Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 13:00:39 GMT From: Salvo Bartolotta <bartequi@nojunk.com> To: Alwyn Schoeman <alwyns@littlecruncher.prizm.dhs.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Not enough information Message-ID: <20000106.13003900@bartequi.ottodomain.org> References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.1000105165841.24564A-100000@inbox.org> <20000106.1392900@bartequi.ottodomain.org> <20000106113309.B8865@littlecruncher.prizm.dhs.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/6/00, 10:33:23 AM, Alwyn Schoeman
<alwyns@littlecruncher.prizm.dhs.org> wrote regarding Re: Not enough
information:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 01:39:29AM +0000, Salvo Bartolotta wrote:
> > 1) kernel compilation: freebsd vs. linux
> > 2) kernel, userland and ports organization in FreeBSD as opposed to
> > the fragmented, incoherent organization in Linux;
> > 3) FreeBSD stability;
> > 4) (flame bait ;-) FreeBSD is a high-quality OS, designed by some of=
> > the brightest Computer Scientists in the world. BTW, you should read=
a
> > little Unix history. Ex nihilo nihil fit :-)
> >
> > N.B. strictly speaking, Linux is NOT Unix.
> Personaly:
> 1) Linux kernel configuration is better than freebsd, especially if
you
> don't come from BSD background. Why should an ethernet card have
different
> names? ep0, ed0???
Dear Alwyn Schoeman,
I come from a RedHat Linux background, among other things.
Lately, I have been using FreeBSD 3.3 very intensely, (maybe) to an
addictive degree.
N.B. The fact that I prefer FreeBSD does NOT mean in the least that I
have kicked off my other Oses. Intera alia, I run BeOS and R.H. Linux.
And I will run even more than my current five Oses on my 'puter (e.g.
FreeVMS, if and when it gets out of its larval stage).
Contraria sunt complementa: NO absolute (M$-like) mindset :-)
I find it easier writing down a text file, ie commenting out or adding
a few options. On the whole, I find the FreeBSD textual configuration
clear and rational. Kernels compile, install and integrate seamlessly.
Tighter integration with the system also means fewer complaints in the
log messages :-)
I use neither 3Com 3C503 (ed) nor 3Com 3C509 (ep), so I cannot tell
you the "philological" (in L.D.Landau's sense) reasons for this
choice.
> 2) I'm impressed with the way ports work, being used to RPM's I
quickly noticed
> some shortcomings. If RPM is used correctly, ports are no match.
> Recently FreeBSD's not so great filesystem got corrupted. Guess what
got damaged? Package information, so now I can't get any information
on
installed packages.UPgrading ports, I mean installed ports? Probably
the
only point its got going
> for it against RPM is that its easier to stay up to date.
> Kernel and userland I would about rate the same.
R.P.M. =3D RedHat *Package* Manager.
Please consider the problem of porting. The steps involved and
the implications. Some books have been published on this awkward
subject.
However, you are right.
Ports are no match.
In fact, they do *NOT* install or upgrade a precompiled package.
They fetch, configure and build *source code* on your *specific*
system. If you use the "script" command, you can have a look at how
ports work.
Mind you, no mechanism is perfect.
On the other hand, tot capita, tot sententiae.
Personally, I would (very paranoidly) like a sort of "CVS", ie a ports
repository allowing you to manage different versions of the same
port(s) (!!!)
Evidently, I like the Ports Collection to an abnormal degree :-)
The FFS is designed with *different* goals from, say, ext2.
If you have followed the discussions in this mailing list, you will
have gotten a clearer idea. There have also been people asking for a
journaling file system.
If you don't like the way FFS works, you have the choice: e.g.
"softupdates". There's a thread still going on this subject :-)
In Linux, AFAIK & AFAIR, you have NO choice.
The Three Axioms of HardDiskDynamics:
I No hard disk is incorruptible
II No filesystem is incorruptible
III Backup is MANDATORY
:-)))
> 3) Both are so stable you can't tell the difference.
Linux is a very good Unix-like "SysV" OS.
Otherwise, I would NOT have installed it on my system ;-)
However, under very, very heavy loads, FreeBSD seems to behave better.
This is probably due to the VM management or other techical niceties
of this kind.
It is recognized even in the Linux camp ("FreeBSD is slightly better
at networking", as I recall).
Incidentally, TCP/IP has been developed at Berkeley ...
> 4) Ditto for both.
Maybe.
Historia magistra vitae.
AFAIK, Berkeley has been playing a very important role in the
development of Oses and networking.
> 5) Security. Both FreeBSD and Linux installs with tight security
lately, check
> out the latest Mandrake (beta), if you're not careful you end up with
a dumb and deaf box. Tight security in above is meant as with minimal
services, etc.
> Is a 2 wheel vehicle with a door and round steering tool, a bicycle or=
a car?
> Just my R 0.02, which would relate too $0, or 0 euro.
> >
I have installed FreeBSD 3.3, written a bunch of config files (inetd,
hosts.allow etc.) and installed a handful of security packages for the
fun of it (on my desktop !!).
Again, tot capita, tot sententiae.
A desktop user may find very tight security desirable in this vandalic
world. The reverse is true in server environments. Indeed, in these
environments, this is a very delicate issue.
I have not tried the latest Mandrake yet.
It sounds curious they do NOT provide a "workstation" or "server"
option. It would at least simplify things.
Best regards
Salvo
N.B. myjokingdomain =3D=3D=3D> neomedia.it to e-mail to me.
*******************************
* *
* Windows: brain-dead limits *
* BeOS: limited apps *
* Linux: unlimited (mindset) *
* FreeBSD: no limits *
* *
*******************************
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?20000106.13003900>