> the GNU/Linux driver land is full of closed blobs
> [...]
> Ever wondered why GNU’s GUIX doesn’t support Nvidia? That’s because the drivers are provided as blobs, and therefore closed-source. As a result, the work needed for BSD support is difficult and slow<p>Isn't it pretty much the only example of this? As long as you don't pick nvidia, you won't have proprietary drivers running.<p>Of course there are many firmware blobs. It's an issue, I would prefer not running any proprietary firmware, but I don't see how it would be a bigger issue in BSD land.<p>So yes, the issue is programs assuming Linux (though doesn't many people in the OSS ecosystem using Mac help a bit?), hardware support, and not as much help from the internet. Not too surprising, I would expect this; and the hardware support is what prevents me from considering *BSD. I didn't think of the fact you are not going to be on the bleeding edge too on *BSD, and that would be relevant to me, since I run a rolling distro and take this somewhat for granted.<p>Bonus note:<p>> You try to Kagi[6] it and nothing<p>I would suggest "look it up" as a term that will remain stable and doesn't advertise a particular search engine. The best thing is you won't need a footnote either (however, I sympathize with the wish to make people use something else than Google).
In contrast I enjoyed my brief adventure in FreeBSD land.
The system is so clean and simple compared to the chaotic nature of the typical linux desktop with countless deamons running. Ports usually work just fine and they even have Jetbrains Intellij IDE ready to go, lastly ZFS is a blessing - snapshotting never being easier.
My takeaway: You should definitely run BSD on a PC, but don't get fooled:<p><pre><code> - You may need to unlearn some Linux-isms
- Your software may assume GNU instead of POSIX
- You will not get good GPU/WiFi driver support
- You may need to relearn looking for answers
- You will need to learn how your OS works
</code></pre>
In particular, I like how he phrased the difference in culture between Linux and BSD:<p>While Linux is more noob-friendly, and BSD is known for "RTFM!", it is in part because very small communities cannot service the masses with tailored answers in every possible form (so we settle for well-maintained docs rather than highly searchable variations over a theme), and perhaps in part simply because of a culture difference where BSD users dedicate themselves to their platforms more than many Linux users (myself included), and answering questions from people who don't try to get a full picture, but just want to move on, creates an un-even playing ground. I don't know, I just liked how you can elevate the conversation about community dynamics beyond "BSD users are mean because 'RTFM!' contains a swear word!"
A short story: I was a Windows guy. Driver writting Windows guy. Hated linux to my guts with its chaos. Switched to it on laptop every 2 years to figure out something vital is missing. Gradually, Windows (8) became so horrible, that I have switched to Linux, not that it was any better, but Windows became worse.<p>Now I run FreeBSD on server and my personal laptop. I don't understand what is the point of this article, I had a problem with LTO5 LTFS on server, installed minimum debian into bhyve, did a PCI passtrough and shared the mountpoint. Works like a charm.<p>I am not using FreeBSD to support all the hardware in the world but to have a nifty environment, that is stable. And it stays stable (was regularly upgraded from FreeBSD 8 to latest, hardware has changed twice, still running the same installation), while linux is starting to look more and more like furball on y2y basis (not talking about kernel, distributions are THE problem).<p>---<p>I would like to challenge arch/gentoo users to try FreeBSD for a while. Just for fun, use vm. You might be surprised how complicated for no reason can linux distributions be. This is how I made a switch to it.
Why don't people just tell us what they think, instead of what we "should" do with these kind of titles? I find this paternalism really off putting. Less lame title: Why <i>I</i> don't run XYZ.
I wonder - if there are reasons to use BSD nowadays.
It seems, Linux is just better, and the only benefit of BSD is that it is not GPL (so it can used in closed-source software)
<p><pre><code> Firefox on FreeBSD is a hack layered over a hack running slowly. I have no idea how much work is required to support it, but it’s somewhere between “big” and “have mercy”.
</code></pre>
Might someone be able to summarize what kinds of hacks Firefox needs to run on FreeBSD?
I have read it – its exaggerated for my standards.<p>I use FreeBSD on laptops/desktop since 2005 and it mostly works.<p>Do some things do not work? Sure. Do all things work on Linux? Nope. Do all things work on Windows? Nope. Not to mention how many times Linux or Windows break to the point of reinstall.<p>From all the OSes I know – and they are a few – FreeBSD sucks the least – just pick the right hardware.
> And here comes another problem - it’s very hard to back port anything from GNU/Linux kernel. There is a huge difference between what GPL and BSD license allows.<p>Yes but the BSD license allows a lot more. So this isn't really a problem.<p>> Firefox on FreeBSD is a hack layered over a hack running slowly. I have no idea how much work is required to support it, but it’s somewhere between “big” and “have mercy”. About that closed-source ones? No Office for you.<p>Firefox works fine on FreeBSD.<p>And MS office is not available on Linux either. Open source office stuff is. I use abiword myself.<p>> Nada. GNU/Linux has plethora of sites, blogs, and vlogs. Any problem you may encounter, someone else already solved and documented<p>This is actually a problem with Gnu/Linux. A solved issue on arch may not be the solution on Debian or redhat. Really these distros are different OSes but they are not treated as such.<p>> You need to <i>enjoy</i> making it work for you. Otherwise, all you will find is annoyance and a swift OS change.<p>Well yes. Here I agree. I love running my FreeBSD desktop. But it's not as much work as he claims and the community is really helpful. Because it's so small you can often reach out to the maintainers directly and because they're completely non-commercial you will get real answers, not the corporate line. This is the main thing I love about FreeBSD. There's no double motive. Nobody trying to make a buck or push their own intellectual property. If some corporation is paying to do work for you they're doing that because they're expecting to make more money off you one way or another. There's no win-win. Linux is more neoliberal, BSD more socialist and grassroots.<p>> Next: do you like to call yourself an early adopter? Being in the bleeding edge is what gets you going? BSD are evolving slowly by design. If something works, let’s leave it alone. That’s the mantra. GNU/Linux is changing rapidly - Pipewire, Wayland, SystemD. Even good old ifconfig is being deprecated. At the same time BSDs still use technology from decades ago7. There was never a need to replace them, so no one did it.<p>Yes this is a huge benefit of the BSDs in my opinion. No changes for the sake of it.<p>Overall, l think the title of the article is way too black and white. Yes you need to be aware of what you're getting into. But if you're even trying this, you already do. Nobody runs BSD on their desktop because some magazine told them it's the best thing ever.