Which *BSD?

[techieMoe]

---

I'm running NetBSD on my downstairs PC (the secondary machine) and I'm going to switch the FreeBSD machine at work to NetBSD when I get to it.

I like NetBSD over FreeBSD for several reasons:

• NetBSD's thrust is toward equally excellent execution on all platforms,
• The name pkgsrc is much more logical than ports (ports are platforms),
• I just don't like having a devil for a mascot and symbol, no matter how cute,
• Functionality seems to be similar to FreeBSD, so there is no downside that I can see.

Are we talking about a desktop machine here? How much work did it take to get NetBSD running? I've had horrendous trouble even getting a working command-line install of NetBSD in the past. Has this changed in recent releases?

[KenJackson]

Yes, desktop. Version 3.0.1. Using Xfce for my window manager.

I have found both FreeBSD and NetBSD (haven't tried any other BSD) to be more difficult to setup than Linux, but not a lot more difficult. And yes, I think a lot of effort has been put into polishing 3.0.1.

There's still a lot of differences that I have to get used to. On Linux I'm very comfortable using the rpm command to query and inspect my system, and on NetBSD I feel a little handicapped without it. But I'm learning to get around with pkg_info.

[onlinebacon]

Its really strange, I just started using NetBSD as my desktop machine, and I find it to be a lot faster than my FreeBSD machine ever was. I even compiled my own kernel for freebsd, and rebuilt world from source and NetBSD still smokes it.

I like netbsd because it has a really small footprint (even though I am running it on amd64, space isnt really a problem). Also, it is fast, and a nicely designed operating system. Its a lot more secure than FreeBSD is, not as secure as openbsd is, but not *that* far off.

[mahlerfan]

Wow that's awesome! I wasn't aware that people used NetBSD for desktops. Since I have a pretty generic massmarket pc that has worked fine on i386, i686 and x86-64 based distros the supporting platforms thing sounds cool but not important for me. So what would you say is the coolest thing about NetBSD you'll find to be different or not at all in FreeBSD and for that matter linux? And what would you say is the biggest drawback to using NetBSD for a personal desktop?

I'm just curious, because as a neophyte, with a little bit of motivation, I might give it a try.

[KenJackson]

So what would you say is the coolest thing about NetBSD you'll find to be different or not at all in FreeBSD and for that matter linux?

I've been trying to figure out how I would answer this. The odd thing is that apart from installation and management, the look and feel is mostly a function of the windows manager, not the OS. And I can't do a fair comparison there because I use IceWM for all my heavy lifting on Linux but I'm using Xfce on NetBSD.

One thing I like about the BSDs in general is actually what is missing--pretty management tools. The popular Linux distributions have management tool front-ends to help you manage. But you can also bypass them and edit files directly. Sometimes there is even an intermediate way of doing things. When there are multiple ways of doing the same thing, there is a chance for confusion. But the BSDs seem to keep things simpler.

I also agree that NetBSD seems to be fast, though I can't do a fair comparison on that one either. I run Linux on multi-GHz PCs but I'm running NetBSD on a 933MHz Dell cast-off.

[onlinebacon]

Well I have been getting more interested into security recently, and so installed openbsd, i made my own cd, but I am going to buy a poster to support openbsd. I *really* like it, packages are nice, install quickly but if you have problems with them, just compile something yourself from ports. The actual system is incredibly secure (and stays that was as long as you be careful about the packages you end up installing).

[IO3]

I chose PC-BSD

[apoorv_khurasia]

As for the who's using what part: I am using FreeBSD 6.1

As for the why part: As a server and an env where I can do my UNIX Network Programming and Operating Systems assignments!!! Linux is not Unix as you know

[techieMoe]

As for the why part: As a server and an env where I can do my UNIX Network Programming and Operating Systems assignments!!! Linux is not Unix as you know

True, but in my UNIX and Operating Systems classes our assignments were done in Linux. It's similar enough for educational purposes, IMO.

[mahlerfan]

As for the who's using what part: I am using FreeBSD 6.1

As for the why part: As a server and an env where I can do my UNIX Network Programming and Operating Systems assignments!!! Linux is not Unix as you know

Sigh... for the purposes of what you're doing I'm sure linux is unix. The base software is the same, which is what is important for programming and shell scripting, the fact that you're using a different kernel is probably irrelevant for your class(es).