Comparison BSD vs. Linux: the whole truth

beastie and tux

There are many comparative of this type on the Internet, but the vast majority are made by staunch defenders of BSD. This makes them unreliable and impartial, so I have decided to make this personal comparison. As a user of Linux and FreeBSD distributions I can be quite clear when it comes to analyzing both systems, both their advantages and disadvantages. Beforehand I want to clarify that both are very good systems and, most importantly, free. With this I do not want to leave BSD bad for its own sake, but to explain why Linux has emerged victorious and is more widespread.

What flavor do you prefer? Linux has hundreds of distributions that are adapted to the needs of end users or to different unions. Instead BSD has variants that focus on something specific, such as performance (FreeBSD), potability (NetBSD), security (OpenBSD), etc.

El development in the case of BSD, it is carried out by groups of hackers (Core Team) and others who intend to carry out the complete operating system. Linux, on the other hand, is a kernel, not a complete operating system, and it is developed in collaboration with companies, hackers, kernel programmers, and other community contributors. Linux definitely has more contributions and advances more quickly.

With respect to licenses, BSD is a proprietary license for the BSD operating systems. This license is very non-restrictive, since it allows derivatives or forks to have any type of license, that is why there may be commercial and closed BSDs, an example the Apple Mac OS X (EULA licensed and paid). On the contrary, GPL is the license that Linux is under and this is more restrictive, not allowing derivatives to be closed. So we will never see a Linux that is not free.

La stability and robustness it's pretty good in both cases, both on Linux and BSD. But if one should be highlighted above the other, that would be Linux. BSD has stability problems when working with some modern programs. Being monolithic kernels, the drivers affect the stability of the kernel if a problem occurs. BSD has problems unplugging a USB without first unmounting it, generating a Kernel Panic. Linux, on the other hand, is more modular and allows you to remove or add modules more easily without affecting the stability of the kernel and without having to reboot.

El performance is another swampy terrain of which many legends exist. FreeBSD is a high-performance BSD that is specially optimized. But is it faster than Linux? It should be analyzed carefully, the truth is that many Benchmarks tests carried out by Phoronix have revealed that BSD is slower than Linux distributions. One of the reasons for dismantling the myth is because BSD is developed on Mac OS X computers that use the Clang compiler, a compiler that does not precisely stand out for being one of the best. Linux for its part is developed thanks to the GCC compiler and this one can claim to be the best and the one that generates the most efficient code.

Linux is more insurance for contributions such as SELinux and AppArmor, not forgetting the extensive community of developers who are constantly checking the code for bugs and vulnerabilities and improving it frequently. BSD is not so audited and therefore, although they say that in BSD it is easier to detect and correct errors by the hierarchy of the development team, it is not entirely true. OpenBSD is the BSD intended for security and therefore the most secure, but to what extent… and more knowing that Theo de Raadt, head of the OpenBSD and OpenSSH project, agreed to leave back doors so that the FBI could penetrate these systems.

In the section usabilityLinux has reached the masses with Ubuntu and today it is easier to use than many BSDs. Both are equipped with graphical interfaces that make everything more intuitive, but Linux has advanced further in this regard. In fact, not even PCBSD, GhostBSD or DesktopBSD, clearly oriented towards the home user, have managed to keep up with the vast majority of Linux distributions.

As for the hardware compatibilityLinux supports newer technologies and more hardware more quickly. In fact Linux does not have much to envy Windows or Mac OS X. In this field BSD is light years away, finding itself in the state in which Linux was a decade ago. Much of the problem with the BSD hardware comes from its development, since it is implemented using Mac OS X systems, the tests are carried out on these machines by virtualizing the system with VMWare. What works in virtualization may not work when testing the system on a real machine.

El available software for Linux it is broader than that available for BSDs, although in defense it must be said that Linux software can be installed on BSD by enabling compatibility for this purpose. In this field it can win BSD, since it also has projects like Wine and other emulators that make the software of other operating systems work. On the other hand, when analyzing the video game category, Linux wins by a landslide. There are more and more video games for the penguin system, while these are in short supply for BSD.

NetBSD, the system portable par excellence, it has been ported for more than 56 architectures or hardware families. Do you think it beats Linux? Well no, Linux has been ported to up to a hundred platforms (VAX, AMD64, x86, Itanium, SPARC, Alpha, MIPS, AVR32, Blackfin, ARM, ARC, Microblaze, SuperH, s390, PA-RISC, Xtensa, OpenRISC, PowerPC, m68k, etc.).

You can see the comparison BSD vs. Linux plus enlarged and complete in the blog Architechnology. I hope you liked this comparison and that you know how to appreciate the good of the GNU / Linux system, instead of criticizing the other systems without knowing what they are talking about.

More information - Jordan Hubbard One Leaves Apple

Source - Architecture

The content of the article adheres to our principles of editorial ethics. To report an error click here.

44 comments, leave yours

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *



  1. Responsible for the data: AB Internet Networks 2008 SL
  2. Purpose of the data: Control SPAM, comment management.
  3. Legitimation: Your consent
  4. Communication of the data: The data will not be communicated to third parties except by legal obligation.
  5. Data storage: Database hosted by Occentus Networks (EU)
  6. Rights: At any time you can limit, recover and delete your information.

  1.   Apollo Aguirre Macias said

    Good information, I did not know that the BSD systems had more "flavors", I only knew the FREEBSD and the OPENBSD

  2.   Juan said

    You say you will be unbiased, but I don't see a comparison where BSD benefits. Just being able to run Linux binaries.
    BSD offers us very robust, very stable systems and they are more serious projects than Linux. The release generation process is much more strict and controlled (not to mention that FreeBSD is a complete operating system and Linux is just the kernel).
    On the other hand, everything is much more organized, the documentation is excellent and the man pages extraordinary.
    Regarding the use of both systems, in some cases FreeBSD is better, in others GNU / Linux. I have had experiences with heavy traffic where FreeBSD performs better.
    Without a doubt, for a normal user on a desktop PC, GNU / Linux is the best option, due to the support it offers regarding hardware and due to the development of distributions oriented towards ease of use. But in servers, it is an issue to be analyzed, for example I would trust more in an OpenBSD or FreeBSD acting as a firewall, due to the robustness in that scenario and because of the firewall itself (it is very personal, but I prefer pf before iptables).
    I see Linux development as a group of people who want to cover as much hardware as possible, without going too strictly into security issues. On the other hand, the hardware supported in the BSD is less, but it is guaranteed that it works very stable in what it supports. Perhaps progress is slower, due to the reduced number of developers compared to Linux, the support of companies, etc. But I see it much more serious.
    Another very important topic in BSD is the ports tree, it allows us to install software from the source code, with the clear advantage of being able to modify it and adapt it to our needs. Or compiling with flags that would give us a benefit according to our architecture.
    With regard to licenses, the BSD seems simpler and more logical. Because if we talk about freedom, the GPL is forbidding us to modify programs and distribute binaries without the source code, while BSD is not. Isn't it a restriction on freedom? With the BSD license, I am free to do whatever I want with the code.
    In conclusion, both are very good systems. It will depend on the scenario in which they are going to be used or on the taste and experience of each one to decide which one to stay with.

    1.    Anm said

      Don't be an idiot Juan. The GPL guarantees that the software remains free. It is a restriction towards an aspect of absolute freedom, to allow it to remain free, not absolutely.
      GNU / Linux is audited by many companies. BSD for a few only.
      You have more efficient tools than BSD and its approach to innovation allows you to improve technology and participate in a large number of scenarios.
      FreeBSD is only good in very centralized ways.
      And stop being such a jerk, it's more common for BSD fans to attack GNU / Linux.
      Also FreeBSD in Hardware support is way behind in many respects. BSD is only relevant in small areas.

      1.    uname said

        Hello Anm, you seem rude to me because of the way you address other users by insulting, and you are also terribly wrong because although the GPL license in theory protects freedom with copyleft, in practice Linux is full of binary blobs of which the source code not available. And this is not said by me, it is said for example by Greg Kroah, one of the main Linux developers, that Linux violates the GPL.

        So if you don't use linux-libre or the kernel that Debian provides by default, your kernel is far from free and I hope you don't use the adobe flash plugin, because that isn't free either, or the Skype client, Spotify etc.

        Most Linux users hate Microsoft. Do you know that Microsoft is one of the companies that contributes the most to the Kernel? Like many other companies of dubious ethics. There you have it, everything is very social.

        And then that other thing that you say that the BSD world does not innovate, have you used SSH? It was developed by the people of OpenBSD, protocols like TCP / IP and DNS the mainstays of the Internet has a great influence from the Unix and BSD world, when it was discovered that open SSL seemed like a Gruyer's cheese from the number of holes the first to work in a Reliable implementation were the OpenBSD folks with LibreSSL. ZFS Do you know what it is? the first to make a port were the people from FreeBSD, do you know what pkgsrc is, one of the most advanced package systems? Do you know DranonflyBSD one of the most advanced operating systems? And the cages in FreeBSD that until then very few companies had done something similar. And so on for a long etc.

        And then you allow yourself to call BSD users fanatics ... but please, if you are ignorant on a matter at least don't air it with that arrogance, you fanatic.

        Finally, comment that this is signed by a GNU / Linux user who prefers the GPL license for its social aspect, but I recognize that the BSD people do things very well while Linux is increasingly a kernel poison full of patches and Binary blobs that each company puts to support their products.

        1.    noobsaibot73 said

          In parts, join me, I agree with you:

          1) Anm is rude, to disagree is logical and normal, it generates debate and is a good thing, not to insult.
          2) BSD is not a bad operating system, regardless of who it weighs, what happens is that for some things it is better than Linux and for others not, taking that into account, your tastes and needs, you can use one or the other and also something better, to use both, complementing each other.
          3) It is not exactly that it contributes to the kernel, it is that they have seen the potential of Linux (that which before they did not allow access from a Windows partition) and now (which weather vane), to pay it has been said, to be able to use it (the kernel ). How? Well, if you look at more and more Linux distributions, you have Windows applications, such as Skype, or access to Office applications ... Yes, Linux carries more and more proprietary software (Nvidia and third-party drivers, Chrome, Dropbox, Steam , the Flash Player plugin, Teamviewer, Opera, Spotify, Crossover, Vivaldi, WPS and many more that left me in the pipeline). And it also has Spyware (if Microsoft recognized that Skype is spying on you, you can Google it and see it for yourself).
          4) But it doesn't stop there, not only does Microsoft do it, Canonical does it too. Some will remember a guy who said Ubuntu telemetry to you, they sent him a legal note from Canonical, ordering him to stop using the term Ubuntu and its logo (so he couldn't talk about it).
          Ubuntu and its official derivatives (Xubuntu, Lubuntu ...) not only carry a lot of proprietary software inside, they spy on everything you do. That guy, on his blog, told how to deactivate all that telemetry / spyware so that they do not play with your privacy ...
          5) BSD is better than Linux in some ways and worse in others, but that doesn't make it a bad OS at all.
          6) On the subject of proprietary software and spyware, unfortunately, Linux, in many distributions, is no longer free, and has spyware, congratulations, one more step to look like Windows. BSD in that sense is still free and without that spyware called skype.
          7) We should be concerned about what Microsoft is doing with Linux ... Linux distributions that are 100% free are becoming less and less.

    2.    vacagnu said

      It's true BSD can be very good as a firewall, but when you want more advanced options like balancing QOS data, or setting up a Radius server, that doesn't exist in BSD. It is very limited in terms of options in Linux there are thousands of kernel modules to manage a server when you want to start doing things a little more advanced BSD falls short. After that of the ports tree ... for that there is Gentoo and even Arch with its Arch Build System.

      1.    ahoj said

        it is a lie that Microsoft is the one that contributes the most to the kernel. Once you correct that approach, you will advance something.

  3.   Juan said

    With all the truth? Please…. Linux more secure than BSD? More efficient? Mother…

  4.   satartic said

    You should document yourself better. Theo never agreed to leave back doors on OpenBSD. Moreover, Darpa stopped donating for criticizing the international politics of the United States. Further the OpenBSD code was audited and there are no back doors, and it was done to prove a false accusation.

  5.   Juan said

    What a fair comparison (?), I only see comments in favor of Linux and blah blah blah. I'm a linux user but I've always liked * BSD.
    That BSD is like linux 10 years ago? What a big piece of shit you have to read with this pseudo internet experts. Almost always the new technologies are in BSD and Linux with at most 3 months of difference (for example the TRIM command, AHCI, IPv6 and many others)
    Anyway, I think the GNU jihadists are annoyed that BSD doesn't use the GPL licenses, uses its gcc compiler and calls itself free software and all that verbiage.

  6.   moltisanti said

    Anyway, I just discovered that there is only someone more Taliban than a linux fanboy: a BSD fanboy !!!

  7.   ja said

    Yeah yeah
    monolithic and modular system, if you don't know, don't open your mouth

    1.    The ignorant said

      Has this boy ever used kldload? he he! poor ignorant ... I do not know how they let him publish garbage like this, find out more before comparing ...

  8.   Yo said

    The most ridiculous and not very serious comparison that I saw in my life really worthy of an IGNORANT who loves Linux, the fact that several of us use Linux does not mean that we despise BSD leaders in performance and security among other things, this blog should compare not denigrate, How ridiculous.

  9.   José said

    In my attempt to get closer to Linux - wanting to leave Windows - I have found more tendency to fanaticism than to technology. There are few blogs where comparisons between other OSs are approached in an impartial way, not to mention between the distros of the same Linux! BSD catches my attention (although I have not used it) and I think that even if it was a lousy operating system there would be no reason to insult its users.

  10.   abrkof said

    documenting yourself more is what you should do before publishing just bogs! .. an operating system is never better because it is used by a certain number of users, if not for the contributions and solutions that provide the user, in any way, a user of Mac could say that Mac is better than Windows or Linux or BSD, in almost everything computer fanaticism blinds the opening to new technologies or reengineering to systems that as far as we understand it is the system that adapts to the user and not vice versa.

  11.   Cesar Augusto Balcazar De los Santos said

    But for performance he is very right, even if many are invented here for their fanaticism that bsd is more profitable. The benchmarks prove it, the better it is spoken with tests.

  12.   Juan Torres said

    The Linux kernel is not as modular compared to the BSD ...

    Also, I didn't see anything about the benefits of BSD. I use Linux systems, but I was interested in testing FreeBSD. And it is a pity that the link sent at the end of the article is not available.

  13.   Guy with a beard to the waist said

    If you want "the whole truth", here is it (coming from someone who has used both):

    If you require a server without too many complications or a stable and complete programming environment and you do not care about the limitations of the GPL license, then choose Linux.

    If you require all of the above, and you prefer the BSD license which is basically so free that you can even close the code, work on it and sell it (as Apple did with Mac OS, or Sony with PS3 and PS4), then choose BSD .

    Performance wise, it doesn't matter! Don't be teased. If Google uses Linux and NASA uses BSD it is not so much for performance but for purely technical reasons, in fact most laboratory scientists use ... Windows! If you have a not very old computer (and it came with Windows pre-installed) both Linux and BSD will run without difficulty (I have an old computer from 2006 with 1GB of RAM that I use to experiment and it runs the most recent versions of both without problems).

    And if you are a normal guy who is not interested in any of the above and for some reason Windows does not suit you, then choose Linux, which is something like a Unix for beginners with some "ornaments" (GNOME, KDE, UNITY, etc.), and leave BSD to the more advanced users.

    With all of the above, both Linux and BSD have many problems (driver incompatibility, bugs, etc.), and you can have very bitter moments (I don't think it is necessary to mention them all, you know what I'm talking about). Sometimes a simple update can throw the system at you and I don't care what the fans have to say: if you haven't said "This sucks!" on more than one occasion when using either Linux or BSD, then you haven't used them enough.

  14.   Polvoron said

    I have already gone through all of them and I think I can give an objective opinion, although surely someone will say patatá! and # @ grrr !, but here I go:
    FreeBSD: for a common suspect like no: the complexities of the installation, the advanced knowledge in UNIX and the bugs, more constant than usual that often lead you to rewrite almost all the configuration files, throw you back. Now, if you are going to use it to manage a network, then yes, because pf is not iptables, and because it is faster in conjunction with Apache and Mariadb… .and up to here I fish.

    Linux: we should start with: which of them? You cannot generalize and encompass in the word linux toooodo the chromatic fan of distributions, put them in a funnel and say: Güindous fortin !. Linux is heterogeneous and outgoing. Linux is the paella. FreeBSD is white rice. But leaving the metaphors because I'm getting hungry and the fridge is empty, the last time I looked at the broccoli it had mutated and was giving the choped pork firewood. Step with my experiences:

    -Ubuntu: I started with 6.04. Many problems. A lot of. A headache. But I endured and came 10.04 and then 12.04, although I had to leave it there because the HDD exploded, and they installed windows 8 on the new 64-bit computer. But I did not reinstall it. Configurable. For an average user it's great. Also, you can do a lot of things with it, but then when I went to download 14.04, I heard that a derivative was embroidering it ...
    -Linux Mint: I have tried the distro based on Ubuntu 14.04 and… it consumes less resources, you can do the same as Ubuntu and it is fine. For both, the fact that: they can be used as servers, although more imprecise than FreeBSD, you can configure them for hacking, pentesting, graphic design, games, multimedia, programming: NetBeans, QT Creator (community), Gambas, etc ..., and all the libraries you are looking for for Ruby, Python, C ++, VBasic, Borland, Pascal, Java ... Highly configurable in every way, not only the appearance that FreeBSD users point out as silly, when what it does is facilitate the use, but everything.
    For server: FreeBSD, ArchLinux, Red Hat and derivatives of all of them, and Suse.
    For users, of whatever level: ALL, although I would not recommend FreeBSD, ArchLinux, Gentoo to those who come from Windows without first going through more "home" distros such as Chromixium, Zorin or Chaletos.

    1.    Mariano said

      Rolling releases are not used on a server ... manco

      1.    Eduardo Inda said

        Hehehe, whoops

      2.    forocochino said

        Just reading the title of this summary of the previous entry in techrepublic told me that I shouldn't waste my time.

        Congratulations. Your trollsensacionalista article has gotten one more entry. Also a domain-wide blacklist, though.

        I'm going to post to taringa for a while and read the news from Forocoches. bye.?

  15.   joan said

    I do not agree with most of the things that this article comments. Apart from saying myths (the thing about Theo de Raadt and the FBI), or that BSD is old software, or that Linux is more secure, etc .. it does not delve into both operating systems equally (well, Linux is just a Kernel , the system would be GNU).

    What the "linuxers" do not think (for the record that I have been using Debian GNU / Linux on my laptop for more than 10 years) is that if you remove the proprietary drivers, proprietary libraries and proprietary software from Linux , Linux would not have as much hardware support and as much game and as many applications as the article claims to have.
    In FreeBSD or OpenBSD we only want to have 100% free software and 100% free drivers, to have a safe, reliable, robust operating system but, above all, that gives users the freedom to modify and distribute it freely, and that no application of third parties spy on them.

    This is the difference today, that the average "linuxero" just wants to have a chupiguay desktop with many applications, and they are forgetting the origin of why Linux was created, and specifically, why Richard Stallman created GNU.

    With BSD we keep that spirit. In addition to, of course, having the normal desktops (Gnome3, KDE4, xfce, and all the above), programming applications (Geany, Emacs, etc.) and services for hosting, security, analysis, etc.

    In conclusion, if you take away everything proprietary from GNU / Linux (non-free, in debian) it might look much more like any computer with BSD installed.

    Greetings to all. Long live Free Software and long live Anarchism.

    1.    uname said

      Joan, completely agree with everything you say and Long live Anarchy!

      One issue, Joan, in your opinion do you think it is more socially responsible, a Linux-based distro licensed with a very social approach like the GPL but that has actually become this:

      In addition to the blobs, binaries, firmwares, and bots I talked about in response to Anm's comment.

      Or the BSD operating systems are more socially responsible, with a more careful development, led by hacker communities, without large corporations roaming around at ease, but with a license that, although it does not reduce freedom to users, does not preserve it either.

      The ideal thing for me would be something like GNU / BSD but it will be that there is not much feeling! XDDD

  16.   George said

    Good comments overall. But I see some a little risque using unfriendly and unnecessary terms. Let's not forget that we are on the web and everyone reads us.

  17.   elvis said

    The opinions are only opinions. Being dismissed without showing concrete data is easy ..

  18.   uracil said

    Joan. Without going into disqualifications because we are here to discuss amicably, I think you have excelled with the final part of your comment.
    Like you, I also use linux. It seems like an OS to me, just magnificent.
    I humbly believe that your reference to the need for non-free may be due to your specific hardware configuration.
    In my case, my entire system works wonderfully including the video card, (even if I install the proprietary NVIDIA drivers through its control panel).
    For the rest I use applications of all kinds and I have not had to use any additional non-free repository apart from the ones that Debian provides by default.
    A greeting.

  19.   Antonio said

    Sorry to revive a post from 2014, but as a free software user I would like to comment.

    I use GNU / Linux in a more personal environment. Of 2 computers I have one with only GNU / Linux and the other a dualboot with GNU / Linux and Windows (unfortunately I need some programs that, the less they work better in Windows). But in my work I have a FreeBSD server mounted, and previously it was on GNU / Linux.

    I think that GNU / Linux, although it is also robust for work environments, looks more for desktop environments, and BSD as a server is wonderful

  20.   gavilandoftheforest said

    I have left the University of California. That is to say, my first 40 years I was in California during the development years of IBM-PC, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Silicon Valley, etc. I am not an expert in informatics (biology), but I have developed computers all my life to business purposes. I think the author has touched all the areas, but the central thing must have
    more words: License is everything. If you are going to need a system that you have full control over, choose BSD. Linux and GNU is not really free - it is like saying that the People's Party is popular. If you are used to paying for Windows and have a little technical ability and want to replace your money with labor and eating your coconut, choose Linux. Choose the distribution that works best on your computer - you have to spend weeks and try.
    If you are a professional whose purpose is to develop internet programs for companies
    and maybe you want to match them with the operating system (and associated programs), choose FreeBSD. If you are only going to develop common internet programs (CMS, etc.), choose Redhat / Fedora. But, in both cases, in the end, you are going to learn all the systems, Java,
    Apache, Tomcat, Postgres, Whitebeam, node, Clang, etc., etc. Then you can specialize,
    if it matters. There are also Android emulators on Linux too, right? A great Android
    tablet perhaps better and you can forget the past, illusions of freedom, your wishes and swallow everything that Google decides, if not GNU, the Windows clan, or international agreements (Berne). Freedom is not a small home. (Excuse my Spanglish, please.)

  21.   Sebastian Marchionni said

    Hello. I am a Linux user. I tell you my experience for whoever can serve you.

    I am not going to compare with FreeBSD because I did not use it, but it is obvious that in many things Linux will win and in many things Linux will lose, according to the user's need.

    In terms of performance, all Linux cannot be included as if they were the same. I was testing many distributions until finally I got Debian, which had everything I wanted and needed. Until systemd came along and I tried Slakware and Devuan. Despite having gone through many distros, I was shocked when I tried Slackware, the difference in speed and fluidity compared to Debian was total, it was like making a leap into the future. Among the other distros that I had never tried the difference had been so remarkable.

    Linux mint: Possibly the easiest operating system to use for the regular desktop user. Many will say no, but usually they say it because they are already used to Linux and derivatives and they are all equally easy. I tried it with my old men who are about 70 years old and have no computer skills and adapted faster with windows (both xp and 7). I work as a technician so I had clients test it and the result was the same. For those who do not understand anything at all, it is the easiest thing there is. In itself the installation is simpler than setting a clock. Put the live cd and there is a shortcut that says "install linux mint" double click, put the country, the language, wait a few minutes and restart.

    Devuan: he did not answer me like Debian, it is in the testing phase and it shows, also as they clarified me, they are focusing first on making it work as a server. For a common user it is not ideal.

    Debian and free software: I always used all free software except video drivers, no matter how fanatic one is, it ends up falling for private drivers or accepting free ones sacrificing video card performance.

    On the licenses: To say that the BSDs are freer because they allow you to close the code and so on, is an individualistic and short-term vision. GNU ensures freedom of technological development, while BSD ensures freedom of technological use by the individual. Now in practice, as they say it is the same, it is full of linux programs that do not comply with GNU. More importantly complying with GNU you can implement something like systemd, you could also with BSD; My point is that someone mean would always find a way.

    In terms of security, linux has specific distributions for this purpose, like FreeBSD and also to break it, like Kali.

    My conclusion is this: These discussions and comparisons are trivial. Regarding security, performance, possibility of modifying etc ... very advanced knowledge is required to be decisive. The few people who can feel and be affected by these differences are likely to be those already working in both the Linux and FreeBSD development groups, not writing and testing distributions or working in some small company managing servers.

    As an additional fact and due to my work, I get tired of seeing people obsessed with performance. They pay a lot for state-of-the-art hardware which they then pack into a poorly balanced pc; They are looking for software that is capable of responding to millions of unforeseen events with thousands of functions that they never use (being easier than correcting the error, doing it right again from scratch), using applications so that the pc manages resources better but at the same time consuming them for using so many of those apps. I also work as an expert and advisor on these issues with a law firm, and ALL that "security" that they so much presume is solved in a simple way, violating people not machines (as Kevin Mitnick did at the time) . The following paradox arises, all those detailed and specific questions, without awareness and commitment to whatever it does, are of no use and if you have that level of awareness, order and professionalism, they end up being unnecessary.

    I'm going to try FreeBSD and possibly after a while I will stop it and it won't work for me, not because it's bad but because from what I see it won't respond to what I need, in the same way as hundreds of Linux distros and all windows. For another FreeBSD it may be just what you need. Someone else can use a particular Linux but you learned to use FreeBSD and you find it comfortable and you know it and it is definitely a working tool: the same can happen to a Linux user.

    From using FreeBSD I will have the knowledge. People who develop BSD or Linux, cannot be at all, they choose one and continue to develop it, in the same way that we choose one and continue to use it to work, with the difference that we can change all the time while they do not and for That is why we end up fanatically discussing these issues, when the only ones who have a true right to speak fanatically are those who every day when they get up go to work to make these systems that we talk about so much possible.

    PS: Both the note and the comments regardless of putting BSD at a disadvantage further encourage me to use it because I could never find an unbiased analysis on the subject, both done by BDS and Linux people and the only option is to use it myself .

    1.    Isaac PE said


      You have criticized my article alleging a series of personal considerations of yours. I could make myself interesting and tell you that you are not right or refute you, but when I wrote this article perhaps I was thinking other things different from what I now believe with a little more experience. Therefore, I can only honestly say that you are absolutely right. Amen!

      Thanks for reading us. All the best.

  22.   Sebastian Marchionni said

    Don't criticize your article. As much the comments but neither. But the fact that you are always "competing" for the performance of a tool instead of thinking about what it is for and who is going to use it. To give an example, surely most of us here hate windows, but for a bank or someone who works in offices (in Argentina, my country) that is the only system they will use, on top of XP, and the only one that learning is going to help you. Also, you will not need to learn it in depth, just the very, very basic. With Linux the same thing happens thousands of Linux, all for different things. Debian served me, partly because of its ease of use and stability, of course I came to it for an ideological issue, I estimate that many other distros would serve me, but I came to Debian and it responded to everything I needed.

    Now, I spent a while with Devuan, which has problems that I can't solve, so I switched to Slackware. What I use it for, both are good and what they are different about I don't have as much knowledge as to take advantage of it, which is what happens to most Linux users; that it is difficult to use is a myth; More than a myth, it is a thing of the past, today they are all easy to use for a standard user. When a problem arises it is something else, in my case for example I systematically run out of server x every time I update and without the network administrator. In terms of performance, if you compile sources regardless of the distro, the speed is noticeable.

    My point is this, most are exquisitely picky about a system without being exquisitely wise to get the most out of it.

    With the arrival of systemd, what we liked so much about Linux is completely lost and everything is unified, like a kind of small variants of windows with their frameworks. Few distros don't use it, some of the ones that don't already said they were going to implement it. The possibilities are then reduced and the idea of ​​FreeBSD begins to become more attractive. Of FreeBSD it is always criticized that it does not have a great variety of drivers and therefore performs less. Really only in games could this difference in speed be significant, for which directx is always higher on windows anyway. Maybe someone who needs to do big video renders, or big lab calculations, but the latter two are going to have to use what their companies tell them to use, not what performs best. I have as an example my best friend who works in the defense ministry and where one expects sophistication and a meticulous choice of the tools to use, it is solved trivially by questions of contracts with companies, budget etc ... that is, money decides and not intellect .

    It is true what you say about the staunch defenders of FreeBSD, I have read them, but it is exactly the same with Linux and Windows (Mac does not deserve to be mentioned). It is almost impossible not to be impartial because there is an important underlying issue that divides, which has to do with the role we give to information, knowledge and technological development. Ultimately what tends to ignite our passions tends to have more to do with that than with actual performance. I also say it as someone who loves Linux but also games and when it comes to playing opengl and wine they have a totally inferior performance, of course there are games that the PC is so abundant that it does not matter, but for the newer ones it is.

    PS: from my point of view systemd is the destruction of Linux as we know it and we would have to focus on learning and especially promoting the distros that do not use it and even support different options such as BSD in order not to appear "new windows with another Name".

  23.   Sebastian Marchionni said

    By the way, from the beginning I made it clear that they were my personal considerations.

  24.   David said

    I am a software engineer in a company oriented to the development of security software, specifically I work with compiler theory, and I'm sorry Isaac, your argument is more than poor comparing GCC with CLang (front of LLVM), I don't know if you have stopped sometime in understanding the architecture of one compiler and the other but despite the fact that GCC does its job it is like comparing a 600 against a Ferrari, I am not going to discuss differences, you can see them in Linux uses GCC, it is because the kernel code is very tightly coupled to GCC-specific options.

    I also consider myself a "decent" programmer in both Linux and BSD kernel space, as well as user space, and I do just as well on Linux as FreeBSD.

    Regarding security, it is true that SELinux may seem interesting, but in my vast experience I have not seen anyone who uses it properly, despite the fact that Red Hat installs it by default on their systems and on Fedora. Even so, I can admit that Linux can have certain security advantages, yes, in terms of accouting Linux it relies on CGroups that seem to me to be a complex and unfortunate system compared to the FreeBSD audit trails, the kernel namespaces (what what people know as containers in user space) are a crude imitation of BSD jails and with many shortcomings (see the / proc issue within containers).

    Unfortunately neither Linux nor BSD can claim to be microkernel, their architecture is based on running linked modules and to be honest I have seen linux burst with kernel panics more times than BSDs.

    The performance? Well, it depends, Linux has many companies behind it and many drivers are very prepared, the case of the e1000e (intel network card) comes to mind, it may be that in specific cases of this BSD style it has a disadvantage, But we must not forget that many manufacturers base their network hardware on BSDs (switches, routers) with specific hardware and that is when the poor Linux are humiliated.

    Linux is a bloody mess, / sys, / proc, ioctls (and I'm not just referring to terminals or block / character devices), opening NETLINK type sockets, sysctls ... All this to communicate with a kernel, in FreeBSD you I will summarize it: sysctl, period.

    And I am not going to elaborate much more, that comparisons are hateful, everyone looking for info:

    ZFS vs. btrfs
    PF vs iptables, or if you want, netfilter
    FS hierarchy in FreeBSD vs Linux, and tell me what is / run and / var / run; / media, / mnt, and / run / media; / opt and / usr / local and a lot of nonsense.

    And why not go further, the abomination of systemd, the creator of your magnificent bonjour demon, avahi daemon.

    Read the FreeBSD (/ usr / src) and Linux code, and then choose what you use

  25.   eubeth erg said

    klxox nkcnsxgxbx issfsjsh

  26.   Rodrigo Mariano Villar Vespa said

    gnu / linux is better and also has more software

  27.   david glz said

    Heavens, after reading all these comments I realized that there is a controversy between which system is better than another for years ... comparing for example the Mac OS with Windows in any of its versions and comparing Windows with Linux, and now I see it with Linux and BSD in any of their versions. The truth is that they are all good as they say it depends on the type of user and to tell the truth each person will say that the OS they use is the best because they are using a single point of comparison or several, the OS comparison is even on cell phones ... Thanks to my luck I would say, I have been related to many operating systems since Windows 97 which was the first OS I used, then it was XP and there I still did not have a point of comparison because it was only an update and improvement, then I had the experience From meeting computer science students they did not teach me anything: v but I was able to spend time and learn from them, they used Debian, that's when I learned that there were more OS and that they were used for other things I understood that for a normal user it was Windows and yes You wanted a server, you used Linux, why did they practice and set up servers in Linux, it should be noted that I was in high school, I did not understand how all this worked very well, I began to investigate and read a lot about thehistory of current operating systems and their origins, then I met Mac OS and many Linux distros at that time I thought that BSD was a Linux: v but now that I have more extensive knowledge about the structure of an OS and its kernel, too of the C language, etc, I am a Linux user to this day I use Archlinux I started to use it to learn and I liked it, right now I download openBSD, from what I see it is very good to be able to use the code in the way you want, also which is very stable but that does not mean that I am going to stop using Arch Linux, nor that I stop using windows, as for Mac I like it for its ease and simplicity of use in one day you learn to operate the equipment, mention the advantages and disadvantages of each one does not say if one is better than another, it simply helps a user to choose according to their needs, why all OS have different approaches until today there is no perfect one.

  28.   JJSC said

    What a controversy, both are good, stable and serious, Long live everything that has heritage from UNIX (other than Microsoft);)

  29.   anon said

    Look, I do not think or refute who wrote this article, or judge him. I'm just going to comment on my experiences using both * types * of systems: in case someone who stumbles upon this blog and plans to send rm to windows, or even try other systems.
    Linux: use Gentoo. Very good, both graphic and to download and install. A bit fucked up to install with commands, but if you are daring or know some syntax, then it is yours. Well, I'm still testing it in VirtualBox, so maybe I'll add something else in the future because I don't use it much and would like to "test" it a bit more.
    Arch… well, as far as I know, it only comes in x64. Bad point: there was a time when my processor was x32 or x86, I do not remember well. Kick and renegade so you can even test it in VB; it was all useless. But like Gentoo, a headache if you want to install it with commands. Which is why, when you bought such a processor, I didn't think about installing it. The commands are almost like in any linux, but like I said, I did not use it, so maybe now I will try to test it.
    Linux Mint: great. Very good for users like me, who are looking for something more desktop because I am not a hacker, much less to spend hours typing commands and modifying files so that the system does a mediocre basic task. I remember that I had a software center, or something similar, where I could download programs that they suggested to me. Good programs, great variety of them, I could install .deb without problem. Good performance, it comes in two types of architectures. Good graphical appearance (with the graphical environment by default). I would say that it is recommended for those who are not looking for something complicated. I believe it, but since today they throw you away for giving your opinion ... anyway, I don't give a damn what they might criticize me, that's why I leave it.
    Ubuntu:… some problems, I think I remember. The main reason I stopped using it was because I read about backdoors, I don't know if it is here or elsewhere. I should check it out for myself.
    Debian: great. Although if you don't like dealing with commands, better use Ubuntu, Linux Mint, or go back to Windows. Wide variety of programs. Great ease of use for the user. It comes in various architectures. Very stable, although if you cut the "apt-get upgrade" ... prepare to restart the installation. It also has many programs of all kinds. Another information about the installation: very easy, but I don't know why the hell it fails now that I try to install it in VB (I have a suspicion; keep reading and you will see why I think the installation fails).
    Red Hat: in my life I could use another version that was not the one from the first years. I think it's from when it was called Red Hat, now I think it's called RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux). I will not give my personal data to a company that does not even let me test the system to see how it is.
    Solaris: same as Red Hat. Although I tried to download OpenSolaris, but it was more of the same.
    Oracle: never use it, you should. Or at least try it.
    Mandriva: I didn't use it either, I don't know much.
    openSUSE: neither, I never tried it. I don't know if I'm going to do it.
    Previous: I liked it when I heard that it was not necessary to download "releases" or anything like that: a single version or something like that, but I thought about that and decided to use another OS.
    Manjaro: I think I used it once. I do not remember much.
    Well, those are the ones I remember from Linux. Now we go to the fat, to the hard and heavy: BSD-UnixLike.
    HardenedBSD: complete garbage. I hardly managed, after more than two weeks of struggling (because I already said that I am not a programmer or hacker or one of these geniuses) to install even the basics. It only comes in x64. It doesn't use "pkg" like FBSD, it uses "pkg-static", which I have barely read about (nor do I know if FreeBSD knows much about it), but as far as I could use it, it worked like traditional pkg. Unfortunately, after getting its package installer to work, I couldn't even install pkg, because it was telling me there was a missing library or something like that. In the FBSD forum they just wanted to tell me about it, because it was another OS, but they told me to try reinstalling it; that maybe it was the upgrade that did not complete well. I do not know. Bad mouth taste.
    FreeBSD: bad and good. Love and hate. Problems and solutions, although sometimes I didn't even find those. I have a DVD player and so far I can't get it to work on this system. It uses the UFS format, according to what I know. A type of format even more exotic and unknown than the ones I saw in Linux. Unmountable format in all linux that I have tried, although it was not in many. Difficult, sometimes impossible, to handle certain things. And forget about using old versions: I have read about users who still use versions prior to 10. I did not know anything about that and tried to install 10.2 to my pc, failure. I try to install 10.3 to it, a disaster. I'm fed up and looking for 11.1. Finally, but only on DVD. Since by x or by z, it always gave me an error when trying to install it on USB. Of course, do not think about using 11.0: I read a user who stopped working a couple of things or the entire system, I do not remember well. If you are a hacker, you are a computer scientist, you are given these manias, or you just want to fight like me to even see how it is for yourself, install it. It has the ports, which sometimes crash and sometimes don't. You have pkg, which is not bad, but hopefully they will not change it again soon as it was with "pkg_add" or "pkg_delete" I think, which is now "pkg" and whatever you want to do. You can strengthen the system, you have tools for that, according to Lei. You can do without the graphical environment, almost like in Linux, but for me at least, it was a little easier for me to handle as well as in Linux. And I don't know what else to tell: it's almost like Linux, just very different. It doesn't use systemd, so if you don't like it or hate it, you can use this type of OS, which I think doesn't use it (I think it uses systemv; I'm sorry I'm not a hacker and I'm not interested in being corrected with an air of superiority, so if I'm wrong and you want to make me see it, try not to be pretentious).
    At the moment, apart from windows 7, xp, 98, 95, and the alleged vista garbage and the real ultra mrd from win 8 and 8.1… those were the ones I used. Way above, so if you intend to come to attack me with computer science or hacker arguments, I am already letting you know that I do not intend to answer you. First because I do not comment here for that. The other is because I'm not going to talk about what I don't know. And finally, because even if you know, if you are pretentious and give yourself superior for using this or that (like all good fans), first try to get out of your usual system and try to use something that does not bite.

  30.   XxXxX said

    Pretend that a page called LinuxAdictos is impartial.
    shortly the only good thing about bsd is that you can run / emulate linux. WoW this comparison is funny.

  31.   esteban too said

    As long as bsd has 32-bit support, it doesn't matter, linux stopped being at the moment of not using 32-bit. bits does not have, despite being as they say obsolete, I am working on enhancing the 64-bit system and improving the drivers that they are taking out of circulation

  32.   Andros said

    I do not feel impartial in the article, BSD details such as the robustness of ZFS, the Linux emulator, the documentation in the FreeBSD Handbook or the fantastic Ports that was long before AUR in Archlinux are missing. Other websites like , or the official documentation They give an extra piece of information that is important not to ignore.

  33.   Patri said

    NomadBSD or GhostBSD are much easier to install than any GNU / Linux, or OpenBSD, that their installer is wonderful, and you don't mention it in the article. NomadBSD can run on a simple USB with persistence and you have a complete FreeBSD that does not need a hard disk, or if you prefer you install it later to the hard disk.

    In addition, the article comments on many lies that I do not know where the author got them from, such as that FreeBSD is developed from MacOS X ¿??

    Nor does he comment on how outdated and tedious the SystemD system is and why there are more and more distributions that mimic BSD systems and eliminate SystemD boot, because it is too bad. In fact, there are even distributions that use GNU software with the FreeBSD kernel like Debian, for example.

    The article also does not mention that there are more developers active in BSD and events such as Hackathons than the chupiguay community of users who change wallpapers, themes and icons in Linux distributions that all they do is imitate Windows, instead of worrying about having a good code, useful and up-to-date documentation, and putting security at the core of the operating system, like OpenBSD does.