FreeBSD

Reader supplied reviews for FreeBSD Average rating 8.7 from 73 review(s) Version: 14.3 Rating: 10 Date: 2025-07-15 Votes: 87 I set out to create a FreeBSD desktop based on XFCE for my ThinkPad T61. I was able to find an abundance of helpful, clean/clear documentation on the web, including the excellent FreeBSD Handbook. I was more than pleasantly surprised by the end result. What I have now is a very fast, stable, clean setup on this T61. Compared to Linux, FreeBSD is a sane, consistent, reasonable, and coherently well-built whole of a complete operating system, not the sum of a bunch of parts as is Linux. Everything works: wifi, sound, video, etc. I haven't even begun to delve into some of the awesome FreeBSD tools available, such as the rock-solid ZFS file system, security, ports, Poudriere, Jails, Bastille, Capsicum, DTrace, bhyve, firewalls, tuning, and more. More people need to check out FreeBSD as a desktop alternative to Linux. Version: 14-STABLE Rating: 5 Date: 2025-05-30 Votes: 0 Strengths: * Can be highly reliable if configured properly and run on suitable hardware. * Best suited for specialized tasks, rather than functioning as a broad-purpose OS. * Offers total freedom in how you use and deploy it. * System management through FreeBSD’s built-in tools is simple and utilitarian. * Its userland is more streamlined and organized compared to most GNU/Linux distributions. * From a design perspective, FreeBSD is more complete than most GNU/Linux distros—though, depending on how you define usability, that’s becoming more debatable in recent times. * Unlike many GNU/Linux distros, FreeBSD isn’t a product of multiple forks from various sources. Weaknesses: * Securing it properly from its default setup demands significant time and effort. * Scalability is somewhat limited. * You may face long-standing issues that remain unresolved, potentially lasting months or even years through various releases. * Documentation is often outdated, requiring you to dig through online forums. This becomes more problematic the less familiar you are with the system, especially when working under tight deadlines. * Not ideal as a daily operating system for general use due to the amount of work required to get things running smoothly. * The Ports collection looks appealing, but compiling software from source frequently fails and is a time-consuming process. * Package versions often lag behind the latest releases. * The FreeBSD development team is small in comparison to more popular GNU/Linux projects, which inevitably slows down its progress—and this is becoming noticeable. * Getting help can be challenging and might deter users, especially those who expect quick support. Overall, it feels like FreeBSD has run its course and is now mostly a platform for enthusiasts. If you have plenty of spare time and aren’t concerned with having the latest features, it may still serve a niche purpose. However, you’ll likely start feeling the lack of features that aren’t being developed any time soon. Version: 14-STABLE Rating: 10 Date: 2025-05-25 Votes: 166 This is the default installation for our company when stability and security are required. We have used it as our NAS for several years and, since our NAS contains iSCSI volumes for 20+ virtual servers, we are loath to shut it down. This resulted in the most recent NAS having and uptime of 2309 days when we finally replaced it last year. 0 downtime in over 6 years. Of course, we did not get security upgrades during that time, but felt it was ok, since it was in a tighly controlled environment. We also use it in our routers (opnSense), and are moving more and more of our services to FreeBSD. Coming from a Linux world (Debian since mid-90's, Devuan after the change to System-D), learning FreeBSD was full of mistakes on our technicians parts. It is similar enough to Linux that you begin to feel that you "know" the system, only to find that there are subltle differences that will bite you. For a simple example, the watch command in Linux allows you to run a command periodically and display the output, but on FreeBSD, it allows you to snoop on other tty's (FreeBSD's equivilent to Linux's watch command is cmdwatch). Also, configuration and location of files/commands is just enough different from Linux to be a total pain. This is balanced by the excellent documentation and good Forums. ZFS on FreeBSD is rock solid, and the installer now allows 'root on zfs' with all the many benefits that gives. We use pkg (the package manager, equivilent to Devuan's apt) to install binary copies of apps, but you can also easily choose to compile and install directly from source, optimized for your particular server if you need the last bit of resources. As a matter of fact, that is the default for most of the documentation. I have not tried the desktop for several years. When I tried it, 5, maybe 6 years ago, it was difficult to use the most recent hardware. I understand that it has greatly improved, but I'm happy with my Devuan XFCE desktop, so will only try FreeBSD for a workstation when I have a little time. Also, as a hypervisor, bhyve had a few problems when I tried it last, mainly requiring advanced cpu capabilities the older hardware I was using did not support. The test machine I used had been retired after several years of use (maybe 10 years old), so I was not able to install that, but I was able to install Xen and VirtLib on it. Highly recommended for anyone serious about security and stability. Just be aware that if you are coming from a Linux environment, you'll need to spend some time learning the ins and outs of a new operating system. However, since MacOS is based on FreeBSD, if you come from that environment and have some cli experience there, you likely have an edge over Linux and Windows users. See all 73 reader reviews of FreeBSD...