I am not a freebsd user, been on linux since 1992, but most of the time I read something about freebsd users and it seems like they want to be some older unix, like Solaris or True64 or something.
SunOS was BSD and Nirvana as far as Unix goes. Solaris was SysV and quickly earned the nickname "Slowlaris". For me FreeBSD is the functional descendant of SunOS.
As for Linux I first tried it out in 1993 and was appalled that command line switches for most standard Unix utils had been arbitrarily remapped. Tried FreeBSD 1.0 when it came out and never looked back. Of course I use Linux in AWS and various servers at work and regularly experiment with Linux distros on personal machines but it always feels a bit "off".
I wonder how many other greybeards that cut their teeth on SunOS prefer FreeBSD over Linux today?
Not a greybeard but I certainly reach for a BSD when I want to "use Unix".
Linux is a quivering basket case that cant decide if its Unix, MacOS or Windows.
A more positive spin on this would be that it combines the best of all three.
Personally I'm very much in the Unix camp though, and have the proverbial greybeard long enough to trip over. But I can see the value in the "Linux way" of doing things. Actually, I mostly just use Linux myself these days, mainly because of software compatibility and because it's "Unix-y enough" with the right distro; a decent trade-off.
A more accurate spin would be that it does a half-assed job of implementing features from each but runs off half way to chase after some other shiny feature.
That's the virtue of BSD; it's simple, it's documented it's complete (in features and feature implementation).
That could be an interesting question. I certainly cut my teeth on SunOS and Irix. I much prefer modern Linux.
I do prefer FreeBSD over most Linux distros (except Slackware) from a philosophical standpoint.
[Usenet; poss. from the variety of prosimian called a “slow loris”. The variant ‘Slowlartus’ is also common, related to LART]
Common hackish term for Solaris, Sun's System VR4 version of Unix that came out of the standardization wars of the early 1990s. So named because especially on older hardware, responsiveness was much less crisp than under the preceding SunOS. Early releases of Solaris (that is, Solaris 2, as some marketroids at Sun retroactively rechristened SunOS as Solaris 1) were quite buggy, and Sun was forced by customer demand to support SunOS for quite some time. Newer versions are acknowledged to be among the best commercial Unix variants in 1998, but still lose single-processor benchmarks to Sparc Linux.
But I always liked SUN Solaris for its features and solutions.
GNU and Linux distributions are actually Unix clones, with different distributions mimicking or incorporating code from the various open source and proprietary Unix operating systems. For example, Slackware used to use an rc-style init system like BSD. Linux cgroups (underlying tech like Docker) look very much like Solaris zones. GNU coreutils have POSIX compatibility modes. Systemd looks a lot like Solaris SMF. Stuff like ZFS and DTrace were imported from OpenSolaris. And so on.
That's a common misconception. It's as much of a UNIX as Linux is (see the AT&T lawsuit).
It's great that other projects make other choices about default shells and other system design details.
EDIT: Oh, and I would expect BSDs to feel a lot more like traditional unix because they're direct descendants of UNIX™, unlike the later clones like GNU/Linux.
Plus the documentation for FreeBSD is much, much better. For one thing, no pushing me to use that god awful “infodoc” crap.