Hacker News Reader

Comment by FirmwareBurner | Hacker News Reader

What advantages does FreeBSD bring on a laptop versus Linux?

If you just want a browser and notepad - then ANY system would do - even Android on X86 PC.

If you want a powerful development/work environment - and you do like what and how Linux provides here - use Linux - but as I was not satisfied with what/how Linux provided I looked somewhere else and I landed in FreeBSD.

Here are some of the reasons and conclusions I came to after using FreeBSD (and also Linux/AIX/HP-UX/Solaris in various jobs) for about 20 years.

Here:

- https://vermaden.wordpress.com/2020/09/07/quare-freebsd/

Have you ever tried Fedora Silverblue? It seems like it would match FreeBSD's advantages, as listed in the first section of your blog.

I have tried multiple Linux system and besides faster WiFi I never find what I look for on the Linux land - but thank You for suggestion.

Also - even if I would be forced to use Linux - I would probably setup it with ZFSBootMenu and Root on ZFS - I believe Fedora does not allow any of these?

That was a good read, thank you.

Thanks.

None. If you have a particular fondness for FreeBSD and its particular set of behaviors: great. Then use it. If you really like jails, and for some reason need them on a laptop, and really don't like Linux containers, then, great.

It's not so much about advantages as it is about making the FreeBSD laptop experience better. A lot of people like FreeBSD on the desktop but use Linux on laptops because Linux has better support for those.

If you're not the type of person who wants to run FreeBSD as a workstation, none of this will matter to you.

Not OP, but off the top of my head, it's a complete OS, kernel and user land are released as a whole.

I last ran it about two decades ago, so it's been a while.

Yep, the coherence is a strong point.

Unfortunately, we now have a few people complaining about predictable, consistent behaviour with packaging that is coherent. The base system, FreeBSD, packaged.

The complaints are about the effect of wilful force.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned.

When I force something with my eyes shut (ignoring warnings), I do expect the unexpected as a result of my ignorance ;-)

>Maybe I'm old-fashioned.

No your not, even in the Sun-Solaris time they asked themself why rm should be able to delete /.

>The complaints are about the effect of wilful force.

Don't make a function no one uses (because it has no function) but is able destroy the system.

Compare it to a aircraft, shutdown your fuel has probably a emergency function, make a button to instantly destroy your aircraft has no real function nor will it ever be used (aka pkg remove -af).

>Unfortunately, we now have a few people complaining about predictable, consistent behaviour with packaging that is coherent.

That's not predictable but stupidity, try to remove all pkg/Application/Apps from MacOS, Windows, OpenBSD, NetBSD or Android...will the system boot or not? All those operating-systems make a clear distinction from the base-system to "apps" and the system should ALWAYS boot to a state where you can interact with it and so should FreeBSD.

There is not a single system (no OS and no living being) in this world wheres there is a function to destroy itself would not be called a error (the worst possible one)

But hey lets tell Linus (from Linus tech-tips, a Linux beginner) it's your fault because you forgot to read 100 lines, what a wannabe elitist think, there are ZERO point's, that a system should be able to make itself not booting anymore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4L8Oci_2Bs

The browser and desktop and terminal you'll inevitably want to use aren't any more part of that "complete" OS than they are on Linux (and in many ways FreeBSD Ports is more immature / less well-integrated than Linux packages).

LSU context: the completeness is out of scope.

Current aims include enhancement of the installer for FreeBSD; KDE Plasma and applications as an option.

First-class ZFS support is pretty compelling for any usecase.

Kubuntu 25.04 here, root on OpenZFS thanks to the installer for Ubuntu.

How is OpenZFS second class on Linux?

<https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/> is not perceptibly FreeBSD-first.

Cool, one of the best features of ZFS on FreeBSD is to boot into a snapshot. ZFS boot environments are really cool.

You can get that with ZFS Boot Menu on Linux too. It was inspired by the FreeBSD boot loader.

Root on ZFS is not a problem.

While You can spend some hours installing Linux with ZFSBootMenu and LUKS encrypted Root on ZFS - there are ZERO Linux distributions that allow ZFS Boot Environments out of the box.

That is the reason 'why' Linux is not the first class ZFS citizen.

LUKS-encrypted root on ZFS does not take hours. I chose encryption when I installed the OS.

When You make research how to make it for the first time - it can - if you want to check at least several different guides ... but that covers only the encryption part.

There is also the ZFSBootMenu part ...

If you have done this at least once - noted the commands, etc. - it will take shorter - but never shorter then FreeBSD 'Auto (ZFS)' option in the bsdinstall(8) installer where you just select the disk on which it needs to happen and hit [ENTER] key.

> … if you want to check at least several different guides ... but that covers only the encryption part. …

Reminder: I neither want, nor need, to check several different guides that cover only the encryption part.

I was talking about the ZFSBootMenu part - the encryption part is easy.

OK, that's clearer.

In any case, I'll take additional advice; it's impossible to trust apparently authoritative statements from you.

Funny because the only person they do not work for is you ... you seem to be very special.

I have not yet needed a ZFS boot environment.

I'm considering alternatives. Not ZFSBootMenu in isolation. I'm in no rush.

>I'm in no rush.

Ahh now i get the point why you have no problems destroy your system with a simple pkg command ;)

Anecdotally speaking, in terms of battery life, BSDs (+macOS) > Windows > Linux.

Linux does not play nice with batteries.

That's not my experience at all. Macs are great on battery, but BSDs are not, they are by far the worst. Linux usually does ok, often better than windows, at least once properly set up. I only run BSD on my "never leave home/stay tethered" laptops because they only get 3-4 hours where Linux will get 8-12.

I suspect it has improved. I'm getting 8 hours out of my 5 year old T480s and I recall getting 4 hours or so when I bought it.

With which battery? Cause on my T480 with FreeBSD I can ramp it to about 14 hours.

Recently installed this one

https://www.ifixit.com/products/lenovo-thinkpad-t480s-batter...

Does the T480 have that much better battery? Maybe I'm doing something wrong haha.

That is the internal battery. Yeah, the T480 has two. An internal and a swappable. In total 96Wh.

Why could that be? Maybe the Linux distro you choose was too bloated and caused battery drain?

Because of no proper battery management, which was only recently merged.

It seems like the 6.16 and 6.17 kernels should allow for some pretty good improvements on battery and sleep mgt across more hardware from what I understand.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com