Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 22:21:46 -0600 (CST) From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@alexanderwohl.complete.org> To: John Kenagy <jktheowl@bga.com> Cc: Vincent Defert <vdefert@trace.fr>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980214215408.224A-100000@alexanderwohl> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.980211201818.246A-100000@barnowl.roost.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, John Kenagy wrote:
> Three words, and a short (very) short explanation.
>
> ---> One single distribution. <---
>
> No kernel from one source, libraries from another, etc.
> I do not need suprises.
To be fair, this is the proverbial double-edged sword. The purpose of the
Linux distribution is to integrate things nicely. And to be fair, Debian
in particular has things very well integrated and has a package system
quite superior to FreeBSD. OTOH, FreeBSD has a good edge on Slackware in
most everything :-)
Furthermore, FreeBSD uses components from various sources -- Perl from
Larry Wall, gcc from the FSF, libc from BSD, etc.
One mistake people often make is comparing "Linux" to something else.
This is rarely what people mean to do; a more accurate comparison would be
Debian vs. FreeBSD or RedHat vs. FreeBSD. The ONLY time when a "Linux vs
FreeBSD" comparison is valid is when discussing the kernel itself, and
even then it is not always valid.
Please, let's focus on the facts, shall we?
As somebody that has extensive experience with Debian GNU/Linux and a good
deal of experience with FreeBSD, here are my general thoughts:
FreeBSD's advantages:
* Good laptop support. Works on a wider variety of laptops than Linux.
* A tighter defafult configuration, security-wise.
* Console screen savers better than standard "black screen"
* Nice /etc/rc.conf system. Debian cannot practically use such a thing
because of the large number of packages that can configure themselves
for use.
* Good for anyone using a BSD-ish system like BSDi
* Kernel releases are always stable
* Kernel source under CVS
* make world capability
* More stable (meaning changes less frequently, and somewhat better
reliability) networking code
* Live filesystem CD available
* Managed by small development team.
* A steady commercial backer.
* Helpful user community.
Debian advantages:
* Many packages come with configuration tools
* Many more bundled packages. The ENTIRE system is in package form,
not just the add-ons. The package manager is Debian's largest benefit
and something that really is unmatched by anything else. The package
system yields the following benefits:
+ Easy upgrades, usually under 15 mins and not requiring any reboot
+ Easy configuration of a set of machines identically
+ Documentation is in a well-defined standard location
+ A source package format superior to FreEBSD's, though notably lacking
make world.
* Faster networking code
* Support for more hardware. However, some of the very new drivers
are sometimes in beta stage.
* More documentation.
* Better cooperation with non-BSD OSs.
* Tighter integration. Many of the packages I have found contain bugs.
For instance, dependencies on non-existant packages, files placed
in incorrect locations, looking in the wrong place for files, etc.
* Public bug-tracking system for all packages.
* Standardized and logical filesystem layout
* Helpful and polite user community. <rant on> You wouldn't believe how
many FreeBSD users criticize me for using both FreeBSD and Linux. I
have been flamed by FreeBSD'ers because I use Linux as well... I have
never been flamed by a Linux user for using FreeBSD as well. <rant off>
* Console mouse support that doesn't conflict with X.
So... to sum it all up. Neither is better. It depends on your needs. If
you have dozens of machines to admin, and are short on admin resources,
then Debian is your obvious choice. If you want something that is
rock-solid and developed like a commercial OS, FreeBSD is the choice. If
you want a progressive system, often the first with new features, Debian
is better. If you want top-notch multitasking performance under stress,
FreeBSD is better. It all depends. Either system will perform quite well
in just about any circumstance. Often, the difference between the two is
minor. IMHO, the only exception to this is Debian's package management
system, which is far superior to FreeBSD's. However, there's nothing
keeping FreeBSD from using that system too...
John
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?Pine.BSF.3.96.980214215408.224A-100000>