Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 20:51:21 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Michael Mad Max Maxwell <drwho@xnet.com>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: FreeBSD vs. Linux (was: a couple ?'s) Message-ID: <19990221205121.O93492@lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <19990221022122.A4170@drwho.xnet.com>; from Michael Mad Max Maxwell on Sun, Feb 21, 1999 at 02:21:22AM -0600 References: <19990221070639.23601.rocketmail@send104.yahoomail.com> <19990221022122.A4170@drwho.xnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday, 21 February 1999 at 2:21:22 -0600, Michael Mad Max Maxwell wrote: > God, I hate BSD vs. Linux questions... >> 3) How does it compare to Linux in the field of stability and >> reliability? > > My experience is that they are both very stable OS's and are quite > reliable. My Linux box at work has been up since it was installed > without a single reboot over three months ago. I've had my FreeBSD > boxes up for just as long or longer, only having to reboot for some > sort of maintenance (move the machine, whatever). > > However, BSD seems to excel when under a heavy load. Linux doesn't > quite measure up there... For a long time, I've refused to answer this question due to lack of reasonable evidence. Now I've seen http://advisor.gartner.com/n_inbox/hotcontent/hc_2121999_3.html, which seems a reasonably careful analysis. It shows that FreeBSD outperforms Linux by about 50% in the areas which they have examined, but for some reason comes to the conclusion that, though FreeBSD has all the advantages, one should choose Linux. In particular, they write: FreeBSD UNIX-Advantages, Disadvantages FreeBSD UNIX has a similar story to Linux, but without the commercial aggregators of the code or the honor system that prevents commercial vendors from advancing the OS in unique ways. Thus, to base a product on FreeBSD eliminates the cost of the OS entirely. On the downside, though, there quickly becomes no such thing as standard FreeBSD. Every vendor ends up with a proprietary operating system based on FreeBSD, but not the identical OS. This is fine for the thin server vendor that wants to control the entire software layer, applications and all, but can be a burden and drawback to the vendor that wants to support commercial applications from other vendors. However, the key value in all successful thin servers will be the glue that creates an integrated, optimized system. This often calls for low-level changes to the OS, and exposing those changes to the competition, a la the Linux model, may not be in the best interest of the vendor. I disagree with the statement " Every vendor ends up with a proprietary operating system based on FreeBSD" The fact is that there *is* only one FreeBSD, whereas there are multiple versions of Linux. I'm not sure what the author was thinking of when he said this. Anyway, I haven't had enough time to analyze this report. I'd be interested in feedback from others on the subject. Greg -- When replying to this message, please copy the original recipients. For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/questions.html See complete headers for address, home page and phone numbers finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990221205121.O93492>