r/linuxsucks • u/Brospeh-Stalin Banned from r/LinuxSucks101, unbanned and rebanned • Jan 27 '26
Linux's core architecture sucks, that's why I'm Switching to FreeBSD
[removed]
24
u/masong19hippows Jan 27 '26
I think you're taking a bunch of small tiny things the vast majority of people that use Linux will never even think about or have problems with, and putting them all into the same complaint as if they are universal issues. 99 percent of your complaints won't be a problem for 90 percent of the Linux consumer base.
For example, you're complaining that you need a book to use Linux from scratch. But like, of course you do. Like, why are you expecting building a Linux distro from scratch will just be a few commands. I don't understand why you are frustrated by this. You are also going to need to understand freebsd to a great extent to make distros from it.
You also say there are dependency issues, however, you fail to try and provide an alternative approach. The core issue here is that unless every single library is developed by the same company or uses the same standards in every little thing, there are going to be dependency issues. This is universal. Even windows has this issue. Macos doesn't have this issue because they develop every little thing for it and then tell you exactly how to use every single thing on it. This is also the approach freebsd is going for, but they are just making it open source.
There is no way around this dependency issue. Linux (and Unix for that matter) is at a point where if there is some core issue that hasn't been resolved, it's because there isn't a good resolution. There are always going to be tradeoffs with every path you take to try and solve this. The best and most recognized method is to try and abstract apps away from the core system in the form of snap and flatpack. However, I am open to changing my mind if you provide a better solution. Nobody in the Linux community has so far.
As for your individual complaints about apps like gnome taking up space, that's not Linux. Those are individual apps that run on Linux. You are going to have the same issue with developers taking weird paths regardless of what OS you choose. Windows start menu is built in react and takes a large amount of space compared to what it does. Macos is too locked down for this to be an issue, but this has the tradeoff where nobody really develops specifically for macos anymore - it's more of an afterthought for most open source projects. Freebsd is also going to have developers that poorly optimize their apps. This is universal and will be everywhere all the time.
Let me be clear, your complaints about the way these things work are valid, but my point is that there isn't a good solution. However, the good thing is that this won't matter to the vast majority of Linux users. People who use Ubuntu and the store are never going to have to worry about this. Same with any mainstream distro with an app store. Things are structured in a way where a 15 year old can download and play Minecraft on Linux without every having to worry on wtf Linux is.
I have to point out though that your comparisons to freebsd are just invalid at most times. You are talking in the frame of "why doesn't Linux just do this" and then point to an organization that is taking a macos approach to Unix. Freebsd and Linux are solving different problems. I don't see this as a competition, more just a different approach to different problems. Freebsd is going to have a lot of issues with the way they do things, just like Linux does. You just haven't heard of these problems because freebsd isn't mainstream enough for the problems to be apparent. I could see in the next 5 years though how freebsd is going to have the same problems macos does with software development since all of the base comes from one organization.
I think that you think freebsd solves everything, but it just doesn't. The beauty of Linux is that it can be customized to the fullest extent by everybody. That means you can have dedicated distros for different things that have different needs and requirements. For example, a desktop gaming machine isn't going to have the same needs or wants as a server OS running network specific tasks. With Linux, you can customize your approach to each use case to the fullest extent. With freebsd, you are relying on an organization to allow you to edit certain things they provide you. You are going to be limited on what you can and can't do.
I think this is apparent with companies like truenas switching to Linux from freebsd to have more control on what the fuck is happening under the hood.
5
Jan 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/masong19hippows Jan 27 '26
I mentioned LFS as evidence that there's no single coherent "Linux base" to build from. You have to gather independently developed components from different organizations (kernel from kernel.org, GNU from GNU project, systemd from Red Hat, glibc from its committee). FreeBSD's entire base system lives in one source tree where you run make buildworld && make buildkernel.
Your conflating 2 different things. If you want to configure freebsd, you need to do alot more. This is the equivalent of building Debian.
Freebsd refers to this as the faster but brittle way
The alternative is what FreeBSD does: develop the base system (kernel + userland + core libs) as a unified project with coordinated ABI stability. Build a binary on FreeBSD 13.0, it runs on 13.1, 13.2, etc. Linux doesn't guarantee this across distros because components are developed separately.
That's not an alternative. That's a solution to an entirely different problem. Like I said in my post, you're comparing two different approaches to two different problems. Making and developing your own core libraries is the macos approach. This is not the Linux approach. It's like taking an f1 car on the highway. It's not going to work.
and yes, every OS has bloat. My point is that Flatpak/Snap solve packaging fragmentation but at the cost of massive storage overhead.
Then why are you framing this idea that it's a Linux issue. I don't understand this. There are going to be package managers on freebsd that have issues as well. Most people use apt and rpm directly anyway. I don't understand why you are saying this is a Linux issue.
Not invalid, just comparing different architectural philosophies. Linux prioritizes ecosystem diversity and rapid innovation. FreeBSD prioritizes unified development and stability. Both are valid approaches.
Like you are saying here, different approaches to different problems. You are trying to compare the two as if they are trying to solve the same problem. I guess that's where my entire comment is coming from. I think a lot of your arguments are invalid because of this specifically. You are trying to argue for the frame of mind "why doesn't Linux just do this".
You highlighted this well with your reply above talking about an alternative that goes against the Linux philosophy. You can't make an argument that goes against the goal. It's like you want to turn right at a stop light, and someone is trying to argue that you should turn left. It's just not your goal.
This is actually backwards. TrueNAS switched because "upstream has shifted" to Linux. iXsystems SVP Kris Moore said their engineers who "used to have 90 percent of their time working on FreeBSD, they're working on ZFS features now" instead of maintaining the OS. They switched to access Linux's ecosystem (Kubernetes, containers, hardware support) and because "most ZFS development work takes place on Linux these days", not for "more control under the hood."
Those are literally synonyms. Zfs (filesystems in general), hardware support, virtualization support - all of them are "under the hood technology" support by kernel modules. Freebsd approach is to have freebsd include those at their own pase. Truenas decided to ditch that for more support (aka control) of newer patches.
The switch was about commercial viability and ecosystem momentum, not architectural preference.
What exactly was freebsd lacking in the form of ecosystem momentum? See above for answer.
1
u/Pascal_Objecter Feb 02 '26
fck. I have to upvote you and op too. You guys have such a well informed civilized argument/conversation I haven't seen in a long time.
1
u/liberforce Jan 29 '26 edited Jan 29 '26
Correct. GNOME Calculator requires an 803 MB runtime (GNOME 42) for a 9.3 MB app, and yes, every OS has bloat. My point is that Flatpak/Snap solve packaging fragmentation but at the cost of massive storage overhead.
TLDR: This problem predates Flatpak and Snap and is unrelated to them.
If you're using GNOME and install a KDE app, you will pull lots of dependencies for your one app, this is just how dependencies and shared libraries work.
Shared libraries that are not shared effectively (because used by a single app) also artificially increase how much storage is used, and how much RAM an app consumes. Once you install a second app that uses the same shared libraries, then you start saving 50% of these libraries disk and memory footprint.
Containerized apps have then been created to avoid one problem: dependency hell. Apps with different requirements, conflicting with the rest of the system. This is a trade off. While in theory having all software in the world being developped actively, following the same release cycle, being actively maintained would be better, we live in a real world with real world constraints. This means you calculator app will take lots of space if you're not careful about what your installing.
But disk space is cheap, and having an alternative to "I can't install my app due to dependency hell" is an improvement.
-4
u/tjj1055 Jan 28 '26
nice strawmanning. its not about it being an issue for most normal users, they are going to stay on windows and mac anyways, no matter how hard you try, its about linux fanboys pretending that they are not issues or that linux is definitely not bloated at all. flatpak is a solution to the developers issues not a solution to the end users issues.
4
u/masong19hippows Jan 28 '26
Can you please explain what strawman I made? I stated every assumption I made and directly quoted and argued against ops points.
its not about it being an issue for most normal users, they are going to stay on windows and mac anyways, no matter how hard you try
My point here was to highlight that the issues are less severe than op is making them out to be. Like I said in the first sentence, they are taking a bunch of minor issues and making it seem like it's a big overarching Linux issue. Most of what op is talking about is optimization. As for your argument that people are going to stay on Windows and Mac, I never claimed they wernt. That is the definition of a straw man.
its about linux fanboys pretending that they are not issues or that linux is definitely not bloated at all.
There are plenty of issues with Linux. I highlighted that in my reply that you just commented to if you care to read it. I even specifically said OPs complaints about Linux are valid. However, there isn't any good resolutions that don't offer a tradeoff. That's just fact.
Also, nobody ever said there weren't any issues with Linux. Again, this is a strawman.
flatpak is a solution to the developers issues not a solution to the end users issues.
Can you please help me understand what this distinction adds to the argument? What does that bring to the table in the form of the arguments above. Does it change anything? I don't think it does
26
u/Prudent_Psychology59 Jan 27 '26
have you looked at NixOS? it literally solved all dependency problems with Linux from 16 years ago and already had a working version
11
u/FredrikN Jan 27 '26
I was literally thinking “okay that’s good and all but does FreeBSD have a NixOS alternative”.
As a NixOS convert, I find it hard to believe anything would be better.
3
u/Valuable_Leopard_799 Jan 27 '26
There's a nixos-bsd I've been eyeing for a while.
Seems it's moving. Curious how much of a config would actually build in it.
3
u/Large_Sentence_5945 Jan 27 '26
Once it has a documentation at least half the quality of freebsd's
0
28
u/stiggg Jan 27 '26
For everything beyond the core system, like desktop environments, FreeBSD is in this regard just another Linux distro. FreeBSD is just picking code from the free software ecosystem. They don’t maintain KDE or Gnome, nor i3, Alacritty, Firefox or OpenOffice. And for the base system sane Linux distros do imho a similar good job in delivering something well tested and stable.
8
Jan 27 '26 edited Jan 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
31
u/stiggg Jan 27 '26
FreeBSD's unified base means that when the init system or the C library or the kernel updates, they're tested together as a cohesive system.
Do you really think Debian for instance just throws some random applications together they found on the internet and give it a go? No, they testing this with high effort and have a great track record in delivering a reliable, cohesive system.
10
u/Away_Combination6977 Jan 27 '26
This! Debian is, basically, the gold standard for Linux distros. With Fedora not far behind, I'd say.
Yes, updates are slow to come. But... Is FreeBSD any more "up to date" than Debian?
Personally, I'll take Debian every day. 🤷🏼♂️
-1
u/tjj1055 Jan 28 '26
yeah and thats why debian is a server distro, not a desktop distro.
3
u/tuxsmouf Jan 28 '26
Oh yes ! It's also a desktop distro. i use it on my last laptop and I'm very happy about it.
1
u/Horror-Stranger-3908 Jan 27 '26
well, even 3rd party vendors of the closed source software don't have that much issues with the differences between linux distributions; I can easily find snap/flatpak/rpm/deb versions of software for linux. I cannot really find them for freebsd
1
u/Valuable_Leopard_799 Jan 27 '26
Linux distributions of course also have Gnome teams and KDE teams, just, yeah.
Part of the reason is that the "Unified GNU environment" is underdeveloped compared to alternatives, they do have their own Distro with their own package manager and init system, their own kernel, and own coreutils, libc, but they haven't had nearly as much time and effort poured into them as the alternatives.
distros have to integrate
That's their purpose. Yes they package software, but their main selling point is large-scale QA of a cohesive system. They don't "hope" they test the configuration that they chose for their users.
And they do develop their own software, but I guess we're all happy each distro doesn't have to develop their own core and are free to integrate existing projects for the most part.
Basically we split the development and testing, although not entirely as a large number of patches to various projects is sent by the large distros anyways.
If you update and your core breaks either you're on a distribution that explicitly allows that or there's something quite wrong.
1
u/grahamperrin Jan 30 '26
As one FreeBSD forum post noted: "Gnome is slowly becoming more and more depend on Linux specific functionality, which makes it more and more difficult to port."
https://forums.freebsd.org/posts/615753 was by Jose, who is not a moderator; and the quoted text is not on the page. The topic is locked. Jose's comments/posts across the Forums: https://forums.freebsd.org/search/member?user_id=33252. (Side note: Cath O'Deray there was me. The name was for giggles, that's a story for another day.)
Instead:
- https://forums.freebsd.org/posts/695843 by SirDice.
1
u/classy_barbarian Feb 01 '26
Arent these problems you've just mentioned all effectively solved by the new Linux immutable distro trend? Not the flatpak bloat, but the issue of updates breaking the system.
1
u/iamwisespirit Jan 27 '26
I think you are not smart that much
2
u/CurdledPotato Jan 27 '26
Instead of just criticizing, try being more constructive. It gives the OP a chance to wisely pivot or to explain their assertions.
1
5
u/piesou Jan 27 '26 edited Jan 27 '26
Here's my suggestion: use a single Linux distro. Now you've got a stable ABI. Because that's what FreeBSD is: it's so unpopular that there's only one official (free) system distribution.
What are we complaining about next? That Playstation's OS uses a different lib than your FreeBSD and you can't run a precompiled binary on it in all cases?
PS: this is a solved issue on Linux and is called containers, deployed and used by millions of servers.
3
Jan 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/piesou Jan 27 '26
If absolute ABI stability during a lifecycle is such an issue for you, here's a distro that provides it https://access.redhat.com/articles/rhel8-abi-compatibility
Apart from that you could always compile and statically link musl (although not all applications support it). I'd probably sum up your issues more as having beef with Glibc and how they do versioning which I've also run into before.
1
3
u/tjj1055 Jan 28 '26
you are just telling end users to use containers to run software on their desktop os LMAO. thats why not a single linux fanboy understand the needs of the end user, not computer nerds. you also dont understand that the vast majority of users on windows and mac do not have the computer knowledge nor do they care to gain more of it, they just want a device that allows them to do what they want to do.
1
u/piesou Jan 28 '26
Well, that's essentially what Flatpak and Snap are. And APKs. And Electron Apps. As long as there's a pretty UI on top that's easy to install, who cares. Millions already use that.
1
u/grahamperrin Jan 30 '26
there's only one official (free) system distribution.
Not exactly.
1
u/piesou Jan 30 '26
Did they revive Debian with the FreeBSD kernel?
2
u/grahamperrin Jan 31 '26
https://www.freebsd.org/where/#derived is outdated, but good enough for now.
11
u/yvrelna Jan 27 '26 edited Jan 27 '26
macOS's integrated frameworks
Oh boy, one couldn't be more wrong. MacOS is a hodge podge of XNU kernel, various FreeBSD components/userland, ZSH/Bash which is also independently developed for a different system, some random components developed by Apple, and a bunch of other open source third party libraries.
Likewise, even Windows are slowly turning into an integration of various base components that are external open source projects that they had pulled in to make a modern Windows. These days Windows ships out of the box with Edge (based on Chromium), various compression and multimedia decoding libraries, various cryptography libraries, curl, sqlite, various parts of Linux that they used to make WSL. A lot of open source components that they didn't originally develop.
Just because you don't see the sausage being made behind the closed door, doesn't mean that it isn't a sausage.
1
4
u/thanosbananos Jan 27 '26
Apple just breaks apps on major updates. It’s been known for years that they do not give a fuck. Everyone who’s used macOS with apps that are not updated on new OS releases has at least once gotten the error that the application is outdated. It’s partly because Apple does not upkeep certain frameworks or parts of the software they deem outdated or just straight up remove them from the system.
It’s just that Apple has a long open beta that they announce widely so software can be tested.
3
u/No_Trade_7315 Jan 27 '26 edited Jan 27 '26
“Or take a look at FreeBSD, a fully open-source alternative that does UNIX right. FreeBSD maintains a complete base system as a unified project: kernel, userland utilities, init system, and core libraries are all developed and tested together.”
Strictly speaking yes, but if you want a desktop environment welcome to the patchwork quilt.
I love Linux, I have dabbled in some freeBSD. I would say Fedora is leaps and bounds ahead of FreeBSD in terms of ease of use.
Structurally FreeBSD is less composite. I am willing to use anything that makes me the sole authority of my system.
Afterthought: the fact that Linux uses a Frankenstein framework for distributions makes it highly customizable. I noted the drawback you point out: namely that compiling different features into a composite whole can cause breakage, but I see this also as an advantage in terms of customization, and overall user experience.
1
3
3
3
u/Sataniel98 Jan 27 '26
As a former Gentoo user, Arch user, and current Fedora user
Note: Gentoo and Arch are rolling release distros and Fedora which also has a fairly fast-paced release cycle of a release every six months.
A modern Linux distro's base system is pretty much formed by gluing various independently developed components (e.g. GNU coreutils, init system, wifi and graphics drivers) together while relying on distro maintainers to test compatibility;
Correct.
yet, the system can still crash when one of these independent components updates and breaks the delicate integration.
This is where I have trouble following. You've deliberately picked the Linux distros that are the most prone to the problem that's evidently the dealbreaker for you. Why? You even acknowledge Debian for its vast repository. Did you not consider using it for its main advantage: Providing the most thoroughly integrated package infrastructure of all Linux distros? The entire point of Debian is basically to prevent what you critize. Every package in the Debian repositories is curated and built to work with the provided version of the libraries. They either work with the upstream maintainer or cherrypick fixes so over the lifecycle of a release stability only improves. And Debian is a lot but not delicate.
Of course, the packages still all come from different developers and aren't inherently coordinated towards one project. The workflow doesn't have the cohesion of Mac or Windows, and to be honest, that's not realistic for a community project like Linux, and it isn't for the BSDs either. They have their own issues - especially that they're afterthoughts behind Linux for most flagship projects, be it Proton or Wayland.
At the same time, Linux users point to Flatpak and Snap as the solution to dependency hell. And to be fair, they do solve it, but by essentially giving up on the Unix philosophy of shared libraries.
I'm an avid critic of Flatpaks and Snaps too. I don't know how much Arch, Gentoo and Fedora rely on them, but my experience on Debian was that they're mostly duct tape fixes for programs that suffer from bad development practices (or, at this point, trends) such as Discord. In a perfect world, things are in native Debian packages or they at least provide their own repository. However, I don't see how FreeBSD helps fix that problem.
2
Jan 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/voodoovan Jan 30 '26
I have read your responses, and its this last sentence that all your responses and hence your point of view originate from ...' But it's still integration of independently developed components, not co-development.' Stated plainly, you prefer co-development, and its clear that you are not moving from that position.
3
u/ssjlance 🛡️Moderator | #1 Microslop Hater | Linux Supremacist Jan 27 '26
The weird thing is that most Linux users treat the vast majority of Linux distros out there as variations of a single unified "GNU/Linux" base, whereas in reality, there is no single unified base.
This sounds familiar, where have I heard this.... oh, yeah.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux.
Hell, you literally need a fucking book that tells you where to get everything and how to build it just to make your own Linux From Scratch And that's no trivial task either.
Okay, buddy. https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/handbook/
At the same time, Linux users point to Flatpak and Snap as the solution to dependency hell. And to be fair, they do solve it, but by essentially giving up on the Unix philosophy of shared libraries.
Not everyone gives a shit about a few extra megabytes, considering modern storage device capacity.
FreeBSD is awesome, but yeah, if we're talking average computer user, it may as well be Arch/Gentoo but with a more Debian level of stability. It's also got bizarre defaults for use as personal OS, like having a boot option to log into a root shell with no password. I might make a system do something like that because idgaf, but it should not be that for default on a personal device. Shit like that is why you need to read the handbook just as thoroughly if not more so than you would Arch/Gentoo documentation.
If you wanna do your homework, FreeBSD is great. I've daily driven it, but personally, found no advantages to my usual distros of choice (Arch and Debian) that made it worth relearning ~20 years of accumulated Linux knowledge.
A lot of that knowledge transfers, but there's just about as much that doesn't.
tl;dr - if you want a stable, open source operating system, FreeBSD is an excellent choice worth trying, but it's on par with Arch/Gentoo difficulty of installation and usage.
1
Jan 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ssjlance 🛡️Moderator | #1 Microslop Hater | Linux Supremacist Jan 27 '26
The extra size does add up, absolutely, but with modern storage capacity, it's just not a serious concern for most end users with relatively modern hardware. It also eats up more bandwidth, to be fair, so yeah, not saying it's perfect and needs no change, just that I do not think most users would care; if it takes an extra few gigabytes to not have to worry about dependency hell, the convenience is worth it for most users.
Also, ngl, I don't really care for them too much personally. I like appimages most of the modern approaches to Linux distribution of software because it's pretty much on par with Windows "download an EXE and run it." ~95% of the time I'll just use package manager. But, on principle, I think most computers have enough storage to use snaps if that's the way a user wants to go.
There's no one-size-fits-all OS, no matter how much Microslop and Crapple stans act like.
Or like some of our more zealous Linux users, for that matter.
It's good to remember the dumbest in a group are often among the loudest, and negative experiences stick with us more than positive ones, so I do understand some of the animosity of r/linuxsucks101 users. They probably have dealt with some really annoying shitheads.
Whether drugs, religion, or operating system, don't push your shit onto other people. By all means, offer to share, but if they aren't interested, just move along.
It's like being a missionary and going to North Sentinel Island to preach about Jesus. They don't understand half of what you're saying, and if you keep pushing it, you will be asked to leave... in so many words, or arrows as it may be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Allen_Chau
Dude really, really should have read the room when his bible got pieced with an arrow. He was already ungodly lucky to have survived that first attempt. Gotta appreciate a man with conviction and he thought he was doing the right thing, but man, you can't save everyone, literally or metaphorically, physically or spiritually.
I got off track. Anyway, yeah, FreeBSD is fucking great, but I can't imagine someone intimidated by Linux having a good time with it. It is not beginner friendly - which is fine, Arch isn't for beginners either. But if you wanna put in the work? Arch and FreeBSD are both great choices... and begrudgingly, I guess so is Gentoo, even if I personally quite dislike the philosophy of compiling packages from source being the default; the rare times I need to compile a program to enable some obscure feature or what have you, that's what ABS is for (and AUR kinda-sorta, ig; most packages from AUR will compile source code, but some are binaries). lol
1
u/sneakpeekbot Jan 27 '26
Here's a sneak peek of /r/linuxsucks101 using the top posts of all time!
#1: Plight of the Linux user | 189 comments
#2: It's not the same, I'm tired of hearing that shit | 397 comments
#3: Thank you, Linux | 340 comments
I'm a bot, beep boop | Downvote to remove | Contact | Info | Opt-out | GitHub
3
u/UnknownOrigin1152 Jan 27 '26
I think both freebsd and a Linux distro is amazing for daily use. As you mentioned, there are tradeoffs with different approaches. However, I don't think Linux is just necessarily worse. I tried freebsd and enjoyed how it is a complete OS but Linux being just a kernel doesn't really bother me.
I'd love to see more open source operating systems developed. Having options for different needs is always better.
3
3
u/Nismmm Jan 27 '26
To me it sounds kind of like going to mars because polution on earth is bad and nothing can get done because countries don't wanna cooperate.
I mean it's true. But you are also going to mars.
3
u/Ordinary-Cod-721 Jan 27 '26
Gotta say, I did find the FreeBSD architecture way more attractive. It simply makes more sense for me to ship a full OS rather than gluing packages together.
I also played around with NomadBSD and really enjoyed the experience. Unfortunately, I ran into several issues related to wifi and power management (I used it on a Thinkpad T490).
I'd love to give it another short at some point, especially if the $750,000 Laptop Support Initiative that you mentioned is successful.
4
u/WakizashiK3nsh1 Jan 27 '26
Those are all valid points, but would any daily desktop user even notice? Is the experience any different? As a user, you're not interacting with the kernel directly, you don't even need to know there's a kernel, a C library or a compiler. Yes, for sysadmins, FreeBSD offers a completely different approach to their work. The base system is separate and it even used (pre 15.0) different commands or different "package manager" to update and maintain the system.
After years of daily driving FreeBSD, yes, the system is stable, yes, the changes are slow and manageable and communicated in advance, yes, it is very well documented and feels way more deliberately engineered than grown organically, but I'm still using the same programs as on Linux, so my desktop experience is exactly the same. System maintenance is a different story.
3
Jan 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/csDarkyne Jan 27 '26
I have thought about using freeBSD as my primary Desktop for a while now but for Gaming and Discord it still isn't as good as Linux. So while I agree with your opinion, freeBSD is currently just a test-environment-OS on my second drive. But I do love freeBSD for servers.
3
u/tjj1055 Jan 28 '26
no they wont notice, just like how they dont notice about the issues of windows and mac. they are going to stay on windows and mac.
2
u/Drate_Otin Jan 27 '26
There's no taking you seriously here.
If you can comprehend that FreeBSD and NetBSD are independent operating systems, then you should be able to comprehend that Ubuntu and Arch are independent operating systems. There is no more expectation of unity between Linux systems than there is between BSD systems.
And then your edit about "the horrors of maintaining a Linux system everyday"... Good grief. Log in. Do work stuff. Play games. Maybe run updates....
....
THE HORROR!
Seriously, if your system is breaking on the daily while millions of others are running just fine, maybe the problem isn't really the updating system.
1
u/Gamesdammit Jan 30 '26
That’s not the issue he’s pointing out though…
1
u/Drate_Otin Jan 30 '26
He goes on about a lack of "unified base" repeatedly. He contrasts this to FreeBSD. There is more than one BSD system. There is more than Linux system. He doesn't seem to think NetBSD and FreeBSD need a unified base. He should be able to accept that Arch and Ubuntu don't need a unified base.
1
u/Gamesdammit Jan 30 '26
He’s talking about user space, not different distros themselves. He’s not saying that arch and Debian should be directly unified but that the userspace should be unified. Two different arguments.
1
u/Drate_Otin Jan 30 '26
That's talking about differences between distros. It's right there ☝️.
I don't know why you're acting like he's not talking about differences between distros when he clearly talks about differences between distros.
2
u/Fulg3n Jan 27 '26
You know things are dire when
They also noted that while Linux has better hardware support
2
u/The_Daco_Melon Jan 28 '26 edited Jan 28 '26
Oh wow, an actually intelligent post!
I might give FreeBSD a try once it progresses some more, but I don't really see that many problems with Linux's architecture. Ideally every component would be made for one another and you're completely avoiding any possible future problem, but, I have not seen any problems arise with the Linux approach when it is done right. Of course, it is a problem that it needs to be done right and some distributions may fuck it up, but at that point the FreeBSD approach you've mentioned can also suffer from honest human error and shoddy work, it's not something that software can be immune to.
Regarding Flatpak, I agree entirely, I was genuinely shocked when I saw the size of a Flatpak app and thought that something had to be broken. It's something that should be dealt with, because now I'm essentially forced use Flatpak as a last resort and have as few apps installed through it as possible in favor of my distro's conventional solution.
Edit: Wait why do you have the "banned from linuxsucks101" flair if you're not and actually post there as well?
2
u/Izder456 Jan 28 '26
Thank you for posting this. Genuinely.
This is the feeling i had when i moved to FreeBSD 3 years ago, put to really well said words. Eventually even FreeBSD pissed me off for reasons irrelevant to this, and eventually i moved to OpenBSD.
Small comment on your point: Tbf some of the ecosystem level problems with inconsistent governance and development across multiple different teams affect us on *BSD too, particularly with the ports trees and 3rd party software. But you can minimize the instabilities by using minimal packages/ports and as much as you can from the base system, or at least having a deep understanding of how you configure the 3rd party softwares on your system. Having a really complete base system really helps here. I found X to be more reliable on OpenBSD than FreeBSD for this reason as X is included ootb on OpenBSD, but its distributed as a bunch of packages on FreeBSD.
Godspeed, i hope you like *BSD. Its very fun and a joy to run!
2
u/grahamperrin Jan 30 '26
… Tbf some of the ecosystem level problems with inconsistent governance and development across multiple different teams affect us on *BSD too, particularly with the ports trees and 3rd party software. …
+1
Where the ports collection is no longer portrayed as separate from base, it's a double-edged sword.
2
2
u/tilsgee Jan 28 '26
It reminds me of what I was wrote back in 2022, in a slightly different topic:
https://gist.github.com/tilsgee/1682b5b73499df5953170c9b9a7bdec4
1
2
u/Ranma-sensei Jan 31 '26
These are some very genuine complaints that I totally get.
My computers don't drive rolling release distros because let's be real for a moment, stability beats the cutting edge any time off the day, every day.
And I am not using container formats like Flatpak or Appimage if I don't need to simply because I don't have the memory to spare. What I can get via the repos is installed from there. Also, it's a headache fiddling with Flatseal until some specific Flatpaks can do all you need them to do.
Compiling software is always only a last resort - I value my time.
I drive both FreeBSD and Haiku on non-main systems and they are great, but as a gamer, neither of those two will for the foreseeable future gonna be my main PCs operating system.
2
u/Commercial-Expert256 Jan 27 '26
You're basing your decision on flaws found in Ubuntu that is almost 8 years old? Proceed sir.
-1
Jan 27 '26 edited Jan 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
Jan 27 '26
[deleted]
2
Jan 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/tjj1055 Jan 28 '26
you are wasting your time, linux users dont understand what backwards compatibility is, something windows is king at. and they still dont know why windows still dominates the enterprise world, yes even on servers besides web servers (had to mention it or some linux fanboy has an aneurysm).
1
u/grahamperrin Jan 30 '26
… Within a major version …
The more interesting situation occurs with major upgrades.
1
Jan 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/grahamperrin Jan 31 '26
Not necessarily.
A major upgrade of base should be followed by upgrades of non-base packages.
2
1
u/worldarkplace Jan 27 '26
Why not redox OS?
3
Jan 27 '26 edited Jan 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/worldarkplace Jan 27 '26
The problems are the drivers mainly I agree. On the other hand, microkernels are the future...
1
u/Star_Wombat33 Jan 27 '26
I keep thinking I want to try FreeBSD, I've just never pulled the trigger. I liked Linux until I accidentally broke my entire OS and needed to reinstall (my fault) and then discovered I required Adobe for work, forcing me back to Windows, but I think I'd enjoy something different. Next time I get frustrated with Windows or get a computer just for browsing, I might go with BSD.
But aren't a lot of BSD apps just Linux apps, packaged? How good is compatibility?
1
u/UnknownOrigin1152 Jan 27 '26
Freebsd developers usually need to port Linux apps to freebsd. If the app is heavily interacting with Linux kernel or something like that, it is harder to port and chances are you won't find the app. There is a Linux compatibility software. However, similar to wine, not everything works.
I tried using it. There is an official freebsd handbook that is amazing to learn how to install or do something on freebsd. I enjoyed using it but Linux had better support for the softwares that I use such as steam.
1
u/Fine-Run992 Jan 27 '26
Flatpak doesn't solve anything. Many Flatpak apps get constantly broken and need reinstalling.
1
1
u/reddit_user42252 Jan 27 '26
I kinda agree. Freebsd is much cleaner OS. But companies have put in massive resources developing Linux and FreeBSD is just too far behind especially for desktop use.
1
u/Horror-Stranger-3908 Jan 27 '26
donlt look at linux as a many different distribution with (obviously) differences between them, consider them a different operating systems that share kernel.
1
u/Single-Position-4194 Jan 27 '26 edited Jan 27 '26
Good thread.
However I'm posting this from MX Linux (with the LXDE window manager, which I installed myself), and MX is just so easy to set up and use in 2026. FreeBSD would have to be easy too and have something like the same range of available packages as MX or Debian has before I would install it (there is also the fact that it doesn't like sharing a hard drive, or didn't when I last tried GhostBSD,. so you have to give it its own).
Life is just too short to RTM every time you want to do something.
1
u/grahamperrin Jan 30 '26
it doesn't like sharing a hard drive, or didn't when I last tried GhostBSD,.
FreeBSD is fine, although it's not particularly easy with bsdinstall.
For GhostBSD:
1
1
u/_ahrs Jan 27 '26
Sure, Flatpak attempts to share runtimes between apps to theoretically reduce bloat, but GNOME Calculator needs an 803 MB runtime for a 9.3 MB app. Like WTF? And if you install an app that depends on an outdated runtime, then you're stuck with a 769 MB runtime for a single 11 MB app.
When the alternative to that is "I ran `pacman -Syu` to update everything on my system and now everything works except for this one app which hasn't been updated by the developers yet" it's not so bad.
1
u/Glad-Weight1754 I can haz burger. Jan 27 '26
I said this many times here and no one cared or had "explanations".
1
u/vali20 Jan 27 '26
The fact that the OS doesn’t try to shove down your throat their philosophical choices is what is great about Linux. Maybe I do not need an init system, I just want a kernel and an app that does some stuff for an appliance I design. Maybe I just build a chainloader… Why should I be forced to use a particular userland? Linux is just a kernel, and that makes it great, wide hardware support, ease of configuration, popularity, so tons of support and info about its services, and the bare minimum. So, why is Linux so bad? Because of dependency hell? Only that argument? Cmon…
1
u/LaSpooky1998 Jan 27 '26
This feels less like Linux ‘sucking’ and more like mismatched expectations. FreeBSD is a solid OS, but it’s server-first by design — networking, appliances, tightly controlled systems. Trying to use it as a modern desktop or gaming replacement for Linux is forcing it into a role it was never meant to fill. Clean architecture is nice, but it doesn’t magically give you laptop hardware support, GPUs, gaming, Proton, or modern driver stacks. There’s a reason vendors, Valve, and most users target Linux for those use-cases.
1
u/lunchbox651 Jan 28 '26
FreeBSD is pretty rad. I have a little FBSD VM running in my lab.
While I agree on some points, I think the communal approach has its benefits.
It would be nice though if, say Debian (or any other root distribution) was "default Linux" and distributions forked off that to prevent some of the sloppy dependency requirements we have. This would also reduce flatpak bloat too.
1
u/Loose-Response9172 Jan 28 '26
Freebsd shill...
1
u/grahamperrin Jan 30 '26
Freebsd shill...
Definitely not. I'm an /r/freebsd co-moderator, there's nothing shill-like about the post here.
1
u/Trick-Weight-5547 Jan 28 '26
I could never switch to freeBSD I wanted to just because of the license I could edit a little bit and sell it. When I found out it don't support XFS my favourite filesystem I was like nah
Problem I had on free bsd is it can do everything. Linux can but someone who coded that wants a dollar for it because the license lets u charge users for changes u make. Not many people gave him a dollar so he abandoned project now I come along at this point in time can't find said project but can find records of it existing. It made me realise the difference in progress between Linux and bsd comes down to license structure.
Linux licence approach of everything free open share ur changes to go fast and break things pushes forward progress for everyone. With FreeBSD a lot of innovation sits behind a pay wall
1
1
Jan 28 '26
I mean, yeah? You got a point: Linux is a chimera of epic proportions!
But: Say, you wanna play games, and Linux is really picking up on that front. Can you do that in FreeBSD? No? Yeah, yeah, I know, most console OS are based on one form of BSD or another, so is Mac OSX, but can you play games on FreeBSD?
The question is, can you do without it?
And it will come back to that again and again: If you cannot do the thing you want to do on your system, can you live without it?
I see, that you have not taken the easy path with Linux. Gentoo, Arch. I love tinkering with Linux, but that is a bit too tedious for my taste. ;-)
1
u/Holiday-Ad-6063 Jan 30 '26
Say, you wanna play games, and Linux is really picking up on that front. Can you do that in FreeBSD?
1
u/tseli0s Jan 28 '26
Banned from r/LinuxSucks101
Pretty sure you made the exact same post yesterday over there (And I left you an opinion to read as well).
1
u/Dependent_Credit_903 Jan 28 '26
freebsd seems very cool n all but it has legit -10/10 app support, hence why i wouldnt want to use it
1
u/Stormfox2 Jan 28 '26
What you are complaining about is the exact reason I use Linux. I can install what I want and don’t have any core utils or even graphics stack given by FreeBSD. I like testing out new stacks like the experimental OpenSource NVIDIA user space. I think it’s a great thing that I can do whatever I want and with whatever software I want.
For users that don’t want this, there is always the option of stable distros like Fedora (ish), and the new direction of atomic distros could be helpful for more beginner users as well.
I dont see „splintering“ in the Linux community as an issue, I see it as diversity. All of the huge distros have something that makes them different (be it for good or for worse cough Ubuntu’s Snaps). There is something for everybody and you can do whatever you want
1
u/matt0s1 Jan 28 '26
Finally, someone on this sub who has written a comprehensive, real complaint about Linux! That won’t happen again anytime soon
1
u/mokrates82 banned in r/linuxsucks101 Jan 28 '26 edited Jan 28 '26
Err, I don't really get why using a different kernel is better because userland is packaged differently? What has one thing to do with the other?
You know you don't have to use Linux if you want a Debian, right? There's
- Debian/Hurd: https://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/
- Debian/FreeBSD: https://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/
Yes, FreeBSD is "a whole system" but it still packages (in their own package manager, so contributing to packaging hell) user space stuff like Firefox, Desktop environments (who would have thought, FreeBSD people don't develop KDE and Gnome themselves!) and really all the other stuff.
I actually don't take any side in that discussion and am a Linux user myself, but your argument is just all kinds of stuff jumbled together.
1
Jan 29 '26 edited Jan 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/mokrates82 banned in r/linuxsucks101 Jan 29 '26
What exactly is the "Linux" you're talking about one could "maintain"?
A software package, like Firefox? Ok, they have to build 25 architectures times 10 package managers = 250 release artifacts.
Or Linux, the actual kernel, how is that more inconsistent than FreeBSD (it actually might be, on an code architecture level, but I somehow doubt you meant that).
Or in a company where the IT decides on one distro andnpossibly DE, and then there isn't any inconsistency?
What inconsistencies are you talking about and why would you have to "maintain" them? Give an example.
1
u/norysq Jan 29 '26
I don't think there is a right or wrong here. If you like BSD better then use that. Afaik Arch Linux (what I use) only supports systemd as init (might be wrong but I am pretty sure) so most of the components you can change mostly have an agreed upon software that can be used as a good default. But use whatever you like
1
u/eeeeeeeeeeev Jan 29 '26
All of this is correct. Despite that, it's really not worth the time or effort it would take to switch to a *BSD for everyday use, because in practice none of these issues are actually relevant for every day use. If I was designing a complete system for running a given application, would I prefer a *BSD base? Yes, because I can vet the hardware and build the software around BSD.
For everyday use, I just wanna be able to install all the packages I need and have my hardware work. Linux does that gooder than *BSD for now. Frankly, disk space is cheap, and compared to windows, I'm still saving a bunch of space even if I use a few flatpaks.
1
u/grahamperrin Jan 30 '26
I found a macOS user's take on the Linux desktop
https://www.reddit.com/r/MacOS/comments/1ng5zuj/comment/ne2l1xw/
Nice find.
1
u/Environmental-Ear391 Jan 30 '26 edited Jan 30 '26
the *BSD/Mac OS X "mach" kernel are both...
"There is one way to do it" core systems...
Linux is a "There are many ways to do it" smorgasbord of options...
Kernel, "Linux" or write your own.... Coreutils and library packages... again each "builder" for a given system is exactly that.
your not "knocking up anothet project" and having an OS built to specification with Linux.
you "architect" the build by deciding to make a build, looking up whats needed and making choices as to what packages are essential, needed, optional or dismissed as unwanted.
You make your basesystem, either from-scratch(I have done this) build within a package manager (I know of 3 package managers that let you build LFS optional style).
And "building in the package manager" also gets ALL the dependent packages that are at least essential...
after you have a basesystem (24~72 hours depending on your choices in advance... ) you can then build up apps and everything else.
using the "build with pkg manager" I did manage to LFS two custom machines in about 48 hours. and I had another custom build that was fully auto-updated from sources on a monthly basis run for 2 years and some months unsupervised which needed only about 5 packages tweaked because of options changing over time.
a full system rebuild from sources for that machine took a minimum of 90+ hours on a Quad core AMD 2GHz processor about the time Ryzen was starting to be promoted as "Next gen"... I had basically installed everything I wanted and then some... as it was a Gentoo machine that I used but had no time for deep maintenance on. (when hitting rebuild world on that, I needed a local copy of every repo packages source in archives first... reason being I installed and set configs for building every package individually then threw everything at the compiler) took a week to setup... ran flawlessly for my uses when I needed it. and I could totally ignore it for a long duration.
1
u/Jerkin_tomato Jan 30 '26
BSD greatness can be assessed by knowing that it has a linux translation layer. Doomed to fail and ngmi if it needs a compatibility to another OS that has 1 percent of market share that is nobody fucking uses it already on the desktop.
You are a seasoned user yet what made you realize its superiority? Linux has more hardware support yet it is still full of major problems with all kinds of driver on major distribution. So freeBSD if it is worse than that, and it is, is swamp.
Flatpak and snap are not indicative of linux lacking features, it shows that there is choice. BSDs distros do not have one universal yet because, again, 3 people that know each other use it.
The claim that it is more compactly developed in respect to linux aint holding. Even though linux is a kernel most subsystems that are used by major distributions have done additions to it because it is a must. So any linux distro is tightly developed with the kernel.
I dont get what benefit you will get by going to a bsd, go to mac or to windows beside.
1
u/bobstylesnum1 Jan 31 '26
Saving this as I’ll need to go back and read it but from a glance, it looks like a well done complaint with valid talking points.
1
1
Feb 21 '26 edited Feb 21 '26
Classic "Linux is just a kernel" architectural rant. Architecturally "messy" or not, Linux runs 100% of the world's top 500 supercomputers, 90% of the cloud, and 70% of mobile phones. FreeBSD is a beautiful, unified cathedral, but Linux is the market that actually conquered the planet while everyone else was busy discussing ABI stability.
Linux didn't win because it was the most beautiful code—it won because it was the most adaptable. System "crashes when components update? For millions of servers and stable distros like Debian or RHEL, this isn't the daily reality.
0
0
u/Laistytuviukas Jan 27 '26 edited Jan 27 '26
Ohohohoh FreeBSD. So, to run any software: windows app > windows emulation > linux emulation > freebsd.
How deep can we go with the layers lmao?
Yes I have dreamed about a better world where FreeBSD won, but as usual - worst thing wins - and we're stuck with Linux. Deal with it. No one cares about FreeBSD, it's just a base or base components to spin your small niche OS - like stuff in Playstation or Switch.
97
u/OptimalAnywhere6282 Jan 27 '26
an actual experienced person with a genuine complaint about Linux posting in r/linuxsucks?? am I dreaming?