Linux vs FreeBSD

Linux vs FreeBSD

Post by Fast Eddi » Mon, 19 Aug 1996 04:00:00





> >They are both very good.
> >It doesn't matter a hoot which you install.
> Tim your totaly wrong. *BSDs come with BSD development tools while >Linux
> is mostly GNU development tools. BSD has its own copyright agreement >which

Right on the spot.  BSD and Linux's development tools are very
different.  The main difference?  BSD's copyright is more
restrictive.  Linux is much more open, which means that all of the
recent development has gone into Linux rather than BSD.

In simple terms, Linux is more on the cutting edge.

In terms of calculus, where D=amount of development and t is
the time variable,

        dD/dt (for linux)    >      dD/dt  (Free BSD)

Quote:

> I'm going to be flamed for saying this but 'Linux has never ever ever
> been stable in any way or form' even 1.2.13 sucked so bad I couldnt

[enter Devil's Tongue flame tank]

utter nonsense.  There is an active linux server on the net with an
uptime of more than 300 days (maybe someone could look up the
specifics).  As I recall, it runs on a 1.2.13 kernel.  This should be
pretty standard unless you're running a variant of 'the custom TCP/IP
networked real-time pop-up * ducky program (tm) ' . i.e. don't
do anything weird, it won't crash.

Quote:>         William Gibson - 'Johnny Mnemonic'

Fast Eddie
 
 
 

Linux vs FreeBSD

Post by Dakota Bail » Tue, 20 Aug 1996 04:00:00


I'm getting a new comuter soon and was planning to install either Linux or
FreeBSD and I was wondering if there is much difference between the two
and the relative strengths and weakness of the two. Any help would be
appreciated. Thanks in advance.

-Cerebus

 
 
 

Linux vs FreeBSD

Post by Timothy Murp » Tue, 20 Aug 1996 04:00:00



>I'm getting a new comuter soon and was planning to install either Linux or
>FreeBSD and I was wondering if there is much difference between the two
>and the relative strengths and weakness of the two. Any help would be
>appreciated. Thanks in advance.

They are both very good.
It doesn't matter a hoot which you install.
The differences between them are minimal, anyway.

--
Timothy Murphy  

tel: +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

 
 
 

Linux vs FreeBSD

Post by Glenn Bil » Tue, 20 Aug 1996 04:00:00


Gawd I hope this doesn't start an OS war.... :(



> >I'm getting a new comuter soon and was planning to install either Linux or
> >FreeBSD and I was wondering if there is much difference between the two
> >and the relative strengths and weakness of the two. Any help would be
> >appreciated. Thanks in advance.

> They are both very good.
> It doesn't matter a hoot which you install.
> The differences between them are minimal, anyway.

> --
> Timothy Murphy

> tel: +353-1-2842366
> s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

 
 
 

Linux vs FreeBSD

Post by Shado » Wed, 21 Aug 1996 04:00:00



Quote:>They are both very good.
>It doesn't matter a hoot which you install.
>The differences between them are minimal, anyway.

Tim your totaly wrong. *BSDs come with BSD development tools while Linux
is mostly GNU development tools. BSD has its own copyright agreement which
is different from Linuxes. Linux != BSD they are two different OS's.
Linux in my opinion tries to implement alot of good ideas poorly, while
*BSDs usualy are more stable and come out in releases which you can use
for a long time before upgrading.

I'm going to be flamed for saying this but 'Linux has never ever ever
been stable in any way or form' even 1.2.13 sucked so bad I couldnt use
it for a week without trying to find a better kernel. I'm moving to *BSDs
soon. Preferably OpenBSD or FreeBSD depending on which looks more user-friendly
and 'stable'.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thamer Al-Herbish

If they think you're crude, go technical; if they think you're technical, go
crude. I'm a very technical boy. So I decided to get as crude as possible.
        William Gibson - 'Johnny Mnemonic'

 
 
 

Linux vs FreeBSD

Post by Kurt M. Hockenbu » Wed, 21 Aug 1996 04:00:00



:
: >They are both very good.
: >It doesn't matter a hoot which you install.
: >The differences between them are minimal, anyway.
:
: Tim your totaly wrong.

No, he's not totally wrong.  Compared to Windows95, OS/2, NT, VMS, etc,
the differences between *BSD and Linux are minimal, especially from a
user perspective.

: *BSDs come with BSD development tools while Linux
: is mostly GNU development tools.

This is still a minimal difference; I can type "ls -lart" on either and
get the expected results.  Plus they both use XFree86, gcc, perl, tcl/tk,
etc.

To reiterate: either one is a good.  Use what you prefer; try both, or use
whichever your friends are using, so you have someone to ask questions.

        -Kurt

 
 
 

Linux vs FreeBSD

Post by J J Slo » Wed, 21 Aug 1996 04:00:00





>>I'm getting a new comuter soon and was planning to install either Linux or
>>FreeBSD and I was wondering if there is much difference between the two
>>and the relative strengths and weakness of the two. Any help would be
>>appreciated. Thanks in advance.

> They are both very good.
> It doesn't matter a hoot which you install.
> The differences between them are minimal, anyway.

FreeBSD has seen a lot more service in the heavy-duty server role,
but Linux has performed quite well for me as a www/mail/ftp server...

jjs

 
 
 

Linux vs FreeBSD

Post by Ivan Griff » Thu, 22 Aug 1996 04:00:00





>>I'm getting a new comuter soon and was planning to install either Linux or
>>FreeBSD and I was wondering if there is much difference between the two
>>and the relative strengths and weakness of the two. Any help would be
>>appreciated. Thanks in advance.

>They are both very good.
>It doesn't matter a hoot which you install.
>The differences between them are minimal, anyway.

While technically I would agree, there are some differences to consider.
Linux now has a much stronger commercial clout behind it in the form
of Caldera.  WordPerfect, Z-Mail, WABI, CDE, ... pretty soon there could
be a decent amount of commercial software available for linux.  Bear in
mind too that Lasermoon/Caldera plan to get Linux certified as Unix.

Also, I know FreeBSD does have some support for Linux binaries, but I do
not know how comprehensive this is.  I do believe that it is not complete
100% support.

Best Regards,
Ivan.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ivan Griffin, Telecommunications Research Centre,  ECE Department
Foundation Building, University of Limerick, Ireland.

 
 
 

Linux vs FreeBSD

Post by Rajat Dat » Thu, 22 Aug 1996 04:00:00



>...<stuff deleted>...
>Right on the spot.  BSD and Linux's development tools are very
>different.  The main difference?  BSD's copyright is more
>restrictive.  Linux is much more open, which means that all of the
>recent development has gone into Linux rather than BSD.

>...<stuff deleted>...

I am curious to know how you can say Linux has a more open copyright than
BSD.  The BSD copyright says do whatever you want with the code, just keep
our copyright intact, while the GNU license that Linux uses imposes all
sorts of conditions about what you can do with the code.

The reason Linux has more development has to do with the attitude of the
early developers of FreeBSD (actually its ancestor).  I don't know if it's
still the same people developing it, but the attitude seems to have changed.
When I was considering changing from Linux to BSD (since BSD was more
complete back then, and I was most used to BSD from college), I asked a
question about how to coexist with DOS and was informed by several BSD
people that BSD doesn't coexist with inferior OSs and doesn't need to.
Okay!  I remained with Linux.  Linux, at a most critical time for free
network OSs, was more accessible and therefore won the most following.  It's
still getting the benefit from that.

rajat

 
 
 

Linux vs FreeBSD

Post by Or » Thu, 22 Aug 1996 04:00:00





>>They are both very good.
>>It doesn't matter a hoot which you install.
>>The differences between them are minimal, anyway.

[xBSD advocacy deleted]

Quote:>I'm going to be flamed for saying this but 'Linux has never ever ever
>been stable in any way or form'

Heh.  Tell that to the pell.chi.il.us network, which has been running on
various flavors of Linux since 99pl9.  I don't know about you, but when
I'm able to run a machine on the 1.2.13 kernel for a year with the only
failures being hardware dying (ditto for 1.0.9; I've still got the
source tree sitting around -- I only upgraded because I needed support
for different network cards and I wasn't willing to port them back to
1.0.9), that's stable enough.

But, shoot, I'm only routing a T-1 with my Linux router, so I probably
don't count as a power user anyway.

                ____
  david parsons \bi/ Choosing between FreeBSD and Linux is a no-brainer; you
                 \/      win if you pick either of these excellent operating
                                                                     systems.

 
 
 

Linux vs FreeBSD

Post by Kazinat » Thu, 22 Aug 1996 04:00:00




>complete back then, and I was most used to BSD from college), I asked a
>question about how to coexist with DOS and was informed by several BSD
>people that BSD doesn't coexist with inferior OSs and doesn't need to.
>Okay!  I remained with Linux.  Linux, at a most critical time for free
>network OSs, was more accessible and therefore won the most following.  It's
>still getting the benefit from that.

Linux has more rampant featuritis being introduced at a greater rate.
This means up-to-date drivers for various hardware and such.

I wonder whether FreeBSD supports SMP, with threading (I haven't checked up on
these things in a long while, maybe I should!). Or do IP masquerading.  That's
two things I actually _use_, and wouldn't want to give up that easily.
--

 
 
 

Linux vs FreeBSD

Post by Shado » Fri, 23 Aug 1996 04:00:00



>Right on the spot.  BSD and Linux's development tools are very
>different.  The main difference?  BSD's copyright is more
>restrictive.  Linux is much more open, which means that all of the
>recent development has gone into Linux rather than BSD.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but BSD's copyright only says "If you use any
source for commericial use just leave the comments in the sources, you
dont have to give your sources away". Now Linux is more of a GPL/GNU thing
where its "You can sell it but you must make the sources available"
Thats more restrictive in my opinion.

Quote:>In simple terms, Linux is more on the cutting edge.

Only in the recent kernels did we have anything like IP_HDRINCL in the
networking options, or anything standard for that matter. Linux is always
behind. And when it tries to be on top of things, e.g. the new so called
Direct Java binary support it does it in a stupid way. I can't believe
all that was done was having the fs recognizing a Java file and then run
the interpreter on it. That is the lamest thing I've EVER Seen.

Quote:>    dD/dt (for linux)    >      dD/dt  (Free BSD)

Doubtful now there's OpenBSD thats coming out, its promising alot.
Theres one linux kernel out there thats bieng developed. BSD kernels
are almost everywhere and the three free ones are out there for ftp.
With all their development tools.

Quote:>utter nonsense.  There is an active linux server on the net with an
>uptime of more than 300 days (maybe someone could look up the
>specifics).  As I recall, it runs on a 1.2.13 kernel.  This should be
>pretty standard unless you're running a variant of 'the custom TCP/IP
>networked real-time pop-up * ducky program (tm) ' . i.e. don't
>do anything weird, it won't crash.

Heh well go ask about the dlopen() hole in Linux 1.2.13 I just saw
someone post about it a few weeks ago, it was hilarious everyone was
going on about how secure and stable Linux can be and BOOM someone just
says 'well..' heh. Oh and in 1.2.13 the setuid bit doesnt get reseted
after a write() which is somewhat of a security hazard in itself.
No I have NEVER had a stable Linux, its upgrade this, patch that.
I remained in 1.2.13 for a while till I couldnt deal with its lameness anymore.
Why do I still use Linux? To a large extent I feel very familiar with it
coz I've used it for so long. Also it was my first Unix on a PC, so it will
probably remain on this old IDE HDD. But everyday is a struggle when something
breaks. And forgive me for bieng the bleeding hacker type that would run
a * ducky program (or write one for that matter).

One last thing, Linuxs so called JDK port, its the worest I've ever seen.
The compiler crashes alot, and the java interpreter is very slow. I'm coding
well on it. When I run my java code or compiler any on a Windogz machine
it surprisingly doesnt spew out SEGFAULT and crash. When a unix box has
something less stable than winblows95 its time people started doing something
about it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thamer Al-Herbish

But not today, the Fed said; your modern hacker was about as romantic as
a hit man from some ice possee or an enforcer with a dancer combine.
        William Gibson - 'Virtual Light'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

Linux vs FreeBSD

Post by Mats Andtbac » Fri, 23 Aug 1996 04:00:00



[...]

Quote:>Right on the spot.  BSD and Linux's development tools are very
>different.  The main difference?  BSD's copyright is more
>restrictive.  Linux is much more open, which means that all of the
>recent development has gone into Linux rather than BSD.

that would hinge on what you call "open". the BSD copyright places
less restrictions on what you can do with the software, therefore it
is more open; the problem with it, in _my_ mind, is that it's TOO
open. i would personally not use it, as it amounts in practice to
placing your work in the public domain. i _could_ see myself writing
GPL'ed code, though.

oh, and *BSD is constantly being worked on. that's part of what some
of them Berzerkleyans do all day.

Quote:>In simple terms, Linux is more on the cutting edge.

not necessarily, but there's more of Linux out there on it.
--
 "look on the bright side, is suicide"     -- Nirvana
 
 
 

Linux vs FreeBSD

Post by Faried Nawa » Fri, 23 Aug 1996 04:00:00


   Linux has more rampant featuritis being introduced at a greater rate.
   This means up-to-date drivers for various hardware and such.

It means more drivers, and more up-to-date ones.  It does not mean well-tested
ones.

   I wonder whether FreeBSD supports SMP, with threading (I haven't checked up on
   these things in a long while, maybe I should!). Or do IP masquerading.  That's
   two things I actually _use_, and wouldn't want to give up that easily.

It supports SMP and can do IP masquerading.

For info, subscribe to the freebsd-smp, freebsd-hackers and freebsd-current

 
 
 

Linux vs FreeBSD

Post by Lex Spo » Sat, 24 Aug 1996 04:00:00


:  And when it tries to be on top of things, e.g. the new so called
: Direct Java binary support it does it in a stupid way. I can't believe
: all that was done was having the fs recognizing a Java file and then run
: the interpreter on it. That is the lamest thing I've EVER Seen.

So what do you suggest?  Seems clean and elegant to me....