Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 14:56:19 -0700 From: Kent Stewart <kstewart@3-cities.com> To: Source Code <usmc_rules@hotmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Message-ID: <3773FB03.AF3B7310@3-cities.com> References: <19990625203445.73559.qmail@hotmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Source Code wrote: > > I'm just curious what is the difference between FreeBSD and all the > other Linux and Unix operating systems out there? I was just curious > I just ordered FreeBSD 3.2 or 3.1 one or the other. Well thank you > for your time. The main difference is the ancestry. Historically we had two versions of Unix. AT&T did things one way and BSD did things slightly differently. Then features started being merged. It was very similar to comparing a AMD-K-2 to a P-II Pentium. They execute the same commands but core code is unique to both. FreeBSD is based on BSD 4.4 lite, which gives it a BSD flavor of Unix. My last big iron was a Cray XM/P with UniCOS, which is Cray's version of Unix. Cray is now a division of SGI. It was mostly based on AT&T Unix with BSD enhancements. I was also using some HP-7xx computers running HP-UX 10.x, which I think was a similar combo to UniCOS. In the environment I was working in, HP-UX usually required so many patches that we thought Packard should have insisted his name come first. Once you had the system patched, it ran flawlessly for days. I can't say months because it was an industrial environment and a power outage occurred too often. UniCOS didn't have some of the same features because it was designed to do calculations very quickly. Character manipulations were bad on the Cray because you had 8 bytes in a 64-bit word. Memory was all word oriented. Moving one of the bytes around required significant time. A slower HP did byte manipulations twice as fast. Editing on the HP was faster and had less impact on the system than the same editor did on the Cray. The Cray had the same uptime as the HP's did. Linux has it's own development path. It stands for Linux Is Not UniX but they have most if not all Unix commands implemented. There are always subtle changes in how something works. When you identify a subtlety, you can tell the primary ancestor. Every system I have ever used has a number of walk_on_water features and a couple of brain_dead ones. I think the 1024 cylinder rule on a FreeBSD boot is a brain_dead feature. Stability under stress is one of it's walk_on_water features. The control of the source code being included in the system is another plus for FreeBSD. With Linux you have all of these different versions. It is like the human reciting the Drak's 800+ generation heritage in Enemy Mine. In FreeBSD you have x.x-release/stable and that is it. Stable is a sliding window that everyone understands. FreeBSD is supposed to be more stable under heavy stress than Linux but if you aren't pressing either, you may never notice the difference. I have a FreeBSD system that has been running at a 1.00 load for over 26 days. I don't have a Linux system to try that on at the same time. I have two NT systems that have been processing 1/3 more data at the same load for the same amount of time. The NT version of SetiAThome has a pretty display, which I have turned off. I went from 35 hours per work unit with the pretty display to an average under 10 hours with it turned off. FreeBSD runs right around 15 cpu hours per WU. I did a buildworld one time while it was running and only lost a couple of minutes in processing time. The wall clock time was almost twice as long but that was expected. The difference between systems seems to be PC66 memory versus PC100 memory related. The NT systems have the PC100 memory but are P-II 400's versus a Celeron 433 on FreeBSD. PC66 memory is 50% slower than PC100 memory and that works out to 1/3 more data being processed. People claim 10-15% in a normal environment but I'm seeing the 50% because the data can't be cached. If I had a Xeon with 2MB of cache, it would be a different story. Eventually, the Celeron will be replaced with a P-II or P-III and PC100 memory and we will see what happens. I think there are more desktop features in Linux than there are in FreeBSD. I don't need them. I probably wouldn't use them and so I don't miss them. Things that work well under a window are typically down with MS windows because that is where the market is producing products that I want to use. I do have a version of WordPerfect 8 for Linux running on FreeBSD. FreeBSD feels more like the systems I got used to Unix on and that is why I run FreeBSD. I have a 3GB Western Digital HD sitting in a box on a shelf that I could install into my system as my primary master and I would be running Linux 5.2 with a downtime of less than 5 minutes. I just don't have any desire to do that. The diversity of systems lets you choose an appropriate system. You don't choose one that requires a work around because the feature you need is functional but mostly useless on your system of choice. If you do, you made a really bad choice. Kent > > Danny -- Kent Stewart Richland, WA mailto:kstewart@3-cities.com http://www.3-cities.com/~kstewart/index.html 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?3773FB03.AF3B7310>