We're migrating many of our servers from Linux to FreeBSD
The reasons are, for a large part, not on the technical side. I was surprised, because this this a lot of work for little visible gain. Here are the reasons, slightly abbreviated:<p>&gt; The whole system is managed by the same team<p>Mostly philosophical.<p>&gt; FreeBSD development is less driven by commercial interests.<p>Mostly philosophical.<p>&gt; Linux has Docker but FreeBSD has jails!<p>IMO, this comparison is a mistake. In the Linux world, systemd&#x27;s nspawn is very similar to Jails. It&#x27;s a glorified chroot, with security and resource management. All the systemd tools work seemlessly with nspawn machines (e.g. `systemctl status`). Containers à la Docker are a different thing.<p>BTW, I thought the last sentence about security issues with Docker images was strange. If you care about unmaintained images, build them yourself. On the other side, the FreeBSD official documentation about Jails has a big warning that starts with &quot;Important: the official Jails are a powerful tool, but they are not a security panacea.&quot;<p>&gt; Linux has no official support for zfs and such<p>Fair point, though I&#x27;ve heard about production systems with zfs on Linux.<p>&gt; The FreeBSD boot procedure is better than grub.<p>YMMV<p>&gt; FreeBSD&#x27;s network is more performant.<p>Is there some conclusive recent benchmark about this. The post uses a 2014 post about ipv6 at Facebook, which I think is far from definitive today. Especially more since it &quot;forgot&quot; to mention that Facebook intended to enhance the &quot;Linux kernel network stack to rival or exceed that of FreeBSD.&quot; Did they succeed over these 8 years ?<p>&gt; Straightforward system performance analysis<p>The point is not about the quality of the tools, but the way each distribution packages them. Seems very very low impact to me.<p>&gt; FreeBSD&#x27;s Bhyve against Linux&#x27;s KVM<p>The author reluctantly admits that KVM is more mature.