ive done it ive gone to freebsd

[albinootje]

freebsd is evil. why else would they use a devil as their mascot?

It's not the devil, it's a daemon. And FreeBSD has changed their logo quite some time ago after a logo contest.

And evil might be a subjective topic.
FreeBSD has a Ndiswrapper alike project (MS-Windows drivers loaded to make wifi-cards work) called "Project Evil".

[hanzomon4]

As long as this daemon keeps freebsd from being unjust....

[albinootje]

Whats the benefit vs Ubuntu?

One benefit that I've noticed through the years is that FreeBSD has better support for various RAID cards ... out of the box.

[Noah_Kapiolani]

Despite the cries from the peanut gallery, I fully support the author for wanting to challenging himself. So what if he is not the next Walt Whitman or has an intricate knowledge of Unix and its history of benefactors. If he all the sudo apt-get stuff is child's play and he can handle the land of command line Sparta then i for one say have at it. Without people like this, i would have never found the land of ubuntu goodness. Curiosity may have killed the cat, but it also makes smart people explore new things and then write step-by-step help pages so people like me can follow along. Lastly, i have one question, is it true that BSD is more secure than Linux?

[linsux]

is it true that BSD is more secure than Linux?

OpenBSD - Yes
FreeBSD - Probably
NetBSD - Possibly

[hanzomon4]

Despite the cries from the peanut gallery, I fully support the author for wanting to challenging himself. So what if he is not the next Walt Whitman or has an intricate knowledge of Unix and its history of benefactors. If he all the sudo apt-get stuff is child's play and he can handle the land of command line Sparta then i for one say have at it. Without people like this, i would have never found the land of ubuntu goodness. Curiosity may have killed the cat, but it also makes smart people explore new things and then write step-by-step help pages so people like me can follow along. Lastly, i have one question, is it true that BSD is more secure than Linux?

*Stands up*.... =D>

[albinootje]

is it true that BSD is more secure than Linux?

What is your definition of "more secure", and are you talking desktop and/or server ?

OpenBSD is perhaps the most secure, well-known, open source OS that exists, after a default installation.
Why ? Because OpenBSD developers are very focused on security, perform security audits, and write secure code.

And comparing FreeBSD to Linux : FreeBSD uses e.g. immutable flags on certain binaries (Linux doesn't), and you have the easy option to switch to another "securelevel".
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/...ml#SECURELEVEL

[Sublime Porte]

C!oud,

i.e. PC-BSD & DesktopBSD just like the numerous linux distro that try to accomplish the same thing. I would hardly say that *BSD is like linux from ten years ago.

That's right, there is BSD distros that try to cater to desktop users, but the fact is, most people would enjoy using Linux as a desktop OS more than any BSD flavour in their current states, due to the fact more (desktop oriented) software is available for Linux, and there's better hardware support. As someone mentioned, FreeBSD has great ootb support for RAID cards... Great

10 years might have been a bit of an exaggeration, but seriously, any Linux user who doesn't know what FreeBSD is, and is wondering about the differences, it's effectively like using Linux in the past, why would we want to jump back a few iterations, just so we could say "But I'm using 'real' unix"?

hanzomon4,

Why because OSX has extra bits not used by other Unix/like systems? I don't think things like Gnome/Kde matter, Gnu made Gnome apple made Aqua. What should they have used CDE instead?

Good point. GNU made Gnome, and most Unices offer gnome as a desktop option, how many offer Aqua? Gnome is a Desktop Environment based on the Unix Standard X11 Windowing System, Aqua is not. IBM's AIX offers 3 different Desktop Environments... do you think any of them is Aqua? HP-UX offers 2 main desktop environments, one of them has gotta be Aqua right? Since it's a Unix desktop isn't it? And last time I checked, Sun was offering which DE for Solaris... was it Aqua?? I think not. The fact is KDE and Gnome have become standard DE's for Unix OS's, Aqua has not, as it doesn't follow any of the Unix standards for a GUI whatsoever.

No... I've used the terminal in linux and OS X and it's pretty much the same... a few differences and on that point...

If you have a Windows box, install Cygwin, and you'll find a Cygwin terminal is pretty much the same too, probably more so actually... And?

Yes I have indeed used OpenSolaris and it behaved a bit differently then Linux and OSX

You found it to be equally as different from both Linux and OSX?