Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 08:08:03 +0200 From: Johann Visagie <wjv@cityip.co.za> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, Martin Leufray III <martin@netconstruct.com>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux Message-ID: <19981107080803.A17711@cityip.co.za> In-Reply-To: <19981107095107.C499@freebie.lemis.com>; from Greg Lehey on Sat, Nov 07, 1998 at 09:51:07AM %2B1030 References: <4.1.19981102162944.00cc6ec0@mail.netconstruct.com> <19981106165913.B13675@cityip.co.za> <19981107095107.C499@freebie.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 07 Nov 1998 at 09:51 SAST, Greg Lehey wrote: > On Friday, 6 November 1998 at 16:59:13 +0200, Johann Visagie wrote: > > > > My own summary of the entire debate: > > > > * 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. I know. :-) Maybe I should explain at least _some_ of the thinking behind my "summary". It's mostly a "feeling" I am getting for a philosophical difference, from reading copious amounts of source code and documentation and talking to various people. What follows is utterly subjective and not meant to be scientific in any way. If I look at Linux source (especially things like device drivers), I get a very clear impression that they were written by people who were very firmly rooted in the whole Intel/PC architecture. People who were "at home" thinking within that particular hardware paradigm. (In fact, if you look at Linux code for some other platforms, you may see some PC-isms twisted around to fit those platforms!) In a sense, they twisted and stretched the Unix paradigm to make it fit a PC. By contrast, if I look at the FreeBSD source, I see it as being written by people who live squarely within the more traditional Unix paradigm. The fact that it is written to run on a PC architecture is almost incidental - a special case, if you will. This philosophy extends right across the board in both operating systems, I think, and even things like the little differences in interface are governed by it. If you look at what people are doing with and developing with Linux, the driving thought seems to be "What else would I possibly want my PC to do?". If you look at the same for FreeBSD, the driving thought behind a lot of development seems to be "What else should a Unix server be able to do and do well?" This is not really an inditement for Linux or a plug for FreeBSD (or vice versa), just an affirmation of the difference in intent between the two. I suppose I could write several pages more on the subject... and maybe I should do that sometime and put it on my Web server somewhere. > 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. ... so maybe we mean more or less the same thing after all? :-) Regards, -- Johann Johann Visagie | wjv@CityIP.co.za | Tel: +27 21 419-7878 | ICQ: 20645559 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?19981107080803.A17711>