Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 09:55:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Annelise Anderson <andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: Robert Rusk <rrusk@thorung.eeng.dcu.ie>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Linux vs freeBSD Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971009093104.25461A-100000@andrsn.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: <19971009200545.24922@lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Greg Lehey wrote: > On Thu, Oct 09, 1997 at 11:04:24AM -0700, Robert Rusk wrote: > > I'm just wondering what advantages freeBSD has over Linux. > > If you could enlighten me on this matter I would be most grateful > > That's a hot potato. A lot of people get fanatical about the > question. Still, I've just had to write this up for the new edition > of "The Complete FreeBSD", so here goes. I welcome any comments or > corrections. > > Greg > > What about Linux? > > Linux is a clone of UNIX written by Linus Torvalds, a student in Helsinki, > Finland. At the time, the BSD sources were not freely available, and so Linus > wrote his own version of UNIX. > > Linux is a superb example of how a few dedicated, clever people can produce an > operating system that is better than well-known commercial systems developed by > a large number of trained software engineers. It is better even than a number > of commercial UNIX systems. > > Obviously, I don't think Linux is as good as FreeBSD, or I wouldn't be writing > this book, but the differences between FreeBSD and Linux are more a matter of > philosophy rather than of concept. Here are a few contrasts: I think you could mention that FreeBSD is a classic (?) 4.4BSD type unix-- thus one of the two types with which a potential sysadmin might want to be acquainted; Linux is a mix (so is most everything)-- It sounds as if FreeBSD runs Linux programs *because* not many commercial programs are available--but the point to make is that FreeBSD has Linux emulation and runs most programs available for Linux, whether commercial or not..... Drivers: Drivers are available for most standard hardware, right? Is the FreeBSD network code still better than Linux? Software installation: Some people have found that installing software on Linux is far more of a hassle than it is on FreeBSD, because of the variety of versions of software that may be included on any particular distribution of Linux. This may be one of FreeBSD's greatest and growing strengths--that the version of the software on which port A is dependent is there....basically installing software from ports or packages is really pretty easy with FreeBSD. "There is only one release of FreeBSD"--needs clarification. The problem here is that the word "release" is used in different ways. There's 2.1, there's 2.2, there's -current (3.0), there are snaps that are undistri- buted releases.... (and some snaps are "released" for distribution by WCcdrom--e.g., a version of -current a few months ago).... Also the kind a variety of support--the nature of the community-- involved in Linux vs. FreeBSD is different.... FreeBSD as well as Linux is "bleeding edge" in -current....you don't want to give the impression there's no advancement going on. But the "current" release of FreeBSD (2.2-R and its descendants, 2.2-Stable, right now) aim to be reliable environments for production etc.etc.etc.... Note that Yahoo! uses FreeBSD (2.1 as of a few months ago), but there's one big search engine (AltaVista?) that uses Linux. FreeBSD's "stable" branch at any gives time also has various changes made to it, e.g., bug fixes, improvements etc. that keep it up to date and reliable without introducing, necessarily, new features that might or might not work.....while the developmental work continues on the "current" branch.....I'm not sure if one installed, say, RedHat, that there would be a series of improvements available..... Annelise > > Table 1-1. Differences between FreeBSD and Linux > > FreeBSD is a direct descendent of the Linux is a clone and never contained any > original UNIX, though it contains no AT&T code > residual AT&T code. > > FreeBSD is a complete operating system, Linux is a kernel, personally maintained > maintained by a central group of soft- by a Linus Torvalds. The non-kernel > ware developers. There is only one programs supplied with Linux are part of > release of FreeBSD. a distribution, of which there are sev- > eral. > > FreeBSD aims to be a stable production Linux is still a ``bleeding edge'' de- > environment. velopment environment, though many dis- > tributions aim to make it more suitable > for production use. > > FreeBSD is still relatively unknown, Linux did not have any lawsuits to > since its distribution was restricted contend with, so for a long time it was > for a long time due to the AT&T law- the only free UNIX-type system avail- > suits. able. > > As a result of the lack of knowledge of A growing amount of commercial software > FreeBSD, not much commercial software is is becoming available for Linux. > available for it. > > As a result of the smaller user base, Just about any new board will soon have > fewer drivers are available for FreeBSD a driver for Linux. > than for Linux. > > Because of the lack of commercial appli- Linux appears not to need to be able to > cations and drivers, FreeBSD will run run FreeBSD programs or drivers. > most Linux program. The drivers can > also be ported relatively simply. > > FreeBSD has a large number of afficiona- Linux has a large number of afficionados > dos who are prepared to flame anybody who are prepared to flame anybody who > who dares suggest that it's not better dares suggest that it's not better than > than Linux. FreeBSD. > > In summary, Linux is also a very good operating system. For many, it's better > than FreeBSD. It's a pity that so many people on both sides are prepared to > flame each other. >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.971009093104.25461A-100000>