On Mon, 5 Jan 2026 22:50:13 -0000 (UTC), I wrote:
Jack Wallen is at it again <https://www.zdnet.com/article/freebsd-vs-slackware/>, still trying
to claim that
... FreeBSD is incredibly stable. I would go so far as to say
that it's the most stable operating system available.
This in spite of the problems he had with the install before!
Now, in a new article
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/freebsd-linux-review/>, he’s changed
his tune ever so slightly:
Once you get FreeBSD up and running, you can absolutely rely on
it.
Getting it up and running is the issue.
Kind of walking back his claims, without actually walking them back?
He continues:
However, upon glancing at the start menu, there were very few apps
installed. So, I fired up KDE Discover, only to find out it
wouldn't work. The reason for this is PackageKit, an open-source
software suite that simplifies the installation and management of
software packages on Linux systems. Simplify, being the operative
word.
Unfortunately, PackageKit continually crashed, so KDE Discover was
useless, and all app installations had to be done via the command
line. Given I'm very comfortable with the command line, that's
perfectly fine.
On a whim, I installed GNOME, but the GDM login manager wouldn't
start, so I stuck with KDE Plasma.
So he thought he had got it running, then tried to make a change, and
failed.
That “rock solid” claim is starting to sound more and more flimsy, don’t you think ...
He also repeats the old myth
Because FreeBSD is a descendant of the original AT&T UNIX code,
you can bet it inherited the stability of its predecessor.
Now he’s got a new analogy to try to prop his “stability” myth:
Imagine two companies that make cars. One outsources all of its
components from other manufacturers and assembles them in its
warehouse. The second builds all of its components and also
assembles them in its warehouse.
As you might assume, the second manufacturer's cars most likely
work and perform better than the first because it knows every part
that goes into creating the car and can make all sorts of
adjustments to improve every aspect of it. The first manufacturer,
on the other hand, doesn't have nearly the control over how those
components are built.
Except that’s not how car manufacture works at all. *Everybody* buys
in outsourced components for at least some parts of their vehicles.
Are cars less reliable as a result? On the contrary, they are *more*
reliable (and safer) now than they have ever been.
A similar thing applies to Linux: the common distros were always, from
the beginning, built up out of modular pieces from a great many
sources. Over time, most of the rough edges in getting those pieces
working together have been smoothed out, which is why you can have
hundreds of Linux distros available, and interoperate so easily
between them.
By contrast, the BSDs have become too accustomed to having centralized control over everything. This is why there are so few BSD variants,
yet there is so much fragmentation between them. Another result is, as
they try to adopt components coming from the Linux world, they are
unfamiliar with how modular, collaborative software development works,
and the quality of the result suffers.
A new article from Jack Wallen, entitled ???I found the best Linux
server distros for your home lab???
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/best-linux-server-distros-for-your-home-lab/>,
recommends a few of the usual suspects for getting experience with
servers: Ubuntu Server, Debian, Rocky (as the successor to late,
lamented CentOS), plus Fedora Server, which was a new one to me.
This quote is rather telling:
The primary reason I would recommend Debian as your server OS is
its legendary stability. There simply is not a more stable OS on
the planet. Some people might argue that Slackware is more stable
because of its Unix-like nature. I say this call is too close to
make, but either OS is solid. However, Debian is easier to use.
So, what happened to ???rock-solid??? FreeBSD? Remember this quote from
his first article:
Sure, I talk a lot about how reliable Debian is, but even Debian
can't touch the stability of FreeBSD.
I get the feeling he isn???t so keen on that any more ...
I get the feeling he isn't so keen on that any more ...
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 00:11:07 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
I get the feeling he isn't so keen on that any more ...
Umm... it's an article about Linux distros. Why would anyone mention
BSD?
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,123 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 34:15:04 |
| Calls: | 14,371 |
| Files: | 186,380 |
| D/L today: |
989 files (277M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,540,613 |