linux vs. *BSD
NIcholas Hedberg
anykind of a flame war. I just want the straitght facts. I should
mention to the hardcore linuxers uot there that I am using RHL 6.2
I want to know which is better in the followng catagories:
Ease of Use (not a big factor)
Hardware (IDE, sound cards, video cards)
Installation
Space required for instalation
Security
STABILITY
Compatability
TCP/IP stack (how good is it better than linux)
Software (can I use tik and ICQ and napster? is there an MP3 player?)
Software (this time things like apache, word perfect, star office,
netscape)
Speed
speed of developement
file system (ext2, FAT {hope not} or what)
I hope I don't start any kind of a flame war or get anyone angry with
me. I'm just a kid (I'm 16 and have been using it on my own computer).
I've been doin the linux thing for 4 years now and I want to explore my
other options. How is bsd? Thanks
Richard Steiner
spake unto us, saying:
>I want to know which is better in the followng catagories:
Many of your questions are too general to be answered meaningfully.
FreeBSD is a single entity, but the Linux distributions are not, and
the comparison of "Linux" with FreeBSD can vary quite a bit depending
not only on the specific distribution of Linux you're using, but also
on the specific hardware and software in use and the user's overall
experience level with each OS, etc.
In general, FreeBSD and Linux are comparable, and most of the folks I
know prefer one or the other for either personal preference reasons or
for licensing reasons (BSD license versus GPL).
>Ease of Use (not a big factor)
Depends on many factors, including the skill level of the user and the
specific applications, utilities, window managers, etc., installed.
I'd say that Mandrake 6.1 is easier than FreeBSD 3.3, but that's mainly
because Mandrake installed some user-friendly stuff that FreeBSD didn't
install initially. That is usually correctable, though.
>Hardware (IDE, sound cards, video cards)
I'd say that mainstream Linux distributions have more comprehensive
hardware support than FreeBSD, but "better" can also imply quality of
support as well as quantity. Some FreeBSD support might be better.
Both can use XFree86 and are usually bundled with it.
>Installation
This varies far too widely from Linux distribution to distribution to
be able to summarize meaningfully. Linux can usually be installed in
a logical drive within an extended partition while FreeBSD cannot.
>Space required for installation
Again, this varies. I find FreeBSD 3.3 to be roughly comparable to the
more common Linux versions (Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake) in terms of space
required, assuming that a comparable number of packages are installed.
>Security
This is normally a function of the administrator, not the OS. Most
OSes will allow you to shut off unwanted services and block unwanted
ports, resulting in a reasonable ssecure system.
>STABILITY
Largely depends on hardware.
>Compatability
Too general. Compatibility with what? FreeBSD will run a lot of (or
maybe most?) Linux software, which is nice. The reverse isn't true,
but I'm not sure how much software exists for FreeBSD that doesn't
also exist for Linux.
>TCP/IP stack (how good is it better than linux)
Which part of the stack, and how do you want it measured?
>Software (can I use tik and ICQ and napster? is there an MP3 player?)
FreeBSD can run most Linux software.
>Software (this time things like apache, word perfect, star office,
>netscape)
FreeBSD can run most Linux software.
>Speed
>speed of developement
Using which tools? Most of the tools are the same.
>file system (ext2, FAT {hope not} or what)
Filesystem is UFS. I don't know much about it except that I've never
had problems with it in the little bit of playing around I've done with
FreeBSD on my desktop.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@visi.com >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + Linux + BeOS + FreeBSD + Solaris + WinNT4 + Win95 + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then
Chris Ahlstrom
I've always felt that Linux would be a great OS for a high-school
kid (and I mean that in a good sense). First, it's cheap. Second,
it will run on cheap hardware. Third, it's more hackable and
accessible than Windows. Fourth, it's more standard (I know
some will claim that Microsoft has rewritten the standard --
I feel rather that they broke it.) Fifth, it has a deeper heritage.
Sixth, it provides all sorts of tools that MS thinks
you don't need, including a C compiler. Seventh (and this is
just accidental), the people who use it are generally more than
just word-processors or bean counters.
Anyway, seeing your note fit in with my thinking.
Chris
John S. Dyson
>
> I'm not answering your question here, just making an observation.
> I've always felt that Linux would be a great OS for a high-school
> kid (and I mean that in a good sense). First, it's cheap. Second,
> it will run on cheap hardware. Third, it's more hackable and
> accessible than Windows. Fourth, it's more standard (I know
> some will claim that Microsoft has rewritten the standard --
> I feel rather that they broke it.) Fifth, it has a deeper heritage.
> Sixth, it provides all sorts of tools that MS thinks
> you don't need, including a C compiler. Seventh (and this is
> just accidental), the people who use it are generally more than
> just word-processors or bean counters.
>
> Anyway, seeing your note fit in with my thinking.
>
invent a singificant kernel enhancement, with BSD licensing,
the kid will be able to own and control the redistribution
of their enhancement... With GPL, if the enhancement is
bundled with the Linux kernel, it will be more difficult for
the kid to directly profit.
All in all, BSD has all of the advantages that you state,
plus the one that I add :-).
--
John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
dy...@iquest.net | it makes one look stupid
| and it irritates the pig.
William C. Allen
>
> I want to know which is better in the followng catagories:
>
> Ease of Use (not a big factor)
> Hardware (IDE, sound cards, video cards)
> Installation
> Space required for instalation
> Security
>
FreeBSD using the default installation IS more secure than Linux, using the
default installation. For the best default security use OpenBSD. The best
by far.
> STABILITY
> Compatability
> TCP/IP stack (how good is it better than linux)
It is my understanding that they all pretty much use the same TCP/IP stack
at base. There are ofcourse departures in each version, FreeBSD vs OpenBSD
vs NetBSD vs Linux, etc.
--
Later . . .
. . . Bill
all...@home.com
Ambrose, Christian
being the third) FreeBSD I have found to be more difficuilt to install and
get working, but it has helped me to think about my problems in diffrent
ways.
William C. Allen <all...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3934307B...@home.com...
Harry Phillips
wrote:
>Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>Of course, if your any of the kids are prodigies, and
>invent a singificant kernel enhancement, with BSD licensing,
>the kid will be able to own and control the redistribution
>of their enhancement... With GPL, if the enhancement is
>bundled with the Linux kernel, it will be more difficult for
>the kid to directly profit.
>
>All in all, BSD has all of the advantages that you state,
>plus the one that I add :-).
The motivation for most if not all of the people that develop the
linux kernel isn't money, it's the reputation they gain. Search for an
article called 'The cathederal and the bazaar' it explains it better
then I can.
They can't directly profit but they can indirectly profit, they get a
good rep, they are able to get jobs alot easier. Do you think Linus
got his current job because of his resume?
nob...@nowhere.com
I can only tell you what I've experienced. Having installed both I can say
that I appreciate what both camps are trying to accomplish. I can tell you
what I appreciate about both linux and bsd. I have run freebsd in the past
and I currently run linux-mandrake 7.1. Keep in mind that the 3 BSD's
Open, Net, and Free have different goals. OpenBSD sets out to be the most
secure. NetBSD aims to be the most portable - that is it will run on
almost anything including the kitchen sink. FreeBSD is a good all around
unix for X86.
BSD gives you the ports tree which is totally awesome! You can cd into
/usr/ports and you'll find many folders describing catagories of software.
If you want icqnix, for example, you'd cd into that directory and type make
install and the source is downloaded, compiled, and installed. This is
good because you won't run accross dependency "not found" errors you
normally get with rpm or dpkg. If you dont want that software anymore you
cd back into that directory and type make deinstall. It's so easy!
I also noticed that there are packages installed on BSD which I have yet to
see in any linux distro... or maybe I just have not looked hard enough.
FreeBSD comes with all the icq, aim, yahoo clones, and then some. There is
no lack of software here and from what I've observed most linux apps are
also available for FreeBSD. FreeBSD also comes with linux binary
compatibility. Most linux apps will run under FreeBSD so well you'd swear
they were native to BSD. I like the solid feeling I get from running
FreeBSD. I've tried NetBSD and OpenBSD and I think FreeBSD makes the best
desktop unix out of all the BSD's. It comes with more software initially.
The different BSD's have different goals in mind and they could all be good
desktops however, FreeBSD is the easiest to install.
On the server side, FreeBSD is untouchable. The largest single machine FTP
server in the world is running FreeBSD - ftp.cdrom.com which does almost a
terabyte a day in transfers! All the standard services you'd find in linux
are here too.
As far as linux goes, I have tried Debian, Corel, Redhat, Mandrake,
Caldera, and SuSE. I must say, Mandrake is the easiest one for a
beginner. Mandrake 7.1 comes with a utility called drakfont where you can
install some of your windows fonts. Caldera is a good all-around desktop
with a working imwheel. Caldera has all the mime-types for popular
streaming formats already preconfigured in netscape - great for the
internet addict. The reason I use linux is mainly I like the sysV way of
doing things. There are utilities like linuxconf, lisa, webmin, and others
that give you a graphical interface to configure your box. In otherwords,
it makes configuration a breeze. The only config tool in FreeBSD was
/stand/sysinstall which gives you a curses like interface which is, of
course, better than nothing.
I definately think linux is easier for the newbie or the experienced user
who just doesnt want to plow through config files. If you want to learn
UNIX or you want to work in the IT field as a unix techie then you should
by all means install FreeBSD and give it a whirl. The experience will help
you learn the underpinnings of unix. I plan on building a BSD box again so
I can toy around with it. I would have it running now only that I don't
like dual-booting. Whatever you do, good luck!
erotus
NIcholas Hedberg wrote:
> Sorry about the multi-crossposts. With this letter I don't mean to start
> anykind of a flame war. I just want the straitght facts. I should
> mention to the hardcore linuxers uot there that I am using RHL 6.2
>
> I want to know which is better in the followng catagories:
>
> Ease of Use (not a big factor)
> Hardware (IDE, sound cards, video cards)
> Installation
> Space required for instalation
> Security
> STABILITY
> Compatability
> TCP/IP stack (how good is it better than linux)
> Software (can I use tik and ICQ and napster? is there an MP3 player?)
> Software (this time things like apache, word perfect, star office,
> netscape)
> Speed
> speed of developement
> file system (ext2, FAT {hope not} or what)
>
M Eisner
various Linux releases, but the market here in Los Angeles is for admins
that know Unix. The Walnut Creek 4.0 package is issued to each student, and
it's works well. (Even tho the book sucks a little) I even have my
programmers work with the scriping side of Unix.
But whatever you use, check out the HCL.
(One student cracked an iOpener net applaince and installed Linux, beOS,
Win98, NT 4.0, and FreeBSD. Cool, huh)
<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:3983F635...@nowhere.com...
jtoy
Jon Dube
Hardware: I think more hardware works on Linux than BSD.
Installation: I prefer OBSD's install to any other OS.
Space required for installation: Let's see... full RH 6.2 install: 3 gigs
Full OBSD 2.7 install: 500 megs
hmm... ;)
Security: OBSD is one of if not the most secure OS in the world.
Stability: I find BSD is more stable than linux
Compatibility: Seeing as Linux has /usr/include/linux, /proc, etc, etc,etc...
I'd have to say BSD wins here.
TCP/IP: havn't looked into it
Software: ICQ and Napster work, and yes, there is an MP3 player.
Software: Netscape, apache, word perfect, star office, etc all work. BSD
has Linux binary emulation so you can run most anything Linux can.
Also, OBSD and FBSD (and NBSD iirc) have a ports tree - I.E. if you
want to install netscape: cd /usr/ports/net/netscape; make install
will dl and install netscape for you.
Speed: BSD is faster than Linux.
Speed of devel: no idea.
FS: ffs.
I doubt a flame war will start, I hope not at least. I view OSes as a tool,
you shouldn't bother starting holy wars about them. i.e. you wouldn't want to
try to play Diablo 3 on Linux (it doesn't work :)
-jdube
In article <39337BFD...@home.com>, NIcholas Hedberg wrote:
>Sorry about the multi-crossposts. With this letter I don't mean to start
>anykind of a flame war. I just want the straitght facts. I should
>mention to the hardcore linuxers uot there that I am using RHL 6.2
>
>I want to know which is better in the followng catagories:
>
>Ease of Use (not a big factor)
>Hardware (IDE, sound cards, video cards)
>Installation
>Space required for instalation
>Security
>STABILITY
>Compatability
>TCP/IP stack (how good is it better than linux)
>Software (can I use tik and ICQ and napster? is there an MP3 player?)
>Software (this time things like apache, word perfect, star office,
>netscape)
>Speed
>speed of developement
>file system (ext2, FAT {hope not} or what)
>
>
>I hope I don't start any kind of a flame war or get anyone angry with
>me. I'm just a kid (I'm 16 and have been using it on my own computer).
>I've been doin the linux thing for 4 years now and I want to explore my
>other options. How is bsd? Thanks
>
--
#!/usr/bin/perl
@a=(Lbzjoftt,Inqbujfodf,
Hvcsjt); $b="Lbssz Wbmm"
;$b =~ y/b-z/a-z/ ; $c =
" Tif ". @a ." hsfbu wj"
."suvft pg b qsphsbnnfs"
. ":\n";$c =~y/b-y/a-z/;
print"\n\n$c ";for($i=0;
$i<@a; $i++) { $a[$i] =~
y/b-y/a-z/;if($a[$i]eq$a
[-1]){print"and $a[$i]."
;}else{ print"$a[$i], ";
}}print"\n\t\t--$b\n\n";
Y ų r i k
On 2-Sep-2000, jd...@schrodinger.gis.net (Jon Dube) wrote:
> I doubt a flame war will start, I hope not at least. I view OSes as a
> tool,
> you shouldn't bother starting holy wars about them. i.e. you wouldn't
> want to
> try to play Diablo 3 on Linux (it doesn't work :)
agreed, the linux hype that some don't like is a good thing - it helps ;-)
the same was with java: at first java rules and everything else dies, then
java nearly died, and now we have a very interesting and mature tool.
msft is not going to go anywhere, bu, i hope, it will have to compete
(finally), and the ridiculous prices that i never paid for its 'products"
will finally go through correcttion.
best, y
aPoLo[AGQx]
there both great games, you just have your fav
(i like linux better)
Jon Dube wrote:
--
---------------
aPoLo[AGQx]
ICQ:77674460
mailto:ap...@netvigator.com
"Got Gibs?"
AGQX Homepage
http://www.agqx.org/
Zoiah's Homepage
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bmsmit/
http://zoiah.m3dzone.com
Hong Kong LUG
http://www.linux.org.hk
Servers:
PIT's Place - AGQx InstaGib Server (209.23.53.49:27962)
Pit's Place - Instagib Teams - OSP Tourney DM (209.23.53.49:27963)
PIT's Place - AGQx Rocket Arena 3 (209.23.53.49:27961)
PIT's Place II - AGQx Rocket Arena 3 (209.23.53.49:27960)
---------------------------------------------------------
David M. Heller
I use linux rh6.1 and freebsd 4.1 I like both. I use rh 6.1 on a 33mhz
486 for my firewall and nameserver. I use freebsd mostly because of ease
of use, ports collection etc. And I use windoze 98 because I need to run
specific software for work (RCA tech tips and Zenith tech tips etc). I
also have a Macintosh IIci on my network also (for some graphics
programs etc) The point is computers are just tools to an end. It's like
comparing a Honda to a Rolls Royce both will get you to the store and
back And they will both do the task equally well if that is all you want
to do.
But if you have a specific task get whatever you need to get the job
done nothing more nothing less.
Dave
p.s just my 2 cents worth