FreeBSD

[Mr-Biscuit]

It seems that the people behind the ubuntu forums do not want any discussion of FreeBSD or any BSD.

Care to enlighten me on this sudden change towards ignorance?

[woppy71]

I tried using FreeBSD, just to see what it was all about, But, to be honest, I enjoy Ubuntu that much, I swapped back. I'm one of those sorts of people who will trymost things once at least, before I formulate an opinion on whatever it is. I havn't used FreeBSD enough to do that just yet. I may do in the future :)

I take it you are a FreeBSD fan? :)

[Phreaker]

Never used it, but I have heard good things about it

[spcwingo]

I tried using FreeBSD, just to see what it was all about, But, to be honest, I enjoy Ubuntu that much, I swapped back. I'm one of those sorts of people who will trymost things once at least, before I formulate an opinion on whatever it is. I havn't used FreeBSD enough to do that just yet. I may do in the future :)

I take it you are a FreeBSD fan? :)

I'm the same as you. Trying new things is what led me to Ubuntu (that and Vista). That being said, I have tried a few BSDs. I recommend DesktopBSD, PCBSD, and Freesbie.

[RichardLinx]

I haven't tried BSD but I have looked into it many times, I just don't have time to swap between operating systems every few weeks.

[aeiah]

what examples do you have of the mods censoring BSD discussions?

ive never tried freebsd or any of the others. i dont have much of a home network and our linux servers at work need to play well with KVM virtualisation so there's no real need for *BSD in my life :p

ubuntu's strength lies in its usability as a desktop operating system. what can freebsd offer desktop users that ubuntu cant?

[haemulon]

what examples do you have of the mods censoring BSD discussions?


ubuntu's strength lies in its usability as a desktop operating system. what can freebsd offer desktop users that ubuntu cant?

Not much I suppose. I think the wireless is easier to set up on FreeBSD.

But it comes very bare bones. On the desktop, I think it's for the "I'm using Unix" , tinkerer crowd.

I still like FreeBSD just 'cause it remains outside the FSF, Linux, Microsoft dance.

[tdrusk]

That is because it should be in the Ubuntu Forum's - Other OS Talk - BSD forum (http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=171).

[Mr-Biscuit]

tdrusk.That part of the forum is closed to new posts.

aeiah, ubuntu is a distribution of the linux kernel, gcc, and other parts.
What can it offer that linux can't?
An entire system- Net/Open also have their own version of X.
A stable system.
A system that allows you to create users that have no root access.
An easy to maintain system.
There is more compatibility between different BSD flavors than there is between linux distributions.
RichardLinx. Use qemu, xen, kvm, kqemu and install it on a virtual machine.
haemulon. True, and it is more geared towards development and stability.

[tdrusk]

tdrusk.That part of the forum is closed to new posts.


*throws fit*

[Bölvaður]

It is on my list of OSes to try out. But it is going to take a long time.
I had the iso and begun the installation process once, but wimped out.

[gnomeuser]

I used FreeBSD in the 5 and 6 era quite a bit, however the system lacks the polish and delights I get on Fedora. Additionally the community around FreeBSD is nowhere near as vibrant as around major Linux distros and I like being part of making things happen.

For someone looking for new experiences and perhaps wanting to get a little gritty FreeBSD is a nice system to explore, they have excellent documentation and it is easier than it looks.

[CraigPaleo]

A system that allows you to create users that have no root access.


Root access is disabled by default in Ubuntu and only authorized users can use "sudo" It'd be a huge problem if any ol' user had root access.

I'd try BSD but it won't support my hardware. Nine months ago, Ubuntu was the only Linux disto I could find to support my hardware.

[forrestcupp]

Well, this is a forum for Ubuntu. That's one big reason that you'll find much more talk about Linux than BSD. It's only logical that on a Linux forum, the talk is predominately about Linux and not BSD.

But there are people here who use and love BSD. Personally, I'll never use it as my main OS. I don't like Linux's incompatibility problems, so I'm definitely not going with something that is even more incompatible, especially software-wise.

There are a lot of great things about how BSD is set up. I love the idea of ports, and that all software is central instead of spread out all over the place. But that also means that if I want to install something not in there, like Cinelerra, I probably won't be able to without getting into the code and porting it to BSD. Linux is just way more widely supported.

I think the main thing is that around here, a lot of people are GPL nuts. There's a huge philosophy difference in the two types of licensing, and for some reason, that philosophy is overly important to a lot of people in the Linux community, almost to the point of becoming like a religion.

[tjwoosta]

i tried freebsd

and i would probably like the bsd's very well except my wireless card is not supported

[chucky chuckaluck]

i was always surprised there was an 'other os' forum here. it included a bsd forum. as i understand, the closing of the other os forum was out of administrative needs and not hostility, jealousy, etc. i think UF is pretty generous in their welcoming (not just tolerating) of users of other os's.

the supposed speed of a bsd appeals to me, the joke that "even less works on bsd" doesn't. one day, i'll try one.

[BrokenKingpin]

I have used it before and do not see what it offeres over Ubuntu, so I stopped using it.

[coolbrook]

I'm patiently waiting on the release of version 8.0.

:-\"

[Firestem4]

Not FreeBSD but I am checking out DragonFly BSD (Derived from FreeBSD though). Personally the HAMMER File System is what intrigued me about DragonFlyBSD int he first place opposed to any other BSD's.

[thisllub]

Not much I suppose. I think the wireless is easier to set up on FreeBSD.

But it comes very bare bones. On the desktop, I think it's for the "I'm using Unix" , tinkerer crowd.

I still like FreeBSD just 'cause it remains outside the FSF, Linux, Microsoft dance.

I had trouble with the WPI driver. It was painfully slow.

There are two problems with Linux that make it impossible to install on this laptop (Acer Travelmate 5610)
One unresolved kernel bug that causes an ATA timeout and no power management.


BSD doesn't do VirtualBox so it had to go.
Just when I was expecting a return to Windows I tried OpenSolaris.

After a few months I am very happy.
Everything works - very well.

The only real downside is that it is currently restricted to GNOME.
GNOME is my least favourite interface.
When it supports OpenBox and KDE I might even replace Arch on my main PC.

I like it that much.

[Mason Whitaker]

I've been thinking about installing one of the BSD's on my laptop, but I haven't really thought of which one to pick. I also have to ask myself what the point of it would be. It's community is miles behind Linux's when it comes to discussion, and its miles behind Linux when it comes to compatibility.

I have to say, if something amazing doesn't happen to BSD, it'll probably just become another System V :(

[haemulon]

Just when I was expecting a return to Windows I tried OpenSolaris.

After a few months I am very happy.
Everything works - very well.

The only real downside is that it is currently restricted to GNOME.
GNOME is my least favourite interface.
When it supports OpenBox and KDE I might even replace Arch on my main PC.

I like it that much.

I need to try OpenSolaris again, the first version I had hardware troubles with.

[Yashiro]

There aren't many reasons to use OpenSolaris over Linux.
Slightly better cifs/nfs. ZFS file system. That's about it for most people.

I use it on a server for ZFS and sharing. Pretty much the same scenario in which you'd use BSD over Linux.(serving)
For desktop use Solaris and BSD are adequate but Linux is better.

[Daisuke_Aramaki]

i still use FreeBSD a lot. Most of my old sparc machines are powered by freebsd, and a couple of my laptops dual boot freebsd, and lunar linux.

[albinootje]

I've been thinking about installing one of the BSD's on my laptop, but I haven't really thought of which one to pick. I also have to ask myself what the point of it would be. It's community is miles behind Linux's when it comes to discussion, and its miles behind Linux when it comes to compatibility.


What are you referring to ? I've seen discussions on FreeBSD mailinglists, and I don't see a problem there.
I use FreeBSD on 4 dedicated firewall machines (2 of them use m0n0wall), and I think it's great.
I've also used FreeBSD on servers before in combination with "jails", nice and interesting.
The FreeBSD handbook is very good I think.
But I assume that you're talking about FreeBSD on the desktop.
I've run FreeBSD on the desktop, and it's the same as with Gentoo Linux, after a while I got tired of compiling so much :)

Concerning compatibility, years ago I've seen machines with RAID cards where Ubuntu would panic, and FreeBSD would install without raising one eyebrow.
Later I had to spend a lot of time making Debian work with a 3ware RAID card, while in FreeBSD it was ... again easy.
The BSD license used in FreeBSD can be advantage depending on your setup.

[Daisuke_Aramaki]

and yes, the support for FreeBSD or any other BSD variant is fantastic. you just need to have the habit of following up the mailing lists discussions, and forums and such. Besides, the FreeBSD handbook is an excellent source, which covers most of the issues that a user might encounter.

[abyssius]

Isn't this in fact another "other OS" discussion? Am I the only one that feels that the Ubuntu Forum should really be focused on things, 'Ubuntu'? I'm glad that the forum administrators decided to direct those who want to talk about other OS'es to their respective forums. No matter how great openBSD, or Arch or whatever is, Ubuntu has established - and IMO will always remain - the #1 alternative to the commercial OS'es. The popularity of this forum, and virtually every available published metric, reflects this. I hope that most people in the Ubuntu community go beyond simply installing OS'es on their computer for the sake of it, and actually focus on using Ubuntu for their daily computing needs.

[donovan1983]

I had used FreeBSD a few times before the 5.x series. At the time it made for a speedier, more responsive desktop system than on Linux (not to mention a faster server system). I think the kernel changes that made Linux a more responsive system didn't come until kernel 2.6. FreeBSD is an interesting system and with the compatibility layer installed, is binary compatible with Linux ELF and a.out binaries which opens up a huge software library. I also tried NetBSD at that time when it happened to be rated faster than any BSD or Linux variant. Now Linux has managed to catch up with or even surpass the BSDs in speed.

If hardware support was a bit better and there was good power management support I would like to install NetBSD again. Just that software-wise there is no advantage over Linux and hardware support is a bit behind. It is still the operating system that supports more hardware than any others. The Linux kernel supports about as many, but the most widely ported distribution, Debian, supports maybe 1/4 of the platforms NetBSD does. It's still an interesting system just for that reason alone.

[Mr-Biscuit]

abyssius: Don't be wantonly ignorant. You'd be amazed at how much each can work with each other. FreeBSD is an OS while ubuntu is a distribution.
thisllub: Trying to port virtualbox is a bitch. Look in the arch linux forums for bugs and exploits.
CraigPaleo: You can create users that have absolutely no root access of any kind on a BSD system. This is good if you want extra security. Every user can get root access by default on a Linux system.

[swoll1980]

oops double post

[swoll1980]

abyssius: Every user can get root access by default on a Linux system.

Don't know where you got that info from. Only the administrator can add users, then he/she decides what kind of privileges you get. I don't get it. Are you some kind of FreeBSD salesman, or something?

[cardinals_fan]

FreeBSD is good, NetBSD is better :)

[Mr-Biscuit]

swoll1980: Any user can type su on a linux system. Prove me wrong on this one.On a FreeBSD box, unless root intentionally adds the user to wheel, typing su will be met with:
[moleque@ /usr/home/moleque]$ su mr-hat
Password:
$ whoami
mr-hat
$ bash
[mr-hat@ /usr/home/moleque]$ su
su: Sorry
[mr-hat@ /usr/home/moleque]$


Sorry, but mr-hat doesn't have any access to root.
The initial user account has to be granted use of root by root, or "wheel" in this case. We can continue with secure levels and other simple security measures. Anyone that has actually used one of the four major BSD systems will understand what I am writing.
A salesman? As much as you are a salesman for Linux. I happen to use both systems interchangeably.
Yes, there are systems much more secure than any Linux distribution. Maybe you have heard of or used plan9, hmmm?


On the BSD level, there is no upsmanship.

cardinals_fan: I'll have to redo NetBSD sometime.I admit, the user interface was much easier. Just a few X problems. I don't consider this the fault of the OS.

[toupeiro]

swoll1980: Any user can type su on a linux system. Prove me wrong on this one.On a FreeBSD box, unless root intentionally adds the user to wheel, typing su will be met with:
[moleque@ /usr/home/moleque]$ su mr-hat
Password:
$ whoami
mr-hat
$ bash
[mr-hat@ /usr/home/moleque]$ su
su: Sorry
[mr-hat@ /usr/home/moleque]$


Sorry, but mr-hat doesn't have any access to root.
The initial user account has to be granted use of root by root, or "wheel" in this case. We can continue with secure levels and other simple security measures. Anyone that has actually used one of the four major BSD systems will understand what I am writing.
A salesman? As much as you are a salesman for Linux. I happen to use both systems interchangeably.
Yes, there are systems much more secure than any Linux distribution. Maybe you have heard of or used plan9, hmmm?


On the BSD level, there is no upsmanship.

cardinals_fan: I'll have to redo NetBSD sometime.I admit, the user interface was much easier. Just a few X problems. I don't consider this the fault of the OS.

So you've prevented someone from running su by default. chmod o-x will effectively let me do the same thing, and I control execution with a group... Jeez, if this is the big win for BSD over Linux what is the point?! There's still the whole "password" factor. Its not like they can "get" root because someone can execute su...

[Mr-Biscuit]

toupeiro: You've never used a BSD system have you?
I'll re-explain for you.
You can have an initial user account that has no root privileges whatsoever. This means that you will have to use tty1 through tty7 to do any work with root.

[toupeiro]

toupeiro: You've never used a BSD system have you?
I'll re-explain for you.
You can have an initial user account that has no root privileges whatsoever. This means that you will have to use tty1 through tty7 to do any work with root.

You don't know much about UNIX permissions do you?

chmod o-x takes WORLD EXECUTE off a file or directory, which means regardless of what TTY port you are on, you don't do anything I don't want you to do.

EDIT: by the by, yes I have used BSD, and I'll take System-V based UNIX in a heartbeat over it, but I prefer linux to both because I'm not one of those elitist UNIX admins who can't adapt to change, and recognize all the positives Linux has brought which greatly outweighs the negatives. I don't have an issue with people liking BSD over Linux, to each their own, but your point here can be completely trumped by some very basic knowledge of UNIX administration. If you want to debate security between BSD and Linux, you are going to have to do better than that. ;)

[Mr-Biscuit]

I think that I do.
There is sysinstall which is the default and only installer for FreeBSD.
In post configuration you add the user account and the groups to which the user is part of. You add root's password next. If I am explaining this to you, then you don't understand.
How can mr-hat execute anything if he is limited in what he can do by default?
Let's see, shall we:
[mr-hat@ /usr/home/moleque]$ chmod o-x /usr/home/moleque
[mr-hat@ /usr/home/moleque]$ ls /usr/home/moleque
ls: moleque: Permission denied
[mr-hat@ /usr/home/moleque]$

BSD security takes this one step further.
Why don't you install FreeBSD and try creating two user accounts. One with access to wheel and one without then try your test. You can even add root as a buffer. Wait, set the secure level at 2. Change root's shell to /sbin/nologin, etc, etc.
I'd have a hell of a time explaining the simplicity of the plan9 "it's only accessible if you create the path" security to you.

[toupeiro]

I think that I do.
There is sysinstall which is the default and only installer for FreeBSD.
In post configuration you add the user account and the groups to which the user is part of. You add root's password next. If I am explaining this to you, then you don't understand.
How can mr-hat execute anything if he is limited in what he can do by default?
Let's see, shall we:
[mr-hat@ /usr/home/moleque]$ chmod o-x /usr/home/moleque
[mr-hat@ /usr/home/moleque]$ ls /usr/home/moleque
ls: moleque: Permission denied
[mr-hat@ /usr/home/moleque]$

BSD security takes this one step further.
Why don't you install FreeBSD and try creating two user accounts. One with access to wheel and one without then try your test. You can even add root as a buffer. Wait, set the secure level at 2. Change root's shell to /sbin/nologin, etc, etc.
I'd have a hell of a time explaining the simplicity of the plan9 "it's only accessible if you create the path" security to you.

Because I don't need to do install BSD to see this, I support about 50 other UNIX based systems at work and know all about wheel... My point is If I have root owning everything in /bin, and a group of my choice owning everything else, and take world execute off what I don't want people to run, it accomplishes exactly the same thing, in fact even more thoroughly than your described method because its not TTY specific. and you don't need to explain plan 9 as I am very fimiliar with it as well. I've even looked at using Venti as an archival solution. Your whole debate is that you think the BSD way of doing it is better, and that's your right, but you're just handling it differently, and in my opinion, its less effective than controling world execute permissions. You haven't shared anything that depicts this method of execution as being more secure than mine if say I had access to TTY 1-7...


If you're that concerned about security, taking execute privileges completely away to all but an exclusive group through direct file security is a much better way of doing it. You wanted to debate BSD, I'm giving you debate. I'm not asking you to go install linux, but you are asking me to go install BSD when I already thought I made it clear my position on BSD. I thought you said you weren't a salesman? Because, this is usually the point I say "take me off your list" and hang up the phone.

[Mr-Biscuit]

My debate is that between Linux and BSD, the default BSD method to security is better.
In my home directories, executables are permissible by only two users: root and the user itself. There is your example of direct file security.
I already have Linux installed on here. Been using it for some time now.
Offtopic: Thanks- in honesty and not kissing up- for meeting me with intelligent replies.

A good salesman is honest with his/her customers even if it means losing them. A better salesman not only informs them of other options but also helps them to use these options. I've sent more than one customer to another place because that area had what the customer needed and I didn't.
I'm an honest businessman to my customers.

If you haven't noticed by now, I'm answering you in return.

[toupeiro]

My debate is that between Linux and BSD, the default BSD method to security is better.
In my home directories, executables are permissible by only two users: root and the user itself. There is your example of direct file security.
I already have Linux installed on here. Been using it for some time now.
Offtopic: Thanks- in honesty and not kissing up- for meeting me with intelligent replies.

again. Its lack of UNIX security and administration that make you believe this.. I don't mean this insultingly, but I've been doing this a long time, and I know what you are describing, and I know its very doable in just about anything that remotely smells like UNIX.

Learn what a UMASK does in UNIX or Linux and how and when to properly use it, and you will find you can do this EXACT same "default" security model in any flavor of UNIX or Linux around your home directories. I've done this in BSD, Solaris, DG/UX, and IRIX and several linux distributions using proper UMASKS and file security. A UMASK of 022 would do exactly what you are describing. If you really wanted to be paranoid, you could use 066

So, if I chose to use a umask of 066 for every user I created, the permissions would look like

rw------- <file>
drwx------ <directory>

anything new they created would maintain this mask.

of course, its their data, and should I chose to give them access to chmod, they can open that up, or I could write some sudo command aliases to control what users or switches of chmod they can pass. This is all uniform stuff you can do across the gambit of UNIX and Linux.

you're only as dangerous as what you know, or what you don't know. :)


And, you're welcome :)

[Mr-Biscuit]

Never thought about using umask.
It's been chmod, chown, sysinstall, securelevels.
Off/on-topic: Thanks for the added security tip. Also, I enjoy an opponent I can "lose" to, it helps me learn.

[toupeiro]

Never thought about using umask.
It's been chmod, chown, sysinstall, securelevels.
Off/on-topic: Thanks for the added security tip. Also, I enjoy an opponent I can "lose" to, it helps me learn.

:) Don't think of me as your opponent, I enjoy this stuff, and debating about it. I can get a little over passionate about it sometimes, but I mean well. :) Thats whats great about this industry, you learn something new every day. I know I do. :)

[ugm6hr]

Glad to see everyone's frineds again :)

Anyway, back on topic...

I have just installed FreeNAS on a USB stick to run my recycled P4. Unfortunately, the HD is caput (died), so I've got it running on a 128MB USB, with a 2GB USB for storage! Obviously, I'll sort the storage issue out when I figure out all the intricacies of FreeNAS.

But, as an experiment in easy BSD systems, it appears fantastic as a home server.

I think I might do a little blog or wiki or something on this...

[swoll1980]

nevermind

[swoll1980]

A good salesman is honest with his/her customers even if it means losing them. A better salesman not only informs them of other options but also helps them to use these options.

This is the 2nd time this week I've seen this comment. The only way a "GOOD" salesman will inform someone of another option, is if he sells that option as well. I was in sales for 13 years this is how we make a living. I don't know where you guys get this stuff from.

Ballmer is a great salesman. How many times of you seen him telling people to go buy a Mac if they don't want viruses?

[chris200x9]

swoll1980: Any user can type su on a linux system. Prove me wrong on this one.On a FreeBSD box, unless root intentionally adds the user to wheel, typing su will be met with:
[moleque@ /usr/home/moleque]$ su mr-hat
Password:
$ whoami
mr-hat
$ bash
[mr-hat@ /usr/home/moleque]$ su
su: Sorry
[mr-hat@ /usr/home/moleque]$


Sorry, but mr-hat doesn't have any access to root.
The initial user account has to be granted use of root by root, or "wheel" in this case. We can continue with secure levels and other simple security measures. Anyone that has actually used one of the four major BSD systems will understand what I am writing.
A salesman? As much as you are a salesman for Linux. I happen to use both systems interchangeably.
Yes, there are systems much more secure than any Linux distribution. Maybe you have heard of or used plan9, hmmm?


On the BSD level, there is no upsmanship.

cardinals_fan: I'll have to redo NetBSD sometime.I admit, the user interface was much easier. Just a few X problems. I don't consider this the fault of the OS.

Have you ever even added a user in linux? The wheel group exists in linux too. Sorry if I didn't understand this post.

[Mr-Biscuit]

swoll1980: I've never lost a customer by being honest.
It's up to them to decide on what they want.
Does Ballmer inform people of everything good and bad about his products?
Were you completely honest with your customers? Did you inform them about everything when it came to a product or did you use some "script"?
Most- not all- salesmen are ignorant of the products they sell. Those who are knowledgeable are those that have used their own product on a more than trial basis.
Did you try to find someone who could help when you couldn't or did you bs them?
BS=dishonesty=swindling=stealing.
I have no former customer that I am afraid of seeing.
A getcha:I wonder at how many you may need to avoid.

And for your other answer: Stabilization through the stimulation of local economies.

chris200x9: It's the initial setup that has some differences. There isn't much difference outside of that when it comes to user control.

[cardinals_fan]

swoll1980: Any user can type su on a linux system. Prove me wrong on this one.On a FreeBSD box, unless root intentionally adds the user to wheel, typing su will be met with:
[moleque@ /usr/home/moleque]$ su mr-hat
Password:
$ whoami
mr-hat
$ bash
[mr-hat@ /usr/home/moleque]$ su
su: Sorry
[mr-hat@ /usr/home/moleque]$


Sorry, but mr-hat doesn't have any access to root.
The initial user account has to be granted use of root by root, or "wheel" in this case. We can continue with secure levels and other simple security measures. Anyone that has actually used one of the four major BSD systems will understand what I am writing.
A salesman? As much as you are a salesman for Linux. I happen to use both systems interchangeably.
Yes, there are systems much more secure than any Linux distribution. Maybe you have heard of or used plan9, hmmm?


On the BSD level, there is no upsmanship.

cardinals_fan: I'll have to redo NetBSD sometime.I admit, the user interface was much easier. Just a few X problems. I don't consider this the fault of the OS.
Removing and adding a user to wheel on either system is not rocket science. While FreeBSD may not put users in wheel by default, this is irrelevant because they still cannot do anything without the root password and because this behavior can easily be mimicked on a Linux system.

[albinootje]

Have you ever even added a user in linux? The wheel group exists in linux too.
In Linux it does not matter whether an user is in the wheel group or not, in both cases (in that group or not) the user can use the "su" command if that user knows the root password.
In FreeBSD your user has to be in the wheel group before you can use "su" successfully.

FreeBSD has some more security differences after the initial installation.
Quite some files in FreeBSD have the immutable flag, which is something which is not the case in Linux.
In FreeBSD it's also very use to change the "secure level", that is a level of protection which is much easier to use compared to SELinux or AppArmor construction.

One other thing is the encrypted password method used.
In FreeBSD it is a little bit easier to switch to Blowfish encryption for system passwords.
No extra software needed, and only two files to edit, and one command to run.
In Linux you need to install one extra software package, and then go through all the relevant pam configuration files.
Blowfish is used on OpenBSD by default for system password encryption and doesn't have the 8 characters maximum restriction.
I should add though that as well for Linux as for FreeBSD the switch to Blowfish system password encryption is not well documented.

[albinootje]

It is not so very easy to find how to switch to Blowfish for system password encryption, but here's an article which covers both Linux and FreeBSD concerning that :
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=377

To summarize it here :

FreeBSD :
# edit /etc/login.conf
# change

passwd_format=md5:
into

:passwd_format=blf:
# run this command : cap_mkdb /etc/login.conf

Linux :
# apt-get install libpam-unix2
# change in /etc/pam.d/common-auth, /etc/pam.d/common-account, /etc/pam.d/common-session, and /etc/pam.d/common-password
pam_unix.so
into


pam_unix2.so

# change in /etc/pam.d/common-password
md5 into
blowfish

There it is.
One difference is that in Linux you will get error messages about this in the logfiles, while in FreeBSD everything is clean ;-)
Of course you need to run "passwd" for the user account that you want to have Blowfish for. (All new accounts made will use Blowfish after creation, you can see the difference looking at $2, try vipw or vipw -s)
See also here :
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/handbook/crypt.html