Serious question, is there any benefit to using any open-source operating system besides Linux?
Serious question, is there any benefit to using any open-source operating system besides Linux?
27 Comments
Not for PC gaming.
Bliss OS to run android app on x86 pc…..
Is freeeeeee?
Benefit? No. the BSDs and other things are effectively for computer science and people who just like to try things.
No
It’s mostly a license question. Take the Nintendo Switch. It’s running a BSD variant likely due to avoid having to disclose the changes they have done to the OS.
You know how there are Linux users who use it because they’re tired of Windows bullshit? In my view, people go to *BSD because they think Linux does not adhere to Unix philosophy enough.
In my opinion, OpenBSD is the most secure operating system. It is great as a server or network appliance. It also has the best documentation. Everything in the software feels like it belongs together.
There are some features of BSD, like jails, that are useful. Additionally, it has a more flexible license, allowing it to be directly bundled with proprietary software – some NAS operating systems use BSD, so they can use it with ZFS as the file system without needing to use workarounds like you have to do for distribution of ZFS on Linux.
i love how linux is just the tip of the OS iceberg
Non-techie people know about MacOS and Windows, some might know of Linux
Tech enthusiasts like myself know about Linux and may even choose it over MacOS/Windows
Then all the way in the corner we got the people who live, breathe, eat, shit, and sleep tech who know of the most obscure Operating Systems while being able to operate each and every one fluently and with ease.
and they still end up using Windows cause
“it just works bro”
If you use TempleOS you can talk to God.
There, isn’t.. Even linux is not great for home/gaming pc
At home? Probably not.
The only widespread open source OS is BSD (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc…etcBSD?) which is semi-compatible with Linux anyway.
Linux, however, is just a kernel. Nothing says you have to put anything you don’t need on top of it. Busybox is a popular free and open source toolset for small appliances due to its extreme frugality. BusyBox also became prominent for actively suing software pirates like Verizon, Samsung, SuperMicro, Westinghouse, and many others.
I thought this was a hockey post and was trying to figure out who the puffer fish were
Yeah, i prefer freebsd to any linux distribution for a few reasons. Linux is a kernel, and modular systems can be built on top of it, but sometimes they don’t play nice with each other. BSD systems are an entire system where each part is made to work with the rest of stack. The freeBSD handbook is the best unix documentation ive read, and i learned more in my first few months of freeBSD than i did with years of arch linux. This is more of a preference, but i like openrc a lot better than systemd. Also, freeBSD can do anything a linux machine can, and more, while any given linux system will always be missing a few key features present in bsd. FreeBSD can run linux and even some windows binaries, the ports collection is amazing, jails are superior to containers, zfs support is great. All in all, FreeBSD is my favorite os, although i do have a few linux and windows machines.
How is “Linux” a benefit of using an open source OS?
It depends on the use case, but for most consumers either windows, MacOS, Linux, or BSD.
Why? An OS being open source or not doesn’t change an OS’s fundamental operation- process task and management, memory management, file and device management more or less. The different OSes (kernels) do vary in how they perform in those fundamental operations, and then also have some extra stuff like MacOS being limited to apple or windows offering free spyware (but it’s theoretically possible to have a barebones windows OS with nothing but the NT kernel running, and with practically nothing else but basic machine code programs)
Sometimes an OS can only operate on certain hardware- as with recently, apple’s macos runs on ARM, previously x86 and before that powerpc. Windows and Linux are actually the more widespread OSes with ARM and x86 variants (and Linux even runs on RISC V to an extent). BSD runs x86, and OSes ran on older architectures.
Then it does come down to what each OS offers differently from the other. Linux is often the go-to because when built correctly it can offer most of what it’s competitors have and much more, however with some stuff that might be a downside such as instability from frequent package updates or risk of damage when super user/root is needed. Linux ‘s smaller size and monolithic? kernel can make it run on storage sizes smaller than 1 GB making it great for small and light devices. BSD on the other hand (free and regular) has more process isolating features built in (namely jails) and perhaps different scheduling methods of processes, making it more ideal for OPNsense/PFsense, x86 router firmware. And proprietary OSes for for example game consoles are built to run the games for those consoles, and with their closed in nature emulation efforts often take a while to run the games on sometimes compatible hardware but an incompatible OS.
BSD fans have long claimed it is more secure and stable than Linux.
No.
The BSDs are neat, but loosing relevance. Servers are moving to containers, which are mostly Linux-specific, and desktops want access to as many apps as possible. Not all open source apps support BSD, and almost none of the proprietary apps do. And you’ll stumble upon some things we take for granted nowadays, Bluetooth support is missing in all BSDs, and OpenBSD does not have a binary update mechanism for the core OS.
That relegates the BSDs to specific niches. OpenBSD for systems with extreme security needs, NetBSD for embedded. FreeBSD for traditional servers. As far as advantages go, the BSDs are developed as a holistic system and not as a bundle of various projects like Linux distributions. Some of their core userland tools are arguably better than GNU variants. Documentation also tends to be better in my experience.
But the benefits usually don’t outweigh the disadvantages, which is why most momentum is behind Linux these days. Don’t expect to have a good experience with BSD on the desktop.
BSD distros are usually rock solid and used to power the backend of the internet in the past, webservers, firewall, routers.
Back in the 90s my profesor said: There are only two OS: DOS and Unix. and noawadays it would be: There are three OS: Linux, DOS, and Unix.
So… out of the BSD family: They have some people, most notably FreeBSD. I used it a while, and most of the useful Linux software is backported to it. The kernel itsefl follows a more predictable dev cycle, but it or will be dead soon.
OpenBSD and NetBSD are more niche: OpenBSD are security fanatics, and NetBSD are embedded fanatics. But I would says that you can cover those two niches with a Linux custom builds, and their packages are…. old and with little maintain (las time I checked some 10 years ago).
All three have somewhat better kernel documentation, which is easier to do because things change slower, under comitee decisions.
And then there is the licensing differences.
[deleted]
Is there a benefit to using a car’s seat belt?
[This is SeL4](https://sel4.systems/About/)
Its a microkernel using a lot of formal verification. The BSDs also have some specific use cases others have gone into
Temple OS keeps the feds out so that’s pretty cool
Its a W and L
You loose the ability to play most Multiplayer games legit
But you gain the ability to be a femboy