Technical reasons to choose FreeBSD over GNU/Linux
What I dislike about these sorts of articles is that they try to pretend as if *BSDs weren't heavily dependent on the wider FLOSS community, which is mostly Linux-based.<p>They instead focus on minuscule differences, which you could maybe argue are a bit better from a design perspective, (the default file system layout for example), but in practical terms matter little.<p>On the other hand, they don't mention the fact that the reason OpenBSD is so "secure", is because their marketing focuses on the default install, which has almost nothing.<p>So the moment you install the minimum amount of packages to get your work done, the "only two remote holes" thing no longer holds.<p>When you point out the practically abyssal modern laptop support in FreeBSD, they just shrug because "macOS's also BSD".<p>Then there's the whole smugness towards Linux as if they weren't dependent on GCC for years, as if GNOME/KDE etc. wasn't a primarily Linux effort and as if ZFS was somehow their invention.<p>They'll sing about BSD Jails and how Docker is strictly inferior, (also ignoring LXC), while not having any even remotely equivalent frontend for BSD Jails.<p>They'd laugh at the systemd debates, while talking openly about maybe them doing something similar.<p>Now Linux also heavily depends on some parts of BSD, but you'd see hardly anybody thrashing OpenSSH, just because it's BSD.<p>It's just not a community I want to be a part of, that's before I get into the whole BSD vs GPL debate, but I do understand that the appeal is there for some and that's perfectly fine.