Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 10:33:16 -0400 From: dennis@etinc.com (Dennis) To: Jake Hamby <jehamby@lightside.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux 96 (my impressions) Message-ID: <199609031433.KAA20639@etinc.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
J. Hamby writes.... >Linux advantages: >----------------- >1) Better software support (both GNU and commercial). Not much we can do, >other than get the latest versions of the GNU software supported (GCC and >so forth), and make sure our Linux emulator stays in top shape. > >2) DOSEMU. Recent work on the FreeBSD emulation front is promising, >though, however DOSEMU has several years head start and works quite well. >Linux also supports VFAT (Win95 names) quite well. > >3) _Very_ modular kernel. Unlike FreeBSD, you can install most every >driver (for example Ethernet, SCSI and sound support) as modules, and >there is a kerneld which automagically loads/unloads modules as programs >request them. For example, whenever I play a .au file, the sound module >instantly loads, then after a minute of unuse, it unloads, saving me 96k! >FreeBSD already has the infrastructure for this, but Linux just pushes it >a little more to its logical conclusion. > >4) Supports arbitrary PC hardware better. As of FreeBSD 2.1.5, the boot >floppy _still_ doesn't recognize my IDE CD-ROM (which I've reinstalled >after moving the SCSI CD-ROM to my BeBox), but Linux recognizes that kind >of hardware out of the box. Having more users means it supports a wider >range of hardware, for example the parallel-port Zip drive. The big >problem for FreeBSD is EIDE/ATAPI support, since nearly all PC's are being >sold with IDE CD-ROMs these days, and our support is currently buggy, >mostly because it's a crappy standard to support properly, and all the >core people use SCSI. Unfortunate... > >5) Supports more architectures. For example, I'll probably install Linux >for BeBox after it's a little better tested. Too bad FreeBSD and NetBSD >have diverged so far, because FreeBSD could benefit from NetBSD's hardware >support, and NetBSD could use the improved VM system and package system of >FreeBSD.. :-( > >6) Heavy usage of /proc means getting a new kernel doesn't require >recompiling ps, vmstat, and so on. FreeBSD has /proc, we just need to >make better use of it, esp. for debugging (its original purpose, even >though our GDB totally ignores it!). > >7) Easy kernel setup. The old "make config" prompting setup is still >there, but now there's also a nice curses-based menu for setting options, >and a nifty Tk version. This is something I'd like to work on for >FreeBSD, since I have some ideas of my own on this, as well. > >8) Easier for new users to install. The Slackware verbose setup menus, >while annoying for expert users, actually serve a good purpose by >introducing novices (such as myself when I first installed Linux) to the >wide variety of programs available. You can also install to a UMSDOS >partition (eliminating the need to partition the drive) and mount the live >CD-ROM on /usr for a quick taste, which only needs about 10MB disk space! > >9) I've always liked Linux FDISK better than what FreeBSD had to offer, >esp. when adding partitions later on (after the original install). I know >the relative parts of sysinstall have be broken into separate programs, >and the full-screen interface of FreeBSD is nice, but if we're going to do >a major rewrite after 2.2.0, this could use a big overhaul. > >10) Uses less disk space. Right now I have a full development system >(C/C++/Objective C/GNU Lisp), TCP/IP (pine, tin, apache, arena, Netscape), >TCL/Tk, X11R6 (fvwm95, etc.), and kernel source in a single 166MB root >partition with 40MB free. Admittedly, I didn't install Emacs (preferring >to use jove or vi for quick edits), but it just seems smaller than FreeBSD >for all the goodies I've installed. I can attribute this to three >reasons: EVERYTHING is linked with shared libs, ELF binaries are smaller >(they aren't padded to a multiple of 8k like BSD), and more components are >optional (i.e. not bundled into "bin"). > >Linux disadvantages: >-------------------- > >1) Can't boot arbitrary kernels from the root partition. LILO sucks. > >2) Many boot/root disks to choose from, vs. a single configurable GENERIC. > >3) Can't install over PPP. > >4) TCP/IP is still not as good (but it's improved noticably). > >5) Doesn't support "slice" scheme, although it does support extended DOS >partitions if you need more than the four FDISK partitions. > >6) Not as well integrated. While this means you can upgrade pieces and >parts at your leisure, there is no master CVS tree, no core team, and no >regression testing to make sure all the parts work together. Also, try >mailing the author of Slackware with a bug report, vs. posting it to >hackers@freebsd.org. _Big_ difference! You left out one big disadvantage. The Kernel implementation is a pile of crap, and that different combinations of drivers will yield almost random results in terms of reliability and stability. Just my impression. Dennis ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Emerging Technologies, Inc. http://www.etinc.com Synchronous Communications Cards and Routers For Discriminating Tastes. 56k to T1 and beyond. Frame Relay, PPP, HDLC, and X.25 for BSD/OS, FreeBSD and LINUX
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609031433.KAA20639>