Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:35:04 -0800 From: Grant <emailgrant@gmail.com> To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Current Gentoo user Message-ID: <49bf44f10712131235v2d73a412k81ca9714911bfccd@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200712131947.lBDJlMeZ008204@satan.anjos.strangled.net> References: <49bf44f10712122100y45f12f77q4ae47f311905be25@mail.gmail.com> <200712131947.lBDJlMeZ008204@satan.anjos.strangled.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > It has recently come to my attention that FreeBSD is "similar" to > > Gentoo Linux. I've been a Gentoo user for about 5 years and I love > > the concept, but it feels like the project is slowing down. I like to > > learn/use/know one OS for server, media system, laptop, router, etc. > > How would you compare the two OSes? > > > > - Grant > > I only have the time to give you a very general impression. > I use FreeBSD at home since at least 1995, I deployed Gentoo at my current > employment because people were less afraid of it than of FreeBSD. > For me, Gentoo is the next best thing to FreeBSD... > > I don't know, but I guess that Gentoo portage was heavily inspired by FreeBSD > ports, in that with one command you fetch the source, apply patches, compile and install. > > Gentoo however, takes the concept much further in that everything you have on > your system is a port, so portage really controls everything. Even when you > install a stage-3 tarball, all files are also registered with portage. I really like that. > On FreeBSD, the ports collection is only used for addons to the base system; the > base system could be compared to a stage-3 tarball except that it is much more > complete (cron, syslog, dhclient, bind9, openssh, tcsh, nvi, ncurses, sendmail, > pam, opie, telnet, ftp, traceroute, to name a few are installed in the base system) > so you really can have an operational base system. > For instance, if you want to install a web server, perhaps the base system + > apache is enough, the same goes for database server. > Typically, the base system plus what is required for your application. > Not so with Gentoo. I really like the Gentoo concept here. > Because such fundamental services such as cron, syslog, etc are on the base > system, most things also come much more configured than they do on Gentoo. > It is a lot more work to get things going on Gentoo. > Even so, FreeBSD is clean enough to fit in about 250MB. Having a thoroughly working base system does sound really nice. > Now, for server or router: in my opinion, FreeBSD is much easier to setup for > any server setup (of course, I've been using it for much longer). For router, > you don't need to add anything to the base system. > FreeBSD is much, much, much better documented than Gentoo, most common server > setups are covered in the handbook. > Gentoo's documentation is very nice, but still covers only a few loose topics. > Most of the time you have to resort to disperse Linux documentation if you're > not a long time Linux geek. That's a huge plus for FreeBSD then. > For media/desktop system: FreeBSD is probably worse. It's a pain to get > google-earth working on FreeBSD, lots of Linux applications crash a lot. Even > FreeBSD natively compiled applications such as mplayer are hard to get properly > compiled. That doesn't sound very good. I've got to be able to use Linux apps. That's for sure. > On Gentoo it's quite safe to put CFLAGS=-O3 in make.conf, not on FreeBSD. The > USE flags framework work surprisingly well, there's ufed, revdep-rebuild, etc. > Not so much on FreeBSD, the older ports system is evolving slowly. The Gentoo > designers benefited from designing from scratch. > On the other hand, the ports collection on FreeBSD is much less likely to break > things than portage is. Try updating expat on Gentoo and everything will stop > working; on FreeBSD, the shared libraries are kept and everything keeps working. > Actually, the ports collection in itself seldom breaks anything. Portage does. Interesting. I thought ports was better in every respect, but it sounds like they both have their advantages. > For laptop: I run FreeBSD amd64 on my laptop, everything works very well. And it > is a radeon card, 3D without hardware acceleration is surprisingly fast these days. > There's no hibernation. I don't know if you have that on Gentoo. > > AMD64: Runs lots of 386 binaries unless they require a lot of i386 ports, which would > require you to install a i386 ports tree side by side with amd64; this isn't supported. > You can't get linux_dri on AMD64, so that locks google-earth out for me. Sounds problematic. I still wonder about skype/wengo and vmware workstation. I'll have to do some Googling. > After two years using Gentoo, after the first very positive impression, I'm a > bit tired of breaking things due to updating one port. > It's also too much of a pain reconfiguring and recompiling the Linux kernel. Configuring the kernel with menuconfig is a pain. How is it handled differently with FreeBSD? > Perhaps it's my lack of experience. > On FreeBSD, you can compile the kernel every day with no trouble at all, even > the whole base system weekly, if you're so inclined. I can't be objective, but I > think in this respect FreeBSD is much, much, much better. Can you tell me more about what you mean here? How is it much better? Easier kernel management? Thank you very much for taking the time to write. - Grant
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49bf44f10712131235v2d73a412k81ca9714911bfccd>