Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 28 Jan 2000 15:25:06 +0000
From:      Chris.Smith@raytheon.co.uk
To:        "Havener, Kevin" <Kevin.Havener@afccc.af.mil>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   RE: Relative Merits of FreeBSD
Message-ID:  <00256874.0054C059.00@rslhub.raytheon.co.uk>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help


Hi,

** I run 'em both.  Have the same philosophy as you.  Can't say that
** there's much difference.
** I only track the stable releases of each, and Debian is getting a little
** long in the tooth right now, but it works fine.

Debian 2.1 (potato if I remember) is very long in the tooth.  It should be
way up in the 2.2 series kernels by now but it's still being held back.  I
would suggest Slackware (http://www.slackware.com) or SuSE
(http://www.suse.de/e) as a more standard distribution.  Slackware is
better on smaller/slower systems but SuSE will never require another
download with 6 CD's off stuff.  Of course I hate all these and would
rather stick to FreeBSD 3.3 (he adds quickly)

** I think Debian is a little easier to set up, configure and upgrade, but
** with your background, you won't even notice that.

Debian has many conflict issues which really do cause problems.  Plus the
fact that dpkg is very user unfriendly.

** Specifically, the answers to your questions, IMHO. from a similar level
** of user are:

** There isn't anything you can do in FreeBSD that you can't do in Debian.
True, except for have a proper UNIX distribution (no offense to Debian, but
Linux is only an implementation of POSIX.  BSD really is UNIX).

** No difference in stability that I've noticed or speed, but I don't run
** any fancy window managers--I use a 486.

I find that FreeBSD gives me more uptime than any other OS (I hate to say
that Win2k is rather good though - dont flame me - please), and that Linux
can be unstable.  I usually run these OS's in a heavily loaded network
environment, so this does make a difference.  FreeBSD is way more stable in
that department but from a user perspective there is very little
difference.  I don't run fancy WM's either.  Our dual Xeon-450 system run
twm (very fast!!).

** If you've been running Debian
** for awhile, you might want to run FreeBSD in parallel for awhile at
** least.  Believe it or not, you've become adjusted to the Debian way, and
** you'll want some of the configuration items from your Debian setup.

Do run in parallel, but I recommend keeping the Debian way of doing things
well away from BSD.  Try some of the specifics to BSD and see how they go.
It's a new world, and it's a bright world with BSD.

** I intend to keep running them side by side for the forseeable future.
** I'll let you know if one begins to outperform the other for this level
** of use :-).

Best thing to do is to follow the advice given by Kevin here and make your
own choice, but being a BSD maniac, I'd rather go with BSD.

**                       Kevin

Chris Smith
Raytheon Systems Limited




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?00256874.0054C059.00>