FreeBSD vs. Slackware
roqet.org
roqet.org
As someone that's used Slackware AND FreeBSD heavily (I ran Slackware as a desktop for a year around 2008 before switching to Gentoo and have used FreeBSD in a high-volume server environment)- my advice is NEITHER.
I use Ubuntu Server now. I rather get shit done with a heavily-used, well-supported Linux distro instead of dealing with package hell and compiling most everything from source.
When was the last time someone encountered a task that was impossible to perform due to limited resource management (unless you're working with experimental stuff)? Most people come up with better strategies, or they're too stupid to think of alternatives.
FreeBSD has binary repositories as well plus even it's source repositories (read: ports) is just are reliable as the best Linux has to offer.
Furthermore, ZFS is a killer feature (yes, I know Linux has BtrFS, but as far as I know it's still not yet classed as 'stable' - while ZFS is already tried, tested and depended upon in many servers right across the globe).
And personally, I think FreeBSD has a lot saner defaults than Ubuntu Server.
/Laurence (FreeBSD and Slackware user for the last 10 years)
I disagree about ports being as reliable as package management on Ubuntu. For me, it was always super hairy, even with years of Portage/emerge experience on Gentoo.
Apt is just buttery smooth.
Also, part of the reason I switched was performance. Our LAMP-ish stack on the same hardware was able to serve like 25-30% more requests per second on Ubuntu vs. FreeBSD. But this is a non-issue for a homeserver.
Is it considered production ready yet?
> I disagree about ports being as reliable as package management on Ubuntu. For me, it was always super hairy, even with years of Portage/emerge experience on Gentoo.
Ports have always been pretty crap for upgrades. There simply isn't enough metadata to do it reliably, so we're stuck with reading /usr/ports/UPDATING and being careful with whatever third party tool we're using to manage it all.
This is compounded by there being no "stable" branches - everything in ports happens on trunk, and everyone's expected to follow that. If you're looking for Debian-stable-style backporting of security fixes and sticking with the same version of Apache for half a decade, FreeBSD probably isn't for you.
> Apt is just buttery smooth.
pkgng is buttery smoother (http://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng/).
You may also set up a ports tinderbox, get freshly baked binary packages with custom options, and catch any build issue before it bites.
I was actually really amped to read this! I've been a linux nerd for a long time. My buddies and I, instead of getting laid in high school like normal people, would play with trying to make Slackware look like OS X. Remember the infamous digital blasphemy mushroom wallpaper? -- http://digitalblasphemy.com/graphics/previews/fluorescence6_... (cc @aprilzero if you are out there haha)
Anyway ... point is I'd really love some more resources for someone who has been a linux person most of their life/career but is open and interested in learning more about FreeBSD. I have a micro instance running cperciva's 8.2 install and it's waiting for me to give it more attention. Listing the processes or running top and seeing just how incredibly lightweight it is ... makes me happy. It feels so zippy. I realize this same thing can probably be accomplished with linux by installing a very baseline operating system, but it's refreshing to see nonetheless.
I'm looking forward to playing with FreeBSD this weekend ... any tips are welcome!
It's fast like Slackware (which I liked when I tried it), very customisable by using PKGBUILD/AUR (similar to Gentoo portage, which is amazing for absolute control) and has an excellent wiki (https://wiki.archlinux.org/).
You'll also get the most up-to-date packages, and roll along happily.
If you feel you need a little more stability, then go with a Gentoo or Funtoo Stage3 install. :-)
Re FreeBSD, the best thing about it is the Port system, but you'll likely be hating the non-GNU userspace!
Plus FreeBSD docs are excellent (in fact I've found them to be a more reliable source than even Ubuntu's - but that's a whole other topic)
If I didn't know better, I'd accuse this article of being pro-GPL propaganda.
At the end of the day, they're both popular platforms released under "copyleft" licenses. And what's more, neither licences have any baring on the performance nor stability of the OSs. So all his harping on about "must be headless" (though oddly he does contradict himself latter on by stating he doesn't care about the DE/WM) to maximize performance was completely invalided when his final choice was down to something as arbitrary and irrelevant as whether other developers have to contribute back to the base OS.