally use pkg. I love how easy it is to compile a kernel. The FreeBSD handbook is awesome. All the JetBrains IDEs work well with it. Hardware support is spotty and battery life is terrible. The BSD license means you can incorporate FreeBSD into commercial products without infecting yourself with the GPL.

View on HN

So you came from Arch, and thought FreeBSD had quite a learning curve? Hmm maybe I should rethink FreeBSD and stick with Mint.

FreeBSD has been a learning curve for me in terms of learning kernel development and things like kqueue and ZFS. I didn't find it difficult in terms of getting started, since it is a lot like Arch in terms of setting up things like X windows.

Neither are that hard, FreeBSD has the additional challenge of overcoming Linuxisms. Just takes a little reading, and the FreeBSD Handbook is an excellent work.

FreeBSD is actually a much cleaner operating system than other unix-like clones. I have used it for a decade but my work required me to use linux.

Best parts already mentioned in this thread (pf, jails, etc.) I would add one thing to the list:

https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?hier(7)

Since Cieplak mentioned systemd:

* https://freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/file-hierarchy....

May I ask what's so bad with the SystemD source?

I wouldn't say that it's bad. I just find it to be quite complex, e.g., why does it need its own web server? I was also troubled by the number of Debian maintainers who left the Debian project over the intense controversy, as well as Linus's comments.

Systemd doesn't embed a webserver. It provides a service separate from both the logger and the main systemd process, which allows remote logs access. There are many issues I have with pulling various projects into one umbrella organisation, but saying systemd integrates webserver is just incorrect.

https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd-jou...

Precisely what I described. It's a web server that serves journald events/entries. It's separate from journald, and it's separate from systemd as a service. It's completely optional. It's no more embedded in systemd than nginx.

It does exist in the same umbrella project as systemd, (and I think that is an issue) but embedded is the wrong term.

> embedded is the wrong term

Don't use it then. Anyway, since systemd-the-project doesn't have a separate name from systemd-the-init, I don't see any problem with Cieplak's statement.

I'm calling it out because there are many people saying completely wrong things about systemd project. Both the init itself and other services. There's a lot of things that could be criticised about systemd, but if people constantly attack it just because they misunderstand it, it's going to be much harder to agree and change anything about the legitimate issues. Being specific helps.

So the anti-systemd trolls who harassed and attacked Debian developers until they quit are a point against systemd? Interesting perspective.

OpenBSD seems to do better on laptops driver-wise.

(I run Open and Free, and started with Net, I have no dog in this race)

I've always been curious about *bsd on laptops.

What laptop are you using and exactly what does/does not work for you?

Why not trying any systemd-less Linux distro?

E.g. Guix is a very cool Nix-like distro.

Alpine Linux is pretty awesome as well.

https://forum.alpinelinux.org/forum/general-discussion/alpin...

Small review of FreeBSD (I used it for a very short period of time, so I could be off the wall, though).

PREFACE

I've been using linux since the mid-90s. I know how to use the console, I compiled kernels, played with the old xfree86 config files and all that back in the day.

THE GOOD OF FreeBSD:

* Stable. It feels like a Unix out of the 80s. If you know what you're doing, it'll get the job done.

* man pages - Haven't used them much on Linux recently, felt that they were on the level of command --help, but on FreeBSD they felt like reading an authoritative blog post. Clear and concise.

* Cross-update versions - better than Debian. I personally never successfully had a seamless update between major releases, while FreeBSD did.

* No systemd (for now) - Unfortunately, systemd is taking over Linux because the largest block of user-space OSS programmers work for RedHat, which pushes for systemd. IIRC, the reason Debian went with systemd is because their maintainers simply have no resources to commit to remove it from gnome, etc.

However, as systemd grows in scope, FreeBSD will have to either play with it, re-implement it in a normal way (which will let other Linux systems find a way out), or stop being compatible with gtk, gnome, et al.

THE IRRELEVANT:

* BSD license - unless you're modifying and then distributing your modification, it doesn't matter.

* "Fragmantation" - True, "FreeBSD" is less fragmented than "Linux", but "BSD" is more fragmented than "Linux" and "Debian" (or RedHat or Ubuntu or Arch...) is the same not fragmented as FreeBSD. Look at the Distro as the OS rather than the kernel.

And it doesn't matter -

If you're distributing OSS, then release it as POSIX and configure; make; make install, and let the distro figure out packaging.

If you want to make life easier for the distro or releasing closed source software, Linux (on the server) has an order of magnitude more users than FreeBSD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste... ), and if your program works with Debian, Ubuntu and RedHat/CentOS, you'll probably cover the vast majority of users.

* Ports - Complicated to update, takes a long time (unless you have a fleet of servers), and can't be automated. And pkg is no better than apt.

* ZFS - ZFS is being ported to Linux, and btrfs may one day become stable. Either way, in a few years you'll be able to run the same ZFS on Linux as on FreeBSD.

THE GOOD IN LINUX

* Update - On Debian, you run apt upgrade && apt update. And it updates everything. And if you're on a stable release, updates are only bug-fixes, so (short of bugs/regressions), it can be automated.

FreeBSD, on the other hand, doesn't have enough maintainers to keep a stable ports tree, so every update can break your setup. So every update has to be taken care of manually.

* Security - Yes, I know that "experts" like the FreeBSD kernel better and everything, but the FreeBSD kernel has bugs of its own, so practically the key to secure both is keeping them up to date. And most of the time you're using ports, which isn't really run by FreeBSD and subject to their code review. So as Linux has an easier time updating (see above), it would be more secure.

* Directory structure - Why would you want a "blessed" vi? Why should a distro manager decide that /usr/bin/vi is (say) vim while neovim /usr/local/bin/nvi.

If anything, Linux is a lot more "Unixy" (I do know that FreeBSD is the "traditional" way, but I think that Linux is a lot more Unixy) - Why shouldn't I be able to write my own libc without having to maintain my own kernel? On Linux I can replace glibc with muslc. Why can't I do the same on FreeBSD?

If anything, this is what everyone's complaining about systemd: "It's not modular". Well, neither is the FreeBSD base. (Though in truth, FreeBSD seems much more careful about basic software hygiene than systemd).

* Default software - Maybe I'm unique, but I kind of like bash. I don't see why it shouldn't be my default shell except "Well, if it didn't exist in the 80s, it won't exist now" (It could also be a licensing issue, but as a user I don't really care about that).

Others will scream "ShellShock". Well, yes. Though ShellShock shouldn't be a security issue if you don't rely on userspace software to maintain security.

The OS should assume that software will break, and defend against it. So things like pledge or SELinux are much more effective (and sustainable) than treating userspace bugs as security holes.

Though in truth, I can't see why Apache should ever run bash honestly.

Errr.. the linked article means no, it is not safe to just cron an apt-get upgrade. In theory Debian is maintaining ABI/API. In practice there are issues. Rolling releases in practice have better tradeoffs, but require continuous deployment. On a workstation there are really no significant issues. On a production infrastructure, you need to use poudriere to maintain your own repos and orchestrate a branching and installation strategy.

btrfs seems like an elaborate hoax. ZoL is fine, but support and integration still go Illumos > FreeBSD > ZoL. There are enough commercial products using FreeBSD ZFS that it is robust.

UNIX uses the shell for a lot of things, interactive users are just one infrequent process. Bash is harmful as a non-interactive shell. Change your interactive shell to bash or zsh, problem solved.

>Errr.. the linked article means no, it is not safe to just cron an apt-get upgrade. In theory Debian is maintaining ABI/API. In practice there are issues. Rolling releases in practice have better tradeoffs, but require continuous deployment. On a workstation there are really no significant issues. On a production infrastructure, you need to use poudriere to maintain your own repos and orchestrate a branching and installation strategy.

There's a difference between manually logging in once a day and typing apt-get update && apt-get upgrade, seeing warnings, responding to them and applying and re-configuring/recompiling ports.

One can take five minutes. One can take an hour.

>On a workstation there are really no significant issues.

Yes, and on linux you can run testing. But I want more stability on a server.

> ZoL is fine, but support and integration still go Illumos > FreeBSD > ZoL. There are enough commercial products using FreeBSD ZFS that it is robust.

For some reason, all of a sudden everyone thinks that ZoL is legally safe to use. I'm not a lawyer, but whatever. The point is that it's still new and not tested significantly, but it should be more stable soon.

>UNIX uses the shell for a lot of things, interactive users are just one infrequent process. Bash is harmful as a non-interactive shell. Change your interactive shell to bash or zsh, problem solved.

So write shell scripts against /bin/sh or dash.

>Bash is harmful as a non-interactive shell.

How is it harmful? I mean why are your putting your shell in an untrusted environment?

Moreover, I understand if you like sh, tcsh, zsh or bash. My point is that it seems to me more of a "we always used tcsh/sh, so that's how it will stay forever" rather than "let's see what's the best default shell now and use it".

And why can't both shells (or zsh, which is MIT licensed) be included in base?

>For some reason, all of a sudden everyone thinks that ZoL is legally safe to use. I'm not a lawyer, but whatever.

That reason is because it's free software, even the FSF thinks it's fine to use ZFS on your system. The issue is whether it's fine for the ZFS module to be distributed with the Linux kernel.

And automatically updating ports is easy. Set up Poudriere somewhere to build every night, log in, check security notices, and install the already compiled packages.

If I may comment on a couple of these (have been running Debian at home and FreeBSD at work for a long time):

> And pkg is no better than apt.

Apt is pretty good, so being no better than it isn't that bad.

> * Directory structure - Why would you want a "blessed" vi? Why should a distro manager decide that /usr/bin/vi is (say) vim while neovim /usr/local/bin/nvi.

> * Default software - Maybe I'm unique, but I kind of like bash. I don't see why it shouldn't be my default shell except "Well, if it didn't exist in the 80s, it won't exist now" (It could also be a licensing issue, but as a user I don't really care about that).

It helps to think of FreeBSD base as a minimum workable install: the goal is not to install everything you need, it's to get enough software that you can a) build whatever you need from ports, b) rebuild the kernel and the world. That's why /usr/bin/vi is vi (not vim) and the vi you like is in /usr/local/bin/, it's pretty helpful to have a screen oriented editor, so they've given you a basic one. I personally am not sure why they ship tcsh in base, but it's probably because they always have; philosophically they should just let you install tcsh if you need it, just like bash. Running a simpler shell than bash for /bin/sh is just good sense, Debian uses dash for /bin/sh too.

> doesn't have enough maintainers to keep a stable ports tree, so every update can break your setup

You mean frozen package versions + backported security fixes as in stable Debian branch? I think Debian is pretty unique in trying to support the whole world.

Just to clarify, FreeBSD as a project only supports the base system. Ports tree doesn't have any notion of releases and is intended to be always kept up to date, akin to Gentoo portage or Arch linux packages.

>You mean frozen package versions + backported security fixes as in stable Debian branch? I think Debian is pretty unique in trying to support the whole world.

>Just to clarify, FreeBSD as a project only supports the base system. Ports tree doesn't have any notion of releases and is intended to be always kept up to date, akin to Gentoo portage or Arch linux packages.

Yes. I understand the amount of work Debian admins put in (which is why I stick with Debian, even though nixos/guix seems much more interesting), but it's a strong advantage.

> Maybe I'm unique, but I kind of like bash. I don't see why it shouldn't be my default shell except "Well, if it didn't exist in the 80s, it won't exist now" (It could also be a licensing issue, but as a user I don't really care about that).

Where's the beef? If you like/want it, then just make it your default shell. All it takes is "pkg install bash" and "chsh". I happen to find the default /bin/sh (Almquist shell) provides just about everything I care about in bash, while being much lighter weight and less full of security holes, but if I ever want bash all I have to do is type "bash" from my sh prompt.

Can you provide any good entry points to the BSD world?

Are you coming from Linux, Windows or OSX?

I am very good with Linux and Windows. So either of the two are fine.

I would perhaps spend some time running it in a VM, and then if you decide you like it and think it's worth the time investment, maybe try installing it on your laptop. I run it on a Thinkpad X1. The handbook is a great resource:

https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/

The book, Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD Operating System is quite good if you like technical reading.

There are several, depending from what one wants. TrueOS, formerly known as PC-BSD, is a good entry point if one wants a desktop-style system. Or one can try vanilla FreeBSD. Or OpenBSD. Have some user guides and Handbooks to read:

* NetBSD Guide: https://netbsd.org/docs/guide/en/

* FreeBSD Handbook: https://freebsd.org/doc/handbook/book.html

* DragonFlyBSD Handbook: https://www.dragonflybsd.org/docs/handbook/

* TrueOS User Guide: https://www.trueos.org/handbook/trueos.html

* PC-BSD User Guide: http://web.pcbsd.org/doc-archive/10.1.2/html/pcbsd.html (viewable off-line directly in both PDF and HTML forms in /usr/local/share/pcbsd/doc/)

Do you Firefox? Because Firefox has Google as the default search engine which got them to receive hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Without that money,firefox would have been a lousy browser mainly by volunteers. Ubuntu tried to do something with amazon but probably did not earn enough money and was scrapped for more than a year.

You're mistaken, FF is using Yahoo! right now.

Not in the EU...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com