Find the answer to your Linux question:

View Poll Results: Which *BSD?

Voters
72. You may not vote on this poll
  • FreeBSD

    45 62.50%
  • OpenBSD

    12 16.67%
  • NetBSD

    3 4.17%
  • Darwin/MacOS X

    2 2.78%
  • DragonFlyBSD

    1 1.39%
  • BSDi

    0 0%
  • FreeSBIE

    1 1.39%
  • ClosedBSD

    0 0%
  • PicoBSD

    0 0%
  • Other (please post)

    8 11.11%
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 48
Originally Posted by KenJackson 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 ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #31
    Linux Guru techieMoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,496

    Quote Originally Posted by KenJackson
    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?
    Registered Linux user #270181
    TechieMoe's Tech Rants

  2. #32
    Linux Enthusiast KenJackson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    510
    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.

  3. #33
    Linux Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Luton, England, UK, Earth
    Posts
    639
    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.

  4. #34
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    180
    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.

  5. #35
    Linux Enthusiast KenJackson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    510
    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.

  6. #36
    Linux Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Luton, England, UK, Earth
    Posts
    639
    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).

  7. #37
    IO3
    IO3 is offline
    Just Joined! IO3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    67
    I chose PC-BSD

  8. #38
    Linux Enthusiast apoorv_khurasia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    624
    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
    "There is no sixth rule"
    --Rob Pike
    Registered Linux User: 400426 home page

  9. #39
    Linux Guru techieMoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,496
    Quote Originally Posted by apoorv_khurasia
    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.
    Registered Linux user #270181
    TechieMoe's Tech Rants

  10. #40
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by 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
    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).

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •