Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 13:42:36 -0500 From: Christopher Schulte <schulte+freebsd@nospam.schulte.org> To: David Wilk <admin@cia-g.com>, Christopher Schulte <schulte+freebsd@nospam.schulte.org> Cc: Fernando Gleiser <fgleiser@cactus.fi.uba.ar>, David Kramer <david@thekramers.net>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD, Linux or Solaris Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20020625132254.046a0f00@pop3s.schulte.org> In-Reply-To: <20020625120402.A7861@cygnus.wks.Gallup.cia-g.com> References: <5.1.1.6.2.20020625121305.03d1f270@pop3s.schulte.org> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0206251236040.24044-100000@kramer.thekramers.net> <20020625135153.M403-100000@localhost> <5.1.1.6.2.20020625121305.03d1f270@pop3s.schulte.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:04 PM 6/25/2002 -0600, David Wilk wrote: >However, I gotta disagree with the linux comments. First, the linux kernel >is developed independant of the distributions, but not without regard to the >userland utilities that it will work closely with. Second, it is the >distributions job to integrate these two worlds so that they work seamlessly. >Third, if you have not tried it, check out Debian. This *huge* group of >developers work very hard to make an incredibly large number of packages >available that are all tested as part of a complete system. Package >management >is awesome. two commands bring your installed base up-to-date with both >security >and bugfixes - services shutdown and restarted automagically. Releases take >a while, so a system can seem a bit out-of-date, but are always solid. Thanks for the Debian heads up. I'll certainly give that a whack next time I have time to evaluate new OS distributions. >having the kernel separate from the system has the advantage of being able to >do a complete release upgrade without taking down the system (you lose each >service for a few seconds), or, upgrading the kernel for some new feature >without having to upgrade the entire system. FreeBSD is much more anal about userland/kernel synchronization than linux. If you just want to compile a new kernel without updating the source, that is easily done. `make kernel KERNCONF=MYBOX` If you need to update your kernel source to use a newly imported feature or bugfix, then officially you must also update your userland world. On the upside of this downside: the process is implemented well, and when done with care should not cause problems. Keep in mind there are situations even in linux where newer libraries (libc?) do need a minimum kernel revision..... but yes it's generally much more flexible than FreeBSD in this respect. I myself do not place a high weight on this due to my systems' configurations and update routines. As always, YMMV. Try a few different systems, use the one which jives best with your personality, requirements, and environment. >Dave -- Christopher Schulte http://www.schulte.org/ Do not un-munge my @nospam.schulte.org email address. This address is valid. 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?5.1.1.6.2.20020625132254.046a0f00>