Linux v. FreeBSD

Linux v. FreeBSD

Post by harm.. » Sat, 22 Apr 1995 04:00:00



Would someone tell me the pros and cons between these two op sys's
(see subject). I have tinkered with Linux for about 4 months now and
I really have had some fun, but I have had nothing but headaches since
recieving Infomagics developers pack of kernal 1.2.1. So i have thought,
just a guess mind you, that maybe FreeBSD is more stable. Any input would
be helpful.

Thank you.

Volklod

 
 
 

Linux v. FreeBSD

Post by Kevin Mil » Sat, 22 Apr 1995 04:00:00




Quote:

>Would someone tell me the pros and cons between these two op sys's
>(see subject). I have tinkered with Linux for about 4 months now and
>I really have had some fun, but I have had nothing but headaches since
>recieving Infomagics developers pack of kernal 1.2.1. So i have thought,
>just a guess mind you, that maybe FreeBSD is more stable. Any input
would
>be helpful.

>Thank you.

>Volklod

What problems have you had?  I received my Infomagic CD set a few weeks
ago and am using it with much success!  The only thing I haven't figured
out is how to get X to go into 800x600 with my monitor.  Oh, well.

I have my Linux box hooked up via SLIP to my provider and 2 Windows for
Workgroups machines and one Windows NT machine use it as the default
gateway with no problems.


--
--------------------------------------------------
On the Internet, nobody knows you're running Linux


 
 
 

Linux v. FreeBSD

Post by Erik » Wed, 26 Apr 1995 04:00:00


Quote:>Would someone tell me the pros and cons between these two op sys's
>(see subject). I have tinkered with Linux for about 4 months now and
>I really have had some fun, but I have had nothing but headaches since
>recieving Infomagics developers pack of kernal 1.2.1. So i have thought,
>just a guess mind you, that maybe FreeBSD is more stable. Any input would
>be helpful.

Rule of thumb - linux is for people who still have tendencies towards DOS and
                the like..
                FreeBSD is 'real' unix.  Also has better networking support,
                and nicer process scheduling.  

Having experimented with NetBSD, and being told of the similarities with
FreeBSD, i'll give a few pros and cons ( note.. neither is better or worse than
the other in all areas ).

*BSD is a pain to recompile the kernel.  a PAIN.   There is no script that
asks questions, instead, you have to hunt down obscure codewords.. It's not
_that_ difficult, but it's time consuming, and without virtual consoles until
you recompile the kernel, well, have fun.   Finding devices is also difficult.

Device support is nice in *BSD, but don't plan on doing anything without a
16550, the 16450 handlers are too slow.  

BSD has stronger networking support - BSD is the standard for networking,
although Linux is catching up, sometime.

BSD is more stable.  If you stick with the release version (instead of the
snapshots ), you'll have a system that will run like a workstation, with less
problems.   The 'stable versions' come out more regularly than the linux stable
versions, and there aren't as many bugs.

BSD has a better scheduler, but I am not sure about this in comparison to
 linux scheduler patches.

Linux has a much nicer install, if you use slackware, etc.

The BSD filesystem is better than ext2fs, and there are support for
in memory filesystems ( that make compiles REALLY fast if you have memory ).

Linux is better in low memory.

Somewhere there is a (boring on obsolete) faq that gives more differneces..

If you know people running one or the other, stick with that -- I'm running
Linux for two reasons - device support, and because my friends run Linux.

 
 
 

Linux v. FreeBSD

Post by Larry McV » Wed, 26 Apr 1995 04:00:00


I normally don't indulge in these wars but....

I'd like to point out that some BSD bigots (like myself) have abandoned
BSD for Linux for reasons other than the purely technical ones.  In
particular, the BSD world is elitist, antangonistic, and
uncooperative.  You are either part of the in crowd or you are not and
it makes a big difference.  I'm someone that certainly has the
credentials to be part of the "in crowd" but has rejected the
invitations because I don't like organizations that play that game.
Linux is a *much* nicer place to be.

Finally, Linux is covered by the GPL - BSD is not.  If BSD ever gets
popular again, the people running the show can, and will, take the
source access away (try and get all the BSDi source, for example).

Anyway, to your specific points:

: BSD is more stable.  If you stick with the release version (instead of the
: snapshots ), you'll have a system that will run like a workstation, with less
: problems.   The 'stable versions' come out more regularly than the linux stable
: versions, and there aren't as many bugs.

I'm happily running 2 year old binaries with a recent (1.1.94) kernel. Works
fine, never had a hang or a panic.

: BSD has a better scheduler, but I am not sure about this in comparison to
:  linux scheduler patches.

This is true - the Linux OS has several problems.  One of these days I or
someone else might fix them.

: The BSD filesystem is better than ext2fs, and there are support for
: in memory filesystems ( that make compiles REALLY fast if you have memory ).

I disagree here.  And I'm the guy that did the only substantial work in
the BSD file system in the last 10 years (there is a Usenix paper if

The ext2fs is a really nice chunk of work.  Go benchmark it and you will
see that it substantial out performs the BSD fs.  In many cases, maybe all,
it is as fast as TMPFS on a Sun.

A really good benchmark, in my opinion, is untarring a big package
(like gcc) and timing that.  Linux does much much better than the BSD
fs for that.  Go try it.

: Linux is better in low memory.

No kidding - I've been flaming the Solaris crowd about this.  They were
talking about how Solaris uses *only* 3.8MB for the kernel (no user stuff)
at the single user prompt.  I booted Linux into 4MB and started X up.  It
worked.  'Nuff said.

--
---

 
 
 

Linux v. FreeBSD

Post by Or » Thu, 27 Apr 1995 04:00:00



>>Would someone tell me the pros and cons between these two op sys's
>>(see subject). [...]

>Rule of thumb - linux is for people who still have tendencies towards DOS and
>            the like..
>            FreeBSD is 'real' unix.  Also has better networking support,
>            and nicer process scheduling.  

   Rule of thumb - both are Unix (*).

   Rule of thumb #2 - people who promote turf wars between xBSD and
                      Linux need to get a life.

   (* Okay, so they don't have (much) AT&T code in them.  So what?
      If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's not worth
      splitting pinfeathers over it.)

                  ____

                   \/

 
 
 

Linux v. FreeBSD

Post by Tim Smi » Sat, 29 Apr 1995 04:00:00



>Rule of thumb - linux is for people who still have tendencies towards DOS and
>            the like..
>            FreeBSD is 'real' unix.  Also has better networking support,

No, FreeBSD is Berkeley Unix.  Real Unix no longer exists.

--Tim Smith

 
 
 

Linux v. FreeBSD

Post by Martin Cracau » Sat, 06 May 1995 04:00:00




>: The BSD filesystem is better than ext2fs, and there are support for
>: in memory filesystems ( that make compiles REALLY fast if you have memory ).
>I disagree here.  And I'm the guy that did the only substantial work in
>the BSD file system in the last 10 years (there is a Usenix paper if

>The ext2fs is a really nice chunk of work.  Go benchmark it and you will
>see that it substantial out performs the BSD fs.  In many cases, maybe all,
>it is as fast as TMPFS on a Sun.
>A really good benchmark, in my opinion, is untarring a big package
>(like gcc) and timing that.  Linux does much much better than the BSD
>fs for that.  Go try it.

While I agree that ext2fs is a good filesystem and is generally faster
than FFS in today's free UNIXes, I think is particular benchmark is
unfair.

Linux/ext2fs write everything asynchronous, {Net,FreeBSD}BSD and
SunOS-4.1.3 normally keep metainformation (inodes) synchron. That
means: Writing many tiny files is slowed down by a factor of 3-10 (for
me). This doesn't affect the performace for writing big files or for
reading any data.

You can turn off synchronous inodes in at least SunOS4 and FreeBSD and
I'd be surprised if NetBSD couldn't. That shrinks the difference to a
few percent.

Still ext2fs is doubtless faster for handling lots of 'normal'-sized files
(which should be most common use). I don't know too much about the
internals, but I think the structure of ext2fs and the corrosponding
buffer handling in the kernel reflects better the speed relations
between today's CPU's, disks and disks controllers, while FFS was
designed when disks were faster in relation to the CPUs than
today. The result is a better caching behaiviour of Linux.

But in turn I found *BSD to be faster when reading big files in big
chunks and for some (me, for example), this is important. The reason
could be the bigger block size of FFS and that cache doesn't count here at
all.

Martin
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

 Norderstedt/Hamburg, Germany. Fax +49 40 522 85 36. This is a
 private address. At (netless) work programming in data analysis.