Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 01:22:34 -0500 (EST) From: "Joe \"Marcus\" Clarke" <marcus@miami.edu> To: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@alexanderwohl.complete.org> Cc: John Kenagy <jktheowl@bga.com>, Vincent Defert <vdefert@trace.fr>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.96.980215011524.8779A-100000@jaguar.ir.miami.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980214215408.224A-100000@alexanderwohl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
A very good comparison, I must say. My only Linux experience is with MkLinux which is RedHat based. It comes with a lot more packages pre-installed (i.e. lesstif, xpm, less, tcsh, libtiff, etc.), but there are often problems with dependency and lib errors. I like the way FreeBSD has one source for updates and source code. I know the Linux flavors have their own home, but there's always the time you have to go to a sunsite mirror and get the new libc or something like that. FreeBSD is one-stop shopping. The only advantage I can see to Linux (RedHat Linux to be fair) is that it's UN*X for the Windows 95 user. Everything is in one big package, and a lot of the workings are hidden from the user. Joe Clarke On Sat, 14 Feb 1998, John Goerzen wrote: > 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 > 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.OSF.3.96.980215011524.8779A-100000>