Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 20:59:28 +0100 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: Zantgo <zantgo@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: What are the technical differences between Linux and BSD? Message-ID: <20111031205928.35244cdf.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <D66F322D-5B3C-4640-90D3-2C11D6BE1764@gmail.com> References: <D66F322D-5B3C-4640-90D3-2C11D6BE1764@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:50:11 -0300, Zantgo wrote: > I mean, like BSD is based on the original UNIX, and Linux on > System V, Linux should include new technologies, or why not?, > Is that Linux includes more new hardware, but I mean as is > "within "management technologies, security, etc. .. Compage to "The UNIX system family tree: Research and BSD" found in /usr/share/misc/bsd-family-tree on your local installation. Also keep in mind that while FreeBSD has a concept of "the operating system" and "ported applications" / "3rd party software", Linux does not have such a differentiation, so it's a bit complicated of comparing "just the OSes" to each other. Things like security and hardware support have their basics within the kernel, those are abstracted by libraries; some of them are part of the OS, others are provided by additional software. > PD: I know that BSD is more secure, stable and fast, although > in relation to performance, ports are not very fast. I don't think so. It's possible that ports, compiled for the architecture in use, as well with using optimizations that are not part of the default settings (with which the packages are made) can benefit _faster_ operations of ports vs. packages. An example is mplayer, when compiled for older systems: Here flags depending on the CPU actually in use can help. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111031205928.35244cdf.freebsd>