All I can say is experiences differ. I'm a long time Debian user, and now use FreeBSD for work. Both are far better than the proprietary competition, but I'd take Debian/Linux over FreeBSD when building a random server.
To give but one example, I recently reported a bug when FreeBSD didn't boot after upgrade from 13 to 14. Worse the disk format was somehow altered so when the reboot tried to boot off 13 due to zfs bootonce flag (supposedly a failsafe), it refused to boot for the same reason. I believe it's due to a race condition in geom/cam. The same symptoms were reported 6 years ago, but the bug report has seen no activity. Making your system irrecoverable without a rescue image and console access strikes me as pretty serious. He waxes lyrical about zfs, but it's slower and more resource hungry than it's simpler competition and it's not difficult to find numerous serious zfs bug reports over the years. (But not slower than FreeBSD's UFS, oddly. It's impressively slow.) Another thing that sticks in my mind is a core zfs contributor saying it's encryption support should never have been merged.
This sounds too disparaging because the simplicity and size of FreeBSD has its own charms, but the "it's all sunshine and roses" picture he paints doesn't ring true to me. While it's probably fair to say stable versions of FreeBSD are better than the Linux kernels from kernel.org, and possibly Fedora and Ubuntu, they definitely trail behind the standard Debian stable releases.
Comparing FreeBSD to Debian makes throws up some interesting tradeoffs. On the one hand, FreeBSD's init system is a delight compared to systemd. Sure, systemd can do far, far more. But that added complexity makes for a steep learning curve and a lot of weird and difficult to debug problems, and as FreeBSD's drop dead simple /etc/rc.conf system proves most of the time the complexity isn't needed to get the job done. FreeBSD's jails just make more intuitive sense to me than Linux's equivalent which is built on control groups. FreeBSD's source is a joy to read compared to most I've seen elsewhere. I don't know who's responsible for that - but they deserve a medal.
On the downside - what were they thinking when they came up with the naming scheme under /dev for block devices? (Who thought withering device names was a good idea, so that /dev no longer reflects the state of attached hardware?) And a piece of free advice - just copy how Linux has does it's booting. Loading a kernel + initramfs is both simpler and far more flexible then the FreeBSD loader scheme. Hell, it's so flexible you can replace a BIOS with it.
The combination of the best parts Linux and the BSD's would make for an wonderful world. But having a healthy selection of choices is probably more important, and yes - I agree with him that if you are building an appliance that has an OS embedded in it, the simplicity of FreeBSD does give it an edge.
Withering is the name the give to removing block devices under /dev that have file systems mounted on them. Contrast this to Linux, where /dev reflects something simpler - the hardware detected the kernel.
The /dev naming is about are how FreeBSD handles block device aliases. Like Linux, FreeBSD creates a number of aliases based on the block devices labels and uuid. My favourite Linux alias is missing on FreeBSD - bus path (which how you unambiguously get to the you just connected at a cable). On Linux these aliases are just symlinks to the real device, which means all it takes is "ls -l" to see the relationship between devices and aliases. Simple, elegant and it means all devices have one true name, so in error logs and so on you always know what device it's talking about.
Under FreeBSD these aliases are device nodes, so there is no single true name. The real device an alias maps to is not at all obvious. Worse, it's not the same device major or minor, and worse still the aliases behave differently. So for example, it the OS mounts as CDROM using it's label alias (which would be /dev/iso9660/label on FreeBSD) you can't eject it because the alias device doesn't understand the eject ioctl. But the you may not be able to get to it at all, because it's been withered away.
Complicating the issue still further is zfs. It wants to take over the roles of /etc/fstab and /sbin/mount. This gets particularly interesting when you boot off zfs, so there is no /dev, so there are no aliases, so it has no obvious way of figuring out what those path names you gave to zpool meant. They kludged their way around that somehow, but it doesn't always work - which I think is the trigger behind the boot failures I mentioned earlier. They took me days to figure out a work around. It was to turn off some of the aliasing.
To give but one example, I recently reported a bug when FreeBSD didn't boot after upgrade from 13 to 14. Worse the disk format was somehow altered so when the reboot tried to boot off 13 due to zfs bootonce flag (supposedly a failsafe), it refused to boot for the same reason. I believe it's due to a race condition in geom/cam. The same symptoms were reported 6 years ago, but the bug report has seen no activity. Making your system irrecoverable without a rescue image and console access strikes me as pretty serious. He waxes lyrical about zfs, but it's slower and more resource hungry than it's simpler competition and it's not difficult to find numerous serious zfs bug reports over the years. (But not slower than FreeBSD's UFS, oddly. It's impressively slow.) Another thing that sticks in my mind is a core zfs contributor saying it's encryption support should never have been merged.
This sounds too disparaging because the simplicity and size of FreeBSD has its own charms, but the "it's all sunshine and roses" picture he paints doesn't ring true to me. While it's probably fair to say stable versions of FreeBSD are better than the Linux kernels from kernel.org, and possibly Fedora and Ubuntu, they definitely trail behind the standard Debian stable releases.
Comparing FreeBSD to Debian makes throws up some interesting tradeoffs. On the one hand, FreeBSD's init system is a delight compared to systemd. Sure, systemd can do far, far more. But that added complexity makes for a steep learning curve and a lot of weird and difficult to debug problems, and as FreeBSD's drop dead simple /etc/rc.conf system proves most of the time the complexity isn't needed to get the job done. FreeBSD's jails just make more intuitive sense to me than Linux's equivalent which is built on control groups. FreeBSD's source is a joy to read compared to most I've seen elsewhere. I don't know who's responsible for that - but they deserve a medal.
On the downside - what were they thinking when they came up with the naming scheme under /dev for block devices? (Who thought withering device names was a good idea, so that /dev no longer reflects the state of attached hardware?) And a piece of free advice - just copy how Linux has does it's booting. Loading a kernel + initramfs is both simpler and far more flexible then the FreeBSD loader scheme. Hell, it's so flexible you can replace a BIOS with it.
The combination of the best parts Linux and the BSD's would make for an wonderful world. But having a healthy selection of choices is probably more important, and yes - I agree with him that if you are building an appliance that has an OS embedded in it, the simplicity of FreeBSD does give it an edge.