Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:12:12 -0600 From: Lute Mullenix <lute@cableone.net> To: freebsd-newbies@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BSD Unix vs. Linux Message-ID: <20040111131212.32f0ad67@agnes> In-Reply-To: <200401110906030876.3DF4C7DB@outgoing.verizon.net> References: <1691D8C9A2220149A8AF30209B5D0EB4A6A8F0@sc3.shuaacapital.co.ae> <200401110906030876.3DF4C7DB@outgoing.verizon.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:06:03 -0500 "Russell Dickson" <birdcarry@webwingsnet.com> insisted: > Mazen, > > As I understand it, a Unix equivalent was developed and > eventually discarded due to security problems in the core > architecture the couldn't be fixed. A man name Linus resumed > work and named it Linux, although the security problems were > still there. > Actually no, Linus Torvalds with the help of a few others developed Linux from the ground up. This was because he was not able to find a *nix type OS that fit his needs at the time. As for the security problems, well I guess a while back they did discover some code which "could" present a security problem, but it was quickly fixed. Linux is a very stable, very secure *nix type OS, the big difference is in the design philosophy. BSD has traditionally used a monolithic kernel, where Linux was designed to be more modular. > BSD began as an idea of AT&T, who couldn't actually do it due > to anti-trust problems so they supported the efforts of > Berkley. That began in 1976. BSD is fashioned very close to > commercial Unix and, as explained to me, is almost an exact > clone with only minor differences. > UNIX belongs to AT&T, they developed it and it has been in use for years. Berkley was the ones who got their hands slapped for borrowing code and then gave up development. The BSDs, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD etc. picked up this code, made the needed changes and have continued development in line with their own individual visions of what it should be. > BSD has the security, the basic structure is completely not > crackable. It can only be compromised after other items are > added, FrontPage extensions is the worst. I have a public web > server run by a guy with 24 years of hacking Unix and BSD that > has seen 13 months with daily attempts to crack it, so far > without success. Zero compromises. I'm convinced! > Impressive, but the fact is as BSD becomes more popular and the user base expands (ie, we get more bad guys taking note of us) it may turn out that there are more security flaws than originally thought. > This turned into a "who's better" message but I don't know of > another way to explain it. I guess the direct answer is the > core of the kernel architectures are different. The other > part of your question is, those that study and really know, > like Apple, Yahoo and others, don't use Linux. Sometimes > people will use only what they have been educated on. It's > partly human nature. The real champs will find what's best > then modify their education. > Apples decision had more to do with licensing than "who is better". You also find a pretty impressive list of "Biggies" using Linux, IBM, Novell, Sun, ever heard of those guys? As far as who is better, I would have to say depends on what you want to do. For web servers, routers and the like, BSD may have an advantage, it has proved to be somewhat more secure than Linux. But here again, Linux has a much larger user base, so more crazies out there looking at it. For the desktop I would have to give Linux the advantage. As it will run Netscape, OpenOffice, and WordPerfect natively. I have found that a lot of the time the apps I use are a newer version than what my brother has for his Debian install, however Java and Flash actually work on his setup. > If you haven't read the BSD history on the FreeBSD site, it's > interesting. Yes it is. > > Russell Dickson By the way, Unix is a trade name that belongs to AT&T which is why it's usually type *nix, indicating a Unix like OS. As to the original question, why do we need Linux? Maybe we don't. But do we need FreeBSD when there's SCO and other Unix like OS out there. And do we really NEED three BSD variants? The best answer I can come up with is different people like different things, and choice is good. I used Linux for some time, but moved to FreeBSD. This was not because I see Linux as some grossly flawed OS that was all but unusable, it is because I like the way the ports collection works. -- Lute ************************ * Power Provided * * by * * FreeBSD 5.1 RELEASE * ************************
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040111131212.32f0ad67>