Not-Linux

[riverdusty]

Anybody here using a not-linux distro? One of the BSD's perhaps?
I'd like a whole new topic for unix-like/BSD's because We're a special bunch.

 

[koffiejunkie]

I used to - started with NetBSD a long long time ago. We still have FreeBSD boxes at work, but I wouldn't voluntarily use it for anything. Don't see any benefit outside of bragging (to and extremely limited audience) rights.

 

[w1z4rd]

I used to - started with NetBSD a long long time ago. We still have FreeBSD boxes at work, but I wouldn't voluntarily use it for anything. Don't see any benefit outside of bragging (to and extremely limited audience) rights.

Thats about it.

I spent a lot of time messing with FreeBSD and tinker with all OS`s I can get my paws on, but yeah. I dont see the benefit of running non-linux in all but a few extreme specialized cases.

 

[koffiejunkie]

Hmm, I shouldn't have been so specific. I have encountered one use case where the FreeBSD packet filter had one feature that Linux didn't have, which helped us mitigate a very specific DDOS (I don't remember the details now).

 

[ponder]

I like openbsd & dragonfly but I don't use them.

 

[koffiejunkie]

riverdusty, since it seems you're alone (so far), why don't you tell us what it is you like about *BSD and why you prefer it? The rest of us might learn something

 

[garyc]

If you are looking for a Linux-like desktop experience the PC-BSD is worth a try <http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=pcbsd>. This comes with a current KDE desktop environment as standard and other environments can be installed instead - except Unity in case that is a problem for you. This distribution is based on Free BSD.

The feeling is very similar to running a slick and stable Linux distribution. The drawback is that there is a learning curve due to not as many things happening automatically compared to something like Ubuntu. For example if you plug in your NTFS formatted USB drive then you need to do a manual mount.

The download is big, 3.5GB for a distribution without many applications. The reason is that the various libraries are included. At least this means less dependency issues when installing software.

The advantages over Linux are the stability and the fact that it is something new to play with. The disadvantage is less of the latest cool applications.

 

[koffiejunkie]

If you are looking for a Linux-like desktop experience the PC-BSD is worth a try <http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=pcbsd>. This comes with a current KDE desktop environment as standard and other environments can be installed instead - except Unity in case that is a problem for you. This distribution is based on Free BSD.

I want the *nix-ish underpinnings with a decent desktop. That's why I use a Mac.

The advantages over Linux are the stability...

I get quite tired of hearing this. Where I work we have have thousands of Linux servers and a couple of hundred *BSD servers (mostly FreeBSD but there are a few others). The Linux servers aren't any less stable than their BSD brothers - both lots have their issues and they become unstable for the same reasons (clients doing stupid stuff). The only OS that stands out for me as superior in stability is Solaris on Sparc hardware. Too bad we have so few of those.

 

[adamaix]

Anybody here using a not-linux distro? One of the BSD's perhaps?
I'd like a whole new topic for unix-like/BSD's because We're a special bunch.

+1

 

[Jimmeh]

I use FreeBSD but also run Linux/Win7 & OS X

This is just from my own limited view:

Pro's:

- Saves some time when compared to supporting Linux that is found in many flavours and versions of those flavours. BSD is way more consistent.
- Ports tree makes installing software as easy as apt/yum
- BSD is good at handling load. It seems like it can get more done with less.
- Has some good security features

Con's:

- SMP is there but I get the idea that its not at the same level as Linux & Windows just yet. May be wrong as I haven't checked progress recently.
- TCO may be higher than Linux/Windows for companies as not many people know how to manage it.

Neutral:

- BSD has an old version of ZFS while Linux is getting brtfs. Both good and constantly improving.
- Stability. It's solid but not better or worse than a production focused Linux distro or windows server 2008. These days stability is mostly affected by admin competence.

 

[koffiejunkie]

- Stability. It's solid but not better or worse than a production focused Linux distro or windows server 2008. These days stability is mostly affected by admin competence.

Amen. There was a time when we could fairly knock certain operating systems for stability by looking at uptime, but that time is over. A long uptime, these days, makes me think you're not taking security fixes seriously, and doesn't say anything about stability.

 

[Grep]

I run FreeBSD/Linux and Doze at my co. Been using BSD since the 90's, then switched to linux back and forth. BSD runs forever, so does Linux. It is quicker to get a Linux box fully operational at least 5 fold than a BSD box, just is. So ya, love both. I would however rather trust an ipfw firewall over an iptables box anyday, but that is just my preference.

 

[Nuro]

We still use BSD for our gateways. AFAIK there are no proper linux alternatives for pfsync, so that we can run statefull high availability gateways.

 

[koffiejunkie]

We still use BSD for our gateways. AFAIK there are no proper linux alternatives for pfsync, so that we can run statefull high availability gateways.

Aah nice, I didn't know about that.

 

[Nuro]

Aah nice, I didn't know about that.

Works really well. Even our VOIP calls have minimal loss ( < 0.5s) if there is a hard failure.