Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:29:23 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Annelise Anderson <andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu> Cc: Robert Rusk <rrusk@thorung.eeng.dcu.ie>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Linux vs freeBSD Message-ID: <19971010102923.54565@lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971009093104.25461A-100000@andrsn.stanford.edu>; from Annelise Anderson on Thu, Oct 09, 1997 at 09:55:00AM -0700 References: <19971009200545.24922@lemis.com> <Pine.BSF.3.96.971009093104.25461A-100000@andrsn.stanford.edu>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Thu, Oct 09, 1997 at 09:55:00AM -0700, Annelise Anderson wrote:
>
>
> 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;
That's correct. I do that elsewhere.
> Linux is a mix (so is most everything)--
But remember that FreeBSD has now evolved a lot from the original
4.4BSD, and has taken on some System V features (shared memory, poll()
system call). I didn't think that the remainder was important enough
to mention.
> 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.....
Yes, I've modified this.
> Drivers: Drivers are available for most standard hardware, right?
OK. How about:
As a result of the smaller user base, FreeBSD is less likely to have
drivers for brand-new boards than Linux.
> Is the FreeBSD network code still better than Linux?
You saw one answer. This is the kind of comparison I don't want to
get involved in. Firstly, it's very difficult to quantify, secondly
it tends to start flame wars, and thirdly the information would soon
be out of date.
> 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.
That's a good one. How about:
As a result of the centralized develop- The ease of installation of Linux de-
ment style, FreeBSD is straightforward pends on the ``distribution''. If you
and easy to install. switch from one distribution of Linux to
another, you'll have to learn a new set
of installation tools.
> "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)....
Right. I should have said "distribution".
> Also the kind a variety of support--the nature of the community--
> involved in Linux vs. FreeBSD is different....
I suppose that's true, but it's difficult to quantify from my
perspective. Do you have any suggestions?
> 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),
Yes, they're not the only ones.
> but there's one big search engine (AltaVista?) that uses Linux.
I thought AltaVista was DEC's showcase for Digital UNIX. Are you
sure?
> 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.....
Neither am I. But that could be as much lack of knowledge as
anything. Once we get into discussing the FreeBSD flavours, a thing
that still causes a lot of confusion, we need to understand the Linux
scene as well in order to give a balanced viewpoint. I don't think I
can do that.
I *do* describe the different flavours of FreeBSD elsewhere, in the
chapter on staying current.
Greg
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19971010102923.54565>