From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Nov 6 16:11:23 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA27939 for freebsd-questions-outgoing; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 16:11:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mailgw01.execpc.com (mailgw01.execpc.com [169.207.2.78]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA27931 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 16:11:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fpawlak@execpc.com) Received: from quark.feynman.com (IDENT:fpawlak@kronos-2-179.mdm.mkt.execpc.com [169.207.86.117]) by mailgw01.execpc.com (8.9.0) id SAA27542; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 18:10:46 -0600 (CST) Received: (from fpawlak@localhost) by quark.feynman.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id SAA04036; Fri, 6 Nov 1998 18:10:38 -0600 Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1998 18:10:37 -0600 From: Frank Pawlak To: Greg Lehey Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux Message-ID: <19981106181037.A4027@quark.execpc.com> References: <4.1.19981102162944.00cc6ec0@mail.netconstruct.com> <19981106165913.B13675@cityip.co.za> <19981107095107.C499@freebie.lemis.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.94.15i In-Reply-To: <19981107095107.C499@freebie.lemis.com>; from Greg Lehey on Sat, Nov 07, 1998 at 09:51:07AM +1030 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, Nov 07, 1998 at 09:51:07AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote: > > My own summary of the entire debate: ---------------- snip ------------------------------- > > > > * Linux is a PC OS that happens to be Unix-like. > > * FreeBSD is Berkeley Unix that happens to run on a PC. > > > > The more I learn, the more applicable it seems (though I know some disagree > > with me). > > Yes, I'm one of them. > > To the casual observer, there is *no difference* between Linux and > FreeBSD. If you look closer, the differences you'll see are mainly > historical. If you look in the source code, you'll see the real > differences: FreeBSD is more mature code, and it expends more effort > making the system run well in an environment with a large number of > processes. I think it unlikely, for example, that you could create a > system like wcarchive (ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/archive-info/wcarchive.txt) > using Linux. > > What does this mean for the average desktop user? Nothing. > > Greg > -- Greg, Your answer provides some very useful information, but raises a question that I have been pondering for some time. As I understand it, Oracle has stated that they will support Linux where it is running their database product, and possibly will release their own distro of Linux. Given the server process short comings and the relative immaturity of the Linux code compared to FreeBSD, why would they want to port to and support an inferior OS, when for the some resource expenditure they could do the same on BSD? The ready answer is go ask Oracle. They have been involved with BSD OS's and to my knowledge they are still using NetBSD on the NC, so they are familiar with the code. The Linux installed base provides another easy answer, but if they are doing support and possible release of a Linux distro, the installed base is not so much of an issue. Would it not make solid economic sense tp port to, support, and release their own version of a BSD OS? I am using Oracle here strictly as an example because they have been grabbing a lot of headlines lately with their Linux support program. It just seems to me that it would make better sense if an organization is going to do the whole nine yards it would make more sense to go with the stronger platform to begin with. Or is it the case that database operations are not that process intensive and this whole thing is a non-issue? BTW, I am not trying to open up the old we are loosing and Linux is winning thing. Thanks Frank To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message