FreeBSD rather than Linux?

[SiliconWizard]

Just took a look at the current state of FreeBSD. What would be the benefits compared to Linux for a workstation? Is hardware support as good?

Any thoughts or experience would be welcome.

[Nominal Animal]

I'd be very interested in hearing desktop/workstation user experiences, too.

On the server side, on x86-64, I can definitely recommend FreeBSD on OpenZFS filesystems, although it has been a couple of years I last used one myself.  I could always set up a virtual machine and test how FreeBSD "works for me" that way, but having used Linux so much, I suspect I'd miss useful details and differences.
Hearing from actual current FreeBSD desktop/workstation users would be extremely interesting to me.

Even links to blogs or similar –– not advocacy, but honest personal experiences –– would be appreciated.

[RoGeorge]

I have it for a year or so as a second OS for the lab desktop (at home).  Feels great.  I don't know how to say, you have to try to know the feeling.  It feels simple, direct, clean, not bloated, don't know how to say.  Try it.  Can be tested in a virtual machine to not mess with dual boot at first.

Read the FreeBSD Handbook first.  This is a must.  Not an optional step.

The installer will only get you to text mode.  To install the video drivers and a GUI, there is a script called desktop-installer, which will ask questions of what desktop environment to install and a few other related must know settings (including a firewall, etc).  That will let you with a GUI just like any Linux, I'm using it with KDE.

Again, in FreeBSD newcomers must read the FreeBSD Handbook first, and must read install messages or other text may appear, and often must follow the instructions from such messages.

I absolutely love FreeBSD, however, I'm typing this from Kubuntu 22.04 LTS. 

Some things are tricky to set for a FreeBSD newcomer like me, or might require too much reading, or not yet ported to FreeBSD, things like that.  Also, their forum is great, but other than the FreeBSD forum and the FreeBSD Handbook you won't get the gazillion of search answers one gets for Linux.  The community is smaller, which is both a pitfall and a great advantage.

Most of the Linux things might be ported already, or might work in Linux compatible mode, though you might have some things not working.  For example, for me the showstopper was that VirtualBox doesn't have USB2.0 in FreeBSD.  I've just read VirtualBox now includes the USB 2.0 by default (before it was available only as a plugin), so maybe I could finally switch to FreeBSD.

WineHQ is ported (so things like LTspice, games or other Windows programs are working OK just as they work in Linux), though OS components are more conservative (e.g. no systemd, no alsa, etc.).

TL;DR
FreeBSD is great for those who have the discipline, the time, and the knowledge to set it properly, and eventually to port by themselves something that they need/want but is not yet available in FreeBSD.

If you don't care about UNIX, and just want to run something to get the job done, then use Ubuntu.

[Nominal Animal]

I have it for a year or so as a second OS for the lab desktop (at home).

What about the hardware support, anything notable?

I do believe for the graphics and video drivers, FreeBSD closely co-operate with the Linux devs (including Linux DRI/DRM developers dual-licensing relevant stuff so that it can be used in FreeBSD also), so that if using open source drivers, even accelerated video (VDPAU, VA-API etc.) should work just as well as it does on Linux.

What I do not know, is sensor support and fan control (especially on laptops).  I do use the Linux lm-sensors quite a lot, although on this particular laptop (HP EliteBook 840 G4) the ACPI control is perfectly fine, no tweaks needed.  I vaguely recall seeing posts about fan speed being not userspace-controllable in FreeBSD, but ACPI-based controls should work.

[RoGeorge]

What I do not know, is sensor support and fan control (especially on laptops).  I do use the Linux lm-sensors quite a lot, although on this particular laptop (HP EliteBook 840 G4) the ACPI control is perfectly fine, no tweaks needed.  I vaguely recall seeing posts about fan speed being not userspace-controllable in FreeBSD, but ACPI-based controls should work.

I don't know, hard to say without trying.  My desktop is 5+ years old, has nVidia (used w proprietary drivers that were installed by that desktop-installer script) and Creative sound (w drivers coming from Linux, too).  Most of the drivers are from Linux, I guess. 

If your laptop can boot from USB, get an SD card or pen drive and install FreeBSD on that so you won't touch the current OS.  I don't recall the minimum requirements, my first install was on a 32GB uSD card, and it was less than half with all the plasma and office and gimp and wine and who knows what other needed desktop installs I might have added there.  Beware that Bash is not the default shell, can be changed easily but it might look strange when coming from Linux.

If you get in any trouble, make an account to https://forums.freebsd.org/ and you'll get outstanding help.  Beware the community there expects you read the Handbook and the forum rules, and first 10 posts or 10 days (whichever comes first) for new users will only be published after (human) approval, so it might take minutes, or hours at most.  That might seem strange at first, but the community there is great.

[DiTBho]

OpenZFS filesystems

OpenZFS vs btrfs?

[DiTBho]

FreeBSD is great for those who have the discipline, the time, and the knowledge to set it properly, and eventually to port by themselves something that they need/want but is not yet available in FreeBSD.

FreeBSD guys, kernel side, are more rigorous in problem solving than Linux guys.
I like this!

Unfortunately my problem with FreeBSD is that the kernel is unstable/experimental for { HPPA2, MIPS32, MIPS64 }.

[DiTBho]

A second problem I have: FreeBSD supports Linux filesystems, but you cannot install your system on them. ext2/ext3 supports read/write access. ReiserFS and XFS are read-only support.

Xfs v3 is what I use, as well as ext2 and ext3

[Nominal Animal]

OpenZFS filesystems

OpenZFS vs btrfs?

Good question.  I do not have enough up-to-date experience to have an opinion myself. 

In Linux, I use ext4, btw.

[Monkeh]

OpenZFS filesystems

OpenZFS vs btrfs?

Good question.  I do not have enough up-to-date experience to have an opinion myself. 

In Linux, I use ext4, btw.

I'll chime in: btrfs is a nice project. Maybe it'll be safe and performant in another 5-10 years. 30s+ mount times, massive delays on file deletion of all things, scant tooling to recover from damage caused by either medium errors or kernel bugs. It's not an enjoyable experiece.

[RoGeorge]

I use ZFS for about 2-3 years now, both in Linux and in FreeBSD (both installed with ZFS on root partition, too, not only for data).  Same for a data HDD, ZFS and never had any problem that I know off.  Worked flawless.  I think BTRFS was left behind some years ago, and since, BTRFS has had some Halloween stories with data loss, silent corruption and such.

The only major distro still using BTRFS is openSUSE, AFAIK, and they are probably the only reason why BTRFS has not been forgotten.  In terms of features, ZFS and BTRFS are about the same, maybe ZFS has a few more but I never look very careful at the BTRFS specs.

FreeBSD has native ZFS and can put the root partition on ZFS, while Linux doesn't because some licensing complaints from Linus.  Linux with ZFS on root is possible but with a lot of extra work to install, generally not easy.  For Ubuntu however, there is an experimental feature in the GUI installer, since 2-3 years ago, just check a checkbox and Ubuntu will use ZFS for root.

The good (or the bad) part of Ubuntu on ZFS root is that they added yet another layer called ZSys, which takes ZFS snapshots automatically after each apt un/install and/or periodically, so the OS or the OS+user data can be restored at a previous time.  There are additional entries in the boot menu to select restore at a previous time, options added in the GRUB menu by Zsys.  Normal ZFS operations are still possible, but for some corner case usage it's better to be aware about the newly ZSys layer on top of ZFS.  Ubuntu with ZFS on root is stil experimental AFAIK, and available for Ubuntu only (e.g. for Kubuntu on ZFS root I had to install Ubuntu first, then add KDE Plasma later).

[Nominal Animal]

because some licensing complaints from Linus

No.

Linus does not own the copyrights to the Linux kernel, the developers do.  And the developers have provided their code under the GPL-2.0 license (plus sometimes other licenses).  The CDDL –– what OpenZFS is licensed under –– is not compatible with GPL, so mixing CDDL and GPL licensed code is not distributable under *any* license, according to the Free Software Foundation ('s lawyers specialized in copyright law).  You can read more about it at Wikipedia in the Common Development and Distribution License article.

Since ZFS was initially released in 2006, it would be much more apt to ask why they deliberately chose a license that would be incompatible with GPL, knowing that that would block it from ever being distributable when combined with the GPL-licensed Linux kernel code.  Sun definitely did always consider Linux a deadly competitor, not a community they wanted to collaborate with.  So perhaps blame those who made the choice in the first place?

[SiliconWizard]

My main "concern" would be about hardware support and whether it's as good as what we have with Linux. In particular: graphics cards and everything USB. Also, how much "lag" there typically is for supporting newer CPUs/chipsets.

Otherwise, more generally speaking, one benefit of FreeBSD is that it's a full OS. Linux is nothing like that - it's just the kernel, and then there are hundreds of distributions which each form an OS with different components and various levels of compatibility. It's very fragmented. Thus distributing software on FreeBSD is probably much easier. Besides, the FreeBSD licensing is much more liberal - whether you like it or not will depend on your own perspective. I tend to prefer it.

[DiTBho]

graphics cards

kernel modules are ported from Linux
This means
1) polished
2) two steps back, because polishing takes time

one benefit of FreeBSD is that it's a full OS

kernel + userland { C library, userland tools, misc } -> FreeBSD vs GNU/Linux

FreeBSD -> all inclusive, { FreeBSD {kernel}, BSD { C library, userland tools, misc } }
GNU/Linux -> { Linux {kernel}, GNU { C library, userland tools, misc } }

Talking about userland you have to consider BSD vs GNU
GNU: programs need to be linked against libdl
BSD: programs need to be linked against  libc.

Talking about kernel, FreeBSD doesn't have an official tool for kernel compilation and you have to resolve feature dependencies by hand. Not tricky? well ... at the moment I failed at integrating it into my builder.

[RoGeorge]

No intent to assign any guilt with the license remark, my bad wording, sorry.

My main "concern" would be about hardware support and whether it's as good as what we have with Linux. In particular: graphics cards and everything USB. Also, how much "lag" there typically is for supporting newer CPUs/chipsets.

About USB and HW support, all the USB I've plugged so far were working just fine.  Card readers, an ancient iPod nano, USB hubs from two different monitors and one hub with on/off manual switches sitting on the desk, various USB sticks, external USB HDD, an external IDE/SATA to USB adapter, various devboards, FTDI or CH340 dongles, photo cameras, an USB camera from the broken lid of a former HP laptop, etc.  I didn't have any USB 3 devices.

nVidia and Radeon are supported, same for the embedded AMD or Intel GPUs and the most common soundchips and network cards.  If there is a driver for Linux, most probably that it was ported to FreeBSD, too.  Linux code doesn't need to be re-written from scratch, only adapted.  After all, FreeBSD can run verbatim Linux code (with some limitations) and there is a Linux compatibility mode.  One can have a Ubuntu (or more, or other Linuxes) running inside FreeBSD (without creating virtual machines for them, virtualization is another option).

There might be some HW devices not working, but in general the HW support is about the same as in Linux.  Best way to know for sure is to install FreeBSD on another drive.  For my setup the HW support was no problem, but some software from Linux (like the support for USB2.0 in VirtualBox additions) might not be available yet in FreeBSD.

[alm]

I can't comment on desktop use, because I haven't used FreeBSD on desktop in a long time, but I can comment on server use. In my opinion the advantages of FreeBSD are native ZFS support (which I'd trust over btrfs for anything important), better server-class networking (for example I found the pf packet filter on FreeBSD much more enjoyable than iptables on Linux), and better documentation (for the core OS): For FreeBSD there is a solid manpage for every command in the core system, while for Linux the documentation may be in a man page, in the command using --help or something similar, in GNU Info, on some random webpage, or not at all. Of course the same does not apply for any software not in the core FreeBSD OS.

I think you might have problems with anything more that's distributed in binary form. Installing the closed-source Chrome (as opposed to Chromium) does not look like fun to me. As long as you're happy with Firefox and Chromium you might be okay. The official Dropbox client may not work on FreeBSD, although there are open source solutions.

[DiTBho]

FreeBSD on RISC-V ...... well .... 

[DiTBho]

FreeBSD doesn't have an official tool for

dream: FreeBSD catalyst.
Already tried in the past, it failed five times with Gentoo.

[SiliconWizard]

FreeBSD on RISC-V ...... well .... 

https://wiki.freebsd.org/riscv

[DiTBho]

Yup, doesn't look good, but rather beta experimental 
Well, Haiku on risc-V is no better

oh, there is also a serious problem finding a decent PCI-e risc-v board.
Some are outdated, some are deprecated, some are just ... out of stock

[eti]

Just took a look at the current state of FreeBSD. What would be the benefits compared to Linux for a workstation? Is hardware support as good?

Any thoughts or experience would be welcome.

If you don’t spend every day on Linux, that itself is enough of a time sink. All of the 1-2 times I’ve tried BSDs, I’ve gone ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and deleted them.

Why make life harder.

[Nominal Animal]

Why make life harder.

Because when all your banana plants are clones of the same Cavendish cultivar, any disease capable of hitting one plant can easily wipe out your entire farm.

Why gamble and place all your resources and your future on a single option?  Just because it's easier?

[DiTBho]

yeah, I know, but look at x11, for example.

There are several X11/Wayland applications that I would like to run on Haiku/{risc-v, arm64} and Morphos/{ppc32}, unfortunately there isn’t any X11/Wayland available at the moment.

(
Haiku is an opensource clone of BeOS
Morphos is a commercial clone of AmigaOS/nextgen
)

X11/Wayland on those OSes is ... like a blasphemy, because they have a lighter different graphic architecture, so you have two alternatives:

• hacking x11/waylant to make it "rootless X server(2)" in order to run applications(1) without the need to port them manually
• hack the applications in order to port them manually. Sometimes, if the the application doesn't directly use the X11 protocol but rather based on Motif toolkit, then the application may be ported directly without using X11 primitives, so with less layers of software, resulting faster and lighter

(1) apps like LibreOffice, VLC, many KDE apps, if the X11 protocol directly or based on Motif toolkit? If not, it may be ported to Haiku directly without using X11.
(2) rootless X server means, for the user it will appear like a window containing other windows ... the clipboard is also completely separated from the running graphic environment ... I mean, it's like running Linux into a Virtual Machine screen on the top of a real Linux desktop. Not good!

[Nominal Animal]

There are several X11/Wayland applications that I would like to run on Haiku/{risc-v, arm64} and Morphos/{ppc32}, unfortunately there isn’t any X11/Wayland available at the moment.

So, what you are saying, is you are also wanting choices and alternatives?   

For there to be choice, there need to be developers and users wanting that choice in the first place.  Asking that others worry about it (that others "make their life harder", and just coast along yourself) is just taking the shortcut yourself, but hoping others won't because then entire ecosystem fail.

The fact that some of the alternatives currently are less than desirable, does not mean they should be killed with fire.  I suggest you consider them different biomes.  That way the interconnectedness and niches become more understandable.

[DiTBho]

For there to be choice, there need to be developers and users wanting that choice in the first place.

yup, that's the point 

Most people don't want the operating system (Morphos) for this reason, other than the fact that it's only aimed at PowerPC.

Someone accepts Haiku, but since it doesn't have X11 / Wayland support and "unix" compatibility is only partial ... it's always a compromise between developers and users willing to spend more time on something that has less support (here I mean: kernel drivers, and applications) than {Windows, GNU / Linux, BSD / FreeBSD}

[DiTBho]

Either way, FreeBSD is a lucky OS with an exceptional x11 support, so that's not a problem 

[nightfire]

From my experience with FreeBSD from 3.2 on: FreeBSD back then was a great and very stable OS for servers, and minimalistic workstations.
My homebuild NAS still runs on it, and I am in the progress to recycle my old PC as a Unix Workstation, also used hopefully in the future for some video capturing, if I get the whole blackmagic hardware to work.
I also used FreeBSD on my notebook at my last employer, where security was a concern- basically only with the most important role to work as a screen multiplexer for serveral xterms.

The main differences between FreeBSD and Linux (resp. GNU operating system with linux kernel...) is in the support of new, fancy and special hardware. Within the penguin community there are much more ressources to come up with drivers for exotic stuff, and/or some commercial vendors take part in providing ressources to get this stuff running.
Therefore the driver support under Linux is usually a bit faster to provide drivers and a bit more versatile.
Also most software that runs under Linux can be used with FreeBSD, but in reality it is sometimes a big hassle to compile them with all dependencies yourself.
On the other hand: The ports system is basically a curated software repository with lots of stuff to choose from, which usually works quite well, including updating the whole enchilada without breaking dependencies.

ATtention: With notebooks it is very vital to check hardware support first, especially Windows-oriented companies like HP are know for some picky hardware.

[Normamd]

FreeBSD is a monolithic kernel with it's primary interest being stability with security as a secondary but important concern. Linux is also classified as a monolithic kernel, however it's much more modular to the point I really consider it more of a hybrid. There's pros and cons to both approaches.

[Ampera]

I used FreeBSD for a good few years, and picked it up around the same time I learned to use Linux. In that time, I found it to be a great operating system, with a lot of good ideas, and simple implementations for the user. It ended up doing some good work for me, until I realized I needed to do more with my computers.

I've used FreeBSD as a workstation operating system, and it really doesn't bring anything to the table in that regard over Linux. Speaking practically, GPU drivers tend to be a lot more labored, there will be things you didn't even realize were Linux only until you need them, and even when you do get everything put together, it'll just end up feeling the exact same as a Linux workstation system. The only advantage I could see, is the FreeBSD model of stable base system combined with rolling ports is /excellent/ for a workstation user, as it gives you recent software, while almost never putting you into an unbootable system due to updating your packages.

Therefore, FreeBSD was largely a server operating system for me. I can proudly say that I managed to run, as one of my first real internet projects, a 80-100 million connection/mo BEMP (that's BSD, Nginx, MariaDB, and PHP) cluster, using nothing but FreeBSD. ZFS out of the box was excellent, and stable base + modern ports wasn't a bad mix here either.

However, sitting here, having not too long ago moved to Debian for all my servers, I can say I would have absolutely not done it the same way. ZFS on Linux is stable, and despite being a minor pain to get going, works just as well as FreeBSD. A lot of the software is far more optimized on Linux, with my now LEMP stacks having far faster response times, and far less CPU load for the same workloads. I found across the board, especially in compute intensive Java workloads, that Linux just ran faster. The Debian project is a marvel of open source software, and despite FreeBSD being famous for shipping an operating system not a kernel, I still find Debian to be the more polished option.

And then there is this: https://vez.mrsk.me/freebsd-defaults.html which for me was the final nail in the coffin. A lot of the time, even if we think we know what we're doing, we're ultimately reliant on the people who write the software we use to know what they're doing, and make responsible choices. While I'm sure for a lot of what's said on this page has more than one side, from the digging I've done, I'm honestly disappointed with what seems to be a project more interested in chilling in the 90's than in writing a safe, secure operating system.

I'm no expert, this is just my personal experience, and I'm sure half of what I've said is wrong. Just take it from my experience that just because it looks cool, and just so happens to be to Linux as Linux is/was to Windows, it doesn't mean that it's actually worth using. For servers, I use Debian, and for my workstations (primarily for convenience in installing weird software, the AUR is awesome), I use archlinux.

[RoGeorge]

And then there is this: https://vez.mrsk.me/freebsd-defaults.html which for me was the final nail in the coffin.

I've took a look and can not comment about the security problems (because I don't know enough to audit such things), or if the issues were addressed meanwhile or not.  However, I did saw something easy to check

It seems that anyone with commit access can dump in whatever they want (or, more often, what their parent company wants) without any communication with other FreeBSD developers or any code review. This "commit-then-discuss" culture usually leads to lots of drama, long arguments on the mailing lists, security problems and developers leaving the project over political commits. Most of this could probably be avoided if some review had taken place first.

Source:  https://vez.mrsk.me/freebsd-defaults.html

The submitted change was for changing "Master Boot Record" into "Main Boot Record", sponsored by former Mellanox Technologies:

Mellanox Technologies Ltd. (Hebrew: מלאנוקס טכנולוגיות בע"מ) was an Israeli-American multinational supplier of computer networking products based on InfiniBand and Ethernet technology. Mellanox offered adapters, switches, software, cables and silicon for markets including high-performance computing, data centers, cloud computing, computer data storage and financial services.[3]

On March 11, 2019, Nvidia announced its intent to acquire the company for $6.9 billion.[4][5] Other companies willing to acquire Mellanox were Intel, Xilinx and Microsoft.[6] The deal closed on April 27, 2020, with approval from the EU, U.S. and Chinese antitrust authorities.[7]

Source:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mellanox_Technologies

However, I've checked in my current FreeBSD install, and inside the file '/usr/src/contrib/file/magic/Magdir/filesystems' the text reads "Master Boot Record". 

[Ampera]

I hardly consider that to be the biggest problem on that list.

[alm]

So next topic "OpenBSD rather than FreeBSD"? 

[Ampera]

So next topic "OpenBSD rather than FreeBSD"? 

There's a lot to respect about OpenBSD, not just for its work to create a secure, well written operating system, but also as the home of projects like OpenSSH. It and NetBSD are quite well ported, sometimes with better oddball platform support than most Linux distributions. That being said, its partitioning scheme is archaic, the best filesystem you get is UFS, and you're not going to be running Steam games on it any time soon.

[SiliconWizard]

That was interesting to get some feedback/views on FreeBSD. At this point, I am now convinced I'm not going to bother with it for workstation use. Unless you pay me.
But as some of us said, it's always good to have more options.

One of my points, beside curiosity, was that it was possibly easier to distribute software on FreeBSD (due to its integrated nature) rather than on "Linux" which is a moving target with hundreds of different distributions and different versions of the same distributions. Or, as many vendors do, you only "target" (officially support) Red Hat or the like - which is not something I'm very fond of.

[DiTBho]

Microkernels like newos are better for academic reasons.
Well, I like them, but ... porting haiku (based on newos) to riscv is a very hard job.
It s harder with microkernels that with monolithic ones.

[Nominal Animal]

One of my points, beside curiosity, was that it was possibly easier to distribute software on FreeBSD (due to its integrated nature) rather than on "Linux" which is a moving target with hundreds of different distributions and different versions of the same distributions.

Perhaps it is time for a guide on how to make portable Linux binaries, then?  It is doable, although it is somewhat complicated.

(The reason I haven't yet put anything up on my home page is that I'm particularly weak/sensitive to the situation when I show how something can be done portably, fixing issues, having the result be easily maintained and very robust... and being completely ignored because I'm not popular enough.)

(I do not get a kick out of showing others how to do better. I only get a kick out of helping others to actually do better, seeing them do things neither of us alone could have done.)

[SiliconWizard]

One of my points, beside curiosity, was that it was possibly easier to distribute software on FreeBSD (due to its integrated nature) rather than on "Linux" which is a moving target with hundreds of different distributions and different versions of the same distributions.

Perhaps it is time for a guide on how to make portable Linux binaries, then?  It is doable, although it is somewhat complicated.

If portability is really guaranteed, then yes. Certainly.

[Nominal Animal]

One of my points, beside curiosity, was that it was possibly easier to distribute software on FreeBSD (due to its integrated nature) rather than on "Linux" which is a moving target with hundreds of different distributions and different versions of the same distributions.

Perhaps it is time for a guide on how to make portable Linux binaries, then?  It is doable, although it is somewhat complicated.

If portability is really guaranteed, then yes. Certainly.

Only to a limit, of course; specifically, library dependecies.  Kernel interfaces are stable enough to not worry about.  PulseAudio and SystemD are a bitch (because they are only compatible with themselves, and are not really even backwards compatible with themselves), not sure about integration with those (except via widget toolkits like Qt, Gtk, FTLTK etc).  Gnome-dependent applications on gnomeless distributions can also be a bit problematic, due to all the crap it spews to user home directory (.config/, .cache/, .local/).

It is a matter of bringing along the set of required libraries, and using a launcher script and a directory full of symlinks to resolve the library dependencies.  Whenever the host system has a newer set of compatible libraries, those are used; otherwise the packaged-with libraries are used.  Nice thing about this is that while the actual binaries and scripts should be system-wide and owned by root (for security; we do not want applications to generally be able to modify themselves), each user can make their own launch setup with minimal cost (shell script and symlinks).

(For services that run as a dedicated user account, the work is easier, because the spewage to their home directory will not conflict with anything else that user account would be doing.)

Can you think of a suitably annoying to package open source program I could use as a test and demonstration?  Being open source, we could ask other members here to test it on their Linux machines.  Graphical would probably be best, but small enough (in binary form) to not tax internet connections for those who'd like to test.  I do have plenty of experience with Debian and RPM packaging and Linux integration in general, but do need to get up to date with Pacman (Arch Linux), so it'll take me some time.

[DiTBho]

The reason I haven't yet put anything up on my home page is that I'm particularly weak/sensitive to the situation when I show how something can be done portably, fixing issues, having the result be easily maintained and very robust... and being completely ignored because I'm not popular enough.

Even great filesystems got completely ignored.
People wishes ... Is what rules.

[SiliconWizard]

Can you think of a suitably annoying to package open source program I could use as a test and demonstration?

Well, I don't know... Something using GTK3 for instance. Maybe GTKWave.

[Zucca]

I'm late to this party.
Interesting discussion.
For Server I am a big FreeBSD guy. I have even my Octoprint on my dedicated FreeBSD client.
For workstation my wet dream would be Arch Linux, but I never tried it and I do not know if I am driving against a wall.

My target: get rid of Windows, I want my work horse(s) stations to be on Linux. Why? Because it's my PC not theirs, I want 100% control....

[SiliconWizard]

For workstation my wet dream would be Arch Linux, but I never tried it and I do not know if I am driving against a wall.

I've been using Arch as my sole distro for years. Currently all my Linux installs are with Arch (laptop, a headless box, and even RPi's with archlinuxarm.) The only Linux thing not on Arch that I still run is a NAS I installed years ago with Centos and that still runs fine (but these days I would NOT use Centos for anything new.) Of course Arch requires some solid prior experience with Linux, preferably. But if you are in that case, go for it. The wiki is well made for the most part. If you are less experienced, I'd suggest starting with a more "beginner"-friendly distro. If you'd want to go Arch eventually, you can try Manjaro. It's based on Arch but much easier to install and configure than raw Arch.

My target: get rid of Windows, I want my work horse(s) stations to be on Linux. Why? Because it's my PC not theirs, I want 100% control....

Despite the above, I still run Win (7) on my main workstation for various reasons, which are definitely not because I don't know how to switch. The Win days are probably now being counted though.

[Nominal Animal]

OSes are just tools.  I for one am happy that completely different OSes exist, and do not believe for a second that using Windows is not indicative of anything, AT ALL.

What does grind my gears is the talk about how Linux or whatever should be more like Windows, or that there being so many Linux variants out there is a bad thing.  The fossie OSes are developed in a completely different ecosystem, one where being an user has zero or negative value, and only being a contributor –– be that money, time, effort, or all three –– has positive value.  Even if you sell Linux software and make big bucks, that still applies!  The wide variety and variance ensures the solution phase space is explored, and we have better distributions due to the competition.  Those are the reasons why any kind of argument about "Linux won't X the Y market, until ..." is so aggravating.  It's like telling beekeepers that unless they start using electric vehicles, the bunnies on the neighboring fields will keep eating the daisies.  Y'know, irrelevant babble.

In other words, I don't like it when others perceive me as opposing Windows, because I do not.  I oppose expanding Windows-isms like systemd to other OSes, but I do not think there is anything wrong in using Windows if it works for you: it's just an useful tool, nothing more, nothing less.

In fact, I rather feel similarly wrt. FreeBSD and Linux.  There are POSIX.1 system interfaces that are useful even in BSDs, and I don't consider them Linuxisms (because POSIX.1 originated from Single Unix Specification), but expecting Linuxisms like /proc and /sys pseudofilesystems to be available on non-Linux systems is kinda evil.  I do use those on software that I know is difficult to port to *BSDs anyway, but I do feel a bit guilty then...  Much better is to put the OS-specific details behind a common operational API, and use build-time overridable preprocessor macros (look here for autodetection by default) to choose the one for the target OS.

Some things that look like Linuxisms, like using MAP_ANONYMOUS, are actually natively supported on FreeBSD, too, even though man 2 mmap on Linux kinda claims they're "Linux-specific".  (MAP_NORESERVE, on the other hand, was defined for a while on FreeBSD, but never had any effect.)

[Zucca]

I've been using Arch as my sole distro for years...

Call me crazy, but I read the entire FreeBSD manual and it was so nice. Definitely an eyes opening experience, after years of DOS and Windows- I have no fear of FreeBSD anymore.
I even built my custom kernel.... That said I am not an expert, FreeBSD is so immense.... and I have limited time to test things out.

I am trying to repeat the same with Linux, Arch seems the best technical documented out there. I will setup a virtual machine and slap Arch on it, after I read through the Arch wiki....

Correct me if I am wrong, but once you can deal with Arch you can jump in any other distro with ease.

Knowledge is the real power.

The only Linux thing not on Arch that I still run is a NAS I installed years ago with Centos and that still runs fine (but these days I would NOT use Centos for anything new.)

Why not FreeNAS?

[RoGeorge]

once you can deal with Arch you can jump in any other distro with ease

Yes, for sure.  Arch seemed to me more pragmatic.  Gentoo is even more hardcore than Arch, and if you want the ultimate learning experience about Linux, try LFS (Linux From Scratch).

None of these will be as clear and as straightforward as FreeBSD, IMO.

Though in practice I'm using Kubuntu on ZFS root, and FreeBSD only as a second OS.  Some things I need are not yet ported in FreeBSD, and/or are very hard to setup, but by the trend of Ubuntu and systemd, and now super-systemd (or something, forgot the naming, which will give one even less control to their own PC) won't be long until Linux as we know it will go extinguished.  Then, FreeBSD will probably become for Linux what Linux is now for Windows.


Later edit:
--------------
Found the name, systemd-supremo or something 
https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/26/tightening_linux_boot_process_microsoft_poettering/

[Nominal Animal]

I'd go so far as saying any experience with using multiple different OSes in anger helps.
They're complicated and different enough that just memorizing where things are will not really work, so one has to learn how to use them more effectively, with less cognitive/memory pressure, and focus on the task at hand: instead of looking for "where is that tool I like to use to do this", you start looking at "okay, how can I easily do this here right now".

I used to be quite active at LinuxFromScratch in its earlier days.  It is an interesting look at how to rebuild an entire Linux distribution from scratch.  It is useful learning experience for those who want to learn how to put together custom Linux setups on embedded devices, even if one ends up using something else as a basis.  Looking at the FreeBSD innards, from the sources and build system and init system upwards, should give a similar understanding; I just personally went with the LFS approach myself.

Which brings me to Debian, the core under many a Linux distributions, and its continuous fork Devuan, which wants to keep closer to the Unix philosophy, and keep more strictly to user choice, by supporting several init systems, excluding only systemd due to its rather aggressive assimilation of other subsystems into itself and making it a single point of failure (or security risk) for entire systems.  A minimal Debian/Devuan system can be a good basis for embedded devices and appliances, but you do need to know more about the bits underneath, so experience with LFS helps see the details when things don't actually work when at the package level they look like they should.

There are also dedicated Linux distributions for network appliances like routers, chiefly OpenWRT.  It has its own build and package systems, that do take a while to get a firm grip on.

Finally, there are experimental things like kFreeBSD-GNU, which is what you get if you take the FreeBSD kernel, and bolt on GNU userspace based on Debian packages on top.  I'm sure many are tempted to call it an abomination, but to me, it is an experimental thing done mostly to help understand the practical effects due to the differences in the kernels and userspaces.  You could say Microsoft WSL falls into the same category (although it is closer to counter-Wine); useful for many things, but definitely imperfect.

[SiliconWizard]

I've been using Arch as my sole distro for years...

Call me crazy, but I read the entire FreeBSD manual and it was so nice. Definitely an eyes opening experience, after years of DOS and Windows- I have no fear of FreeBSD anymore.
I even built my custom kernel.... That said I am not an expert, FreeBSD is so immense.... and I have limited time to test things out.

I am trying to repeat the same with Linux, Arch seems the best technical documented out there. I will setup a virtual machine and slap Arch on it, after I read through the Arch wiki....

Correct me if I am wrong, but once you can deal with Arch you can jump in any other distro with ease.

Well, a number of distros are more barebones and more complex to use than Arch.

Knowledge is the real power.

Sure. Well, the power is not in knowledge itself but in the ability to gather knowledge .

The only Linux thing not on Arch that I still run is a NAS I installed years ago with Centos and that still runs fine (but these days I would NOT use Centos for anything new.)

Why not FreeNAS?

You could have replaced that with 'Why not *?'
Never sure how to reply to this kind of questions.

[Zucca]

Many thanks, I am enjoying the discussion with a glass of bourbon in my hand.

LFS looks like a extreme painful way to learn.... I keep it in my mind if I want to go deeper... Arch seems to me the right sweet middle spot.

[Zucca]

You could have replaced that with 'Why not *?'
Never sure how to reply to this kind of questions.

Probably, why touch it if it works for me and I have 1000 other things to do?

[spanakop]

Why not try GhostBSD in a VM. You can test the hardware support first before installing. GhostBSD is basically FreeBSD with Mate automatically installed and configured straight from the installer. It has a graphical installer, and several apps to help you manage your updates and system. Of course you can go via CLI if you want. https://www.ghostbsd.org/

It has its own ports tree that is mostly a copy of FreeBSD's ports. You can think of GhostBSD as a kind of rolling release type of system.

This guy has a very good website on FreeBSD, which is still applicable to GhostBSD - https://vermaden.wordpress.com/

As others have mentioned, FreeBSD has a very good handbook, it does has Linux and Wine support if you want it, pretty good hardware support, although not as good as Linux and I find the community less toxic than Linux. The filesystem is simpler to understand and if it matters to you, does not have SystemD anywhere.

I have been using GhostBSD on my Lenovo T470 for a while and love it after being an openSuse user for many many years.

OpenBSD is more security focused, I believe does not have as good hardware support as FreeBSD and not as fast.
NetBSD is focused on more of a wider range of hardware than either of the above, but does not have as much software available (maybe wrong here)

As mentioned earlier, the BSD's are released as an entire OS i.e. kernel and base system apps. Where as Linux is really just the kernel. Your distro of choice then has to package and patch everything else together.

[Monkeh]

Yeah I wasted 20 years learning Linux

...

If I want to do anything on linux now I first have to destroy any possibility of privacy by first searching on the internet how to do something

So you didn't actually learn anything, then.

[DiTBho]

TrueOS, formerly PC-BSD or PCBSD, *WAS* a friendly system built upon the most recent releases of FreeBSD.
Unfortunately, this happened

TrueOS Discontinuation
Hey TrueOS Community! I just wanted to take a few minutes to address what some of you may have already guessed. With a heavy heart, the TrueOS Project’s core team has decided to discontinue the development of TrueOS for the foreseeable future. We’ll still be heavily involved in other Open Source projects like FreeNAS & TrueNAS CORE. We’re incredibly proud of the work we put into TrueOS and its predecessor, PC-BSD.

TrueOS source code will remain available on GitHub for others that may want to continue the work that we started so many years ago.

[nightfire]

Yes, sad- but thats in lots of free projects a case, when not enough people can share work an keep a momentum going- also dependent on a situation where one has to be able to devote some time to a project.

[DiTBho]

Hey oh? Bought two new old CD sets.

[nightfire]

Wow, some nostalgica coming up- I began my journey with FreeBSD with a similar pack of the 3.2R distribution set, back then sold in the book store for around 70 DM, IIRC.

[SiliconWizard]

Just wondering - what's up with the devilish imagery of BSD stuff?
Anyone knows the history behind that?

[RoGeorge]

It's called Beastie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_Daemon

[DiTBho]

It's called Beastie.

Yes, you can find Beastie on hats, mugs and T-shirts too

I have a small collection, but on Amazon I found a book with our friend Beastie on the cover, all about kernels, network stacks, and file-system internals (this interests me the most), and that's where I spent my last hobbyist weekly budget.

[Zucca]

Example for this discussion, Picoscope support in FreeBSD.

I would love to try out my bench PC with GhostBSD, but it needs to run the picoscope sw on it.

I posted here why there is no support for FreeBSD in Picoscope.

It is still a mistery to me is a Linux SW can run or not in FreeBSD, or if a linux driver is compatible in FreeBSD or not.

For example once I tried turn on the WOL function in the msk(4) ETH driver for FreeBSD.
It was not possible to get the datasheet of 88E8059, and they pointed me to the Linux driver which had the WOL funciton.

I found some similarities between the Linux and FreeBSD drivers but the road was too steep for me.... and I gave up.

[Zucca]

It's called Beastie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_Daemon

worth to mention from here

Many people equate the word "daemon" with the word "demon", implying some kind of satanic connection between UNIX and the underworld. This is an egregious misunderstanding. "Daemon" is actually a much older form of "demon"; daemons have no particular bias towards good or evil, but rather serve to help define a person's character or personality. The ancient Greeks' concept of a "personal daemon" was similar to the modern concept of a "guardian angel"—eudaemonia is the state of being helped or protected by a kindly spirit. As a rule, UNIX systems seem to be infested with both daemons and demons.

by Unix System Administration Handbook Evi Nemeth

[SiliconWizard]

It's called Beastie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_Daemon

worth to mention from here

Many people equate the word "daemon" with the word "demon", implying some kind of satanic connection between UNIX and the underworld. This is an egregious misunderstanding. "Daemon" is actually a much older form of "demon"; daemons have no particular bias towards good or evil, but rather serve to help define a person's character or personality. The ancient Greeks' concept of a "personal daemon" was similar to the modern concept of a "guardian angel"—eudaemonia is the state of being helped or protected by a kindly spirit. As a rule, UNIX systems seem to be infested with both daemons and demons.

by Unix System Administration Handbook Evi Nemeth

Yep, thanks for the pointers.
So basically, the idea of those devil-like mascots is a bit twisted.

[Nominal Animal]

So basically, the idea of those devil-like mascots is a bit twisted.

No, that's twisted.

The idea of Beastie is twofold: it's how you pronounce BSD, and it's a play on preconceptions.  Daemon ≠ devil, daemon ≠ demon.

You know, like banning "master" and "slave" because ostensibly some other people are hurt by their use because they have decided to always associate them with human slavery.

[barelectricbear]

So basically, the idea of those devil-like mascots is a bit twisted.

No, that's twisted.

The idea of Beastie is twofold: it's how you pronounce BSD, and it's a play on preconceptions.  Daemon ≠ devil, daemon ≠ demon.

You know, like banning "master" and "slave" because ostensibly some other people are hurt by their use because they have decided to always associate them with human slavery.

Even so, it is kind of strange they decided to use the Devil as the mascot, instead of an actual monster character like Frankenstien or Godzilla.
The Devil does not seem like a monster but a mischievous character who tricks you into doing his biding.

[barelectricbear]

Yeah I wasted 20 years learning Linux only for it to not turn into a career and for me to have a lot of broken dreams and a really bad headache. I started out optimistic and bought a bash howto book and a /dev/null mug and now I just feel like its all just pointless.

If I want to do anything on linux now I first have to destroy any possibility of privacy by first searching on the internet how to do something that I'm going to do on my own operating system within a console.

20 years is a long time to be working with Linux and not learn much. Have you considered switching careers maybe some kind of day labor or trade job?

What exactly do you want to accomplish with Linux that requires so much privacy? The internet was designed as a tool primarily for communication, as a side effect you are transmitting information that other people can see, so if you don't want to use it for that purpose, don't plugin your computer into the internet.

[RoGeorge]

20 years is a long time to be working with Linux and not learn much. Have you considered switching careers maybe some kind of day labor or trade job?

You are new to this forum, please read the rules:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/forum-rules-please-read/

The idea is to be nice to each other.  No personal attacks and no shaming others please.

[Nominal Animal]

So basically, the idea of those devil-like mascots is a bit twisted.

No, that's twisted.

The idea of Beastie is twofold: it's how you pronounce BSD, and it's a play on preconceptions.  Daemon ≠ devil, daemon ≠ demon.

You know, like banning "master" and "slave" because ostensibly some other people are hurt by their use because they have decided to always associate them with human slavery.

Even so, it is kind of strange they decided to use the Devil as the mascot, instead of an actual monster character like Frankenstien or Godzilla.
The Devil does not seem like a monster but a mischievous character who tricks you into doing his biding.

Dude.  Beastie is not related to the Devil.  It is a play on preconceptions, people assuming it is devilish just because it's a little beastie.
Ever heard of the Nightcrawler character in Marvel Comics?

It's adoption to specifically BSD later on has a lot to do with SystemV vs. BSD, during the era when Universities were bastions of free speech and new ideas and accepted people with their quirks (things like Beastie and researchers like Nash with mental health issues), and SystemV was perceived as the stuffy, more rigid and business-like Unix.

Just go read its history at Wikipedia.  No need to speculate or wonder about devil-worshipping or satanism here.

[Zucca]

Digging into jails in FreeBSD right now... they are soooo nice.

[barelectricbear]

So basically, the idea of those devil-like mascots is a bit twisted.

No, that's twisted.

The idea of Beastie is twofold: it's how you pronounce BSD, and it's a play on preconceptions.  Daemon ≠ devil, daemon ≠ demon.

You know, like banning "master" and "slave" because ostensibly some other people are hurt by their use because they have decided to always associate them with human slavery.

Even so, it is kind of strange they decided to use the Devil as the mascot, instead of an actual monster character like Frankenstien or Godzilla.
The Devil does not seem like a monster but a mischievous character who tricks you into doing his biding.

Dude.  Beastie is not related to the Devil.  It is a play on preconceptions, people assuming it is devilish just because it's a little beastie.
Ever heard of the Nightcrawler character in Marvel Comics?

It's adoption to specifically BSD later on has a lot to do with SystemV vs. BSD, during the era when Universities were bastions of free speech and new ideas and accepted people with their quirks (things like Beastie and researchers like Nash with mental health issues), and SystemV was perceived as the stuffy, more rigid and business-like Unix.

Just go read its history at Wikipedia.  No need to speculate or wonder about devil-worshipping or satanism here.

I am sure you have seen what "Beastie" looks like on the BSD(beast) images? It is obviously a copy of the Devil who has a pitch fork, tail and horns.
Just like the Devil in the Simpons episode and the same or kids dress up for holloween.


Regarding Nightcrawler, this is from the wiki page "Originally, Nightcrawler was a demon from Hell who had flubbed a mission..."
So there you have a direct insperational quote. So how is Beastie not the devil?

If I was the creator of BSD I would have stolen the GNU mascot, becuase it is some kind of beast creature and more fitting to the name.

I don't agree with you that we should not wonder or speculate about what the creators of something meant as it stiffles are own creativity as makers.

[Nominal Animal]

It is obviously a copy of the Devil who has a pitch fork, tail and horns.

You mean, the same way your username is obviously a reference to your sexual preferences?

I don't agree with you that we should not wonder or speculate about what the creators of something meant as it stiffles are own creativity as makers.

I object to applying your Judeo-Christian worldview and the concept of "demon" to Beastie, and claiming it is "obvious", and then wondering how such a clearly evil character was chosen.  It is all in your own head; don't ascribe your own associations with evil as intended by others.

(If it is not clear, my first sentence in this post, beginning with "You mean," is intended as an antiphrasis.  I consider your username just your username, because I do not know you, and do not want to ascribe any of my own opinions or views to your choice of username.  The intent is to show that ascribing such to others' choices without knowing the context where the choice was made is invalid: it does not yield anything useful or insightful at all.)

To me, Beastie looks much more like juvenile Puck, imp, or kobold, anyway.

[magic]

This is pure applied autism.

Of course the image is stolen from You Know Where and of course You Know Who will associate it with You Know What.

[DiTBho]

Today I am back to NetBSD, a cousin of FreeBSD.
Like it, it runs even on old m68k-mac-s! 

[Zucca]

Interesting but you can't stop there :-), what are the pros and cons in your opinion?

 

[DiTBho]

Interesting but you can't stop there :-), what are the pros and cons in your opinion?

NetBSD?

Pros (personal opinions, based on personal weird/wild needs):
The kernel runs on every kind of hardware!!!
From 68k-mac (Quadra/LC475, 68040@25Mhz, 32M RAM) to PowerMac G2(PowerMac4400), G3, G4!!!
But also Sh4 (Sega DreamCast, Hitachi SH-4 32-bit RISC@200 MHz, with only Memory 16 MB RAM!!!)

It's well documented, and well written.


Cons  (personal opinions, based on personal weird/wild needs):
NetBSD, like OpenBSD and FreeBSD, doesn't come with a kernel builder facility, you have to manualy edit files to configure the kernel.

Being BSD != GNU, I haven't integrated Catalyst or Portage yet to reuse my GNU/Linux profiles for stage{1..4}, so the NetBSD rootfs is the one created by them, to which I simply add ( re/compiling manually) my things.

I haven't yet migrated/adapted special kernel drivers for CANbus and optical fiber (PCI 32bit 3.3V and 5V, to be used with PowerMacG4), which are "too Linux-ish", and never released for BSD.

[Zucca]

Excellent, thanks!

[Nominal Animal]

This is pure applied autism.

Of course the image is stolen from You Know Where and of course You Know Who will associate it with You Know What.

You just wait when the autists find out the presidential flag of Finland contains a swastika.

(The variants of the symbol, tursaansydän and later hakaristi, are old; originates in prehistoric times, and was very often used as a symbol for good luck in Fennoscandia.  In the 18th century, the simpler "hakaristi" became more common in decorative motifs as in houses.  Simply put, it is not related to the toothbrush-mustachioed Austro-German failed artist at all.)

Because of exactly the same kind of furore as "master"/"slave" and now here about "beastie", the Finnish Air Forces has already quietly been removing the use of the symbol.  Even though it is neither technically or semantically the same symbol, but just because it is similar, and because stupid people make assumptions about outward appearances being similar indicating a semantic connection.

But oh no, we live in the 2020s, and everything must be interpreted by todays "moral standards", and deleted if it does offend the most vapid and stupid, in case it damages their fragile snowflake minds.  If we need to rewrite and reinterpret all of history to get there, we shall!

[barelectricbear]

So again let me repeat what I said so that I can prove we are not really at odds with each other.  Here is what I said said about "Beastie" originally.

Even so, it is kind of strange they decided to use the Devil as the mascot, instead of an actual monster character like Frankenstien or Godzilla.
The Devil does not seem like a monster but a mischievous character who tricks you into doing his biding.

You posted a couple links from wikipedia (did you bother to read these?) which agree with my later statment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imp

Imps are often described as troublesome and mischievous more than seriously threatening or dangerous.

To me, Beastie looks much more like juvenile Puck, imp, or kobold, anyway.

So there you go, we are actually in agreement of my later statment and you are lashing out for nothing.

Here in the USA if you showed anyone an image of a red, horned, hoved, creature with a pitch fork, 9 times out of 10 they will tell you that it is the Devil and not some imp or other creature.

But here is something you probably didn't consider, is a mascot or product image Important? I would think so.

Just look at your own profile logo, the iconic Linux penguin, or the Windows window frame, OpenBSD blow fish, the now infamouse Redhat, which comes from the whitehat vs. blackhat concept.  All of these images are based on a general theme or idea for selling products or just to represent for what the creators invisioned.

In fact the "Devil" was used in popular brand of tires and quite frequently in other products mid centuary. For tires it is kind of joke to use the Devil since it can be annoying to get flat tires as if there there a mischievous devil popping them, or just bad luck. These type of ideas are important for selling products and people being attracted to use the product.

To reiterate what I said about "Beastie", it's strange to use the Devil as a mascot for a operating system becuase does it suggest the OS has could have bugs or crash (demons)? From my experience the "daemons" can certianly crash but they never have a "mind of their own" and therefore it doesnt work for me. So these are just my ponderings of why they chose the masot for freeBSD. If it was a play on word I would have chosen something that represents a "beast".

But to say that NO one should consider what these logos mean and then come to the conclusions that: " No need to speculate or wonder about devil-worshipping or satanism here." well that is just ludacris projection coming from you.

I understand you have problems with the woke agenda and things being canceled but this has nothing to do with my intention and you are just projecting your own insecurities with a seemingly general fobia of religion at new forum members as myself.

In fact you are doing more harm for your cause when you attack someone in the way you are doing now. And pointing out the nazi stuff on your countries flag that's just making things worse. Maybe I should go contact the ADL? j/k

If you think I am going out of the ordinary to desribe what I am seeing with the logo well I am not, this is just common observation no need get all emotional about a seemingly purpofully intent in trying to cancel everything or other conspriracy in mind.

[Zucca]

I just bought this



https://www.google.com/books/edition/FreeBSD_Mastery_Jails/6LQYEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PP1&printsec=frontcover

[SiliconWizard]

Fun cover.

[eutectique]

Belgian national football team (aka Die Roten Teufel, aka De Rode Duivels, aka
Les Diables rouges) never heard of insecurities, or cancelling, or seemingly general fobia.

Equally, Brussels Airlines don't give a flying toss https://www.brusselsairlines.com/be/en/flying-with-us/the-belgian-icons/trident

Neither does Belgian Air Force aerobatics team https://aerobaticteams.net/en/teams/i139/Red-Devils.html

[Perkele]

This is pure applied autism.

Of course the image is stolen from You Know Where and of course You Know Who will associate it with You Know What.

You just wait when the autists find out the presidential flag of Finland contains a swastika.

Imagine Dublin in second half of 20th century and a bunch of trucks with swastikas painted on them zooming around:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika_Laundry

Beastie is a nice guy, I approve the use of that logo.