Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:25:15 +1100 From: jonathan michaels <jon@caamora.com.au> To: Matt <Matt@roadhouse.fsnet.co.uk>, FreeBSD-Newbies@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Website: FreeBSD vs. Linux Message-ID: <19991102112515.A24304@caamora.com.au> In-Reply-To: <002501bf24b6$2ec9fb20$5c36883e@bluejeans>; from Matt on Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 10:11:51PM -0000 References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.991101160115.2935D-100000@spectre> <002501bf24b6$2ec9fb20$5c36883e@bluejeans>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 01, 1999 at 10:11:51PM -0000, Matt wrote: > > It's not much, but it's a start: > > > > http://www.honk.org/~mpoulin don't forget oone of the best resource sites for real information about the real differences between microsoft dos based product and unix in general. http://www.kircher.org its something like that, i used to have a link on my own webserver, but its hard disk is now dong time as a doorstop. it give much better and more relevent information than, > Theres always the comparison in Greg Lehey's book 'The Complete FreeBSD'. i can relate to what you say here, > After starting out with Microsoft I've been using Linux for about a year, > and only found out about FreeBSD a couple of months ago. Although I'll > continue to use both, I do prefer FreeBSD. > Linux has some great/easy config tools as well like SUSE's YAST, and RedHats > Linuxconf. They make setting up printers, modems and PPP etc a breeze. Of > course you can do it by hand if you prefer. I'd like to see FreeBSD have a > similar tool - just so the choice is there. this can be a blessing someof the time, and a curse most of the rest of the time. when i got my forst dec tulip nic a few years ago, i also tried to install redhat v4 (or 5, i forget now) and couldn't break out of the bloody awful config tool to set up my other wise quite generic and all very much top drawer industry standard hardware. these fully automated installation scripts are well nd good if you have exactly the same hardware as the person who wrote the damnable script, or your own hardware is so close its not worth mentioning the differences. freebsd has a good alround installation mechanism that allows you as much flexability as can be expected from a self referencing almost ai (artificailly intelligent) descision making tree. if you have trouble yo can get around it, and the system dosent fight you evry inch of the way. i'd vote for more development of a "one shell does all" type of installation tool as long as we keep our current lvel of flexability with regards to a get your hands dirty, know yor hardware type of installation. this is also part of why unix in general and linux (it is really a minix (kernel) clone) along with thier endusers are such a stable lot. people know thier hardware and can fix what goes wrong, unlike the whitegoods world of commodity computers and one size fits all type of operating systems, be they from teh microsoft stable, the linux camps, bsd beasties or whatever else is out their in "control teh silicon inside your box land". > The other nice thing about FreeBSD is that there is only one. How many Linux > disributions are there? Each has a different set of software and a different > config tool and it is really confusing deciding which one to try first. > Not forgetting that FreeBSD can run some Linux binaries, whereas the > opposite is not true. well thier is openbsd (the security conscious one) and netbsd (the world domination aspirere) .. that makes three distributions that i can count .. grin, opps nearly forgot picobsd. hopefully we too will stop with only 4 versions of the truth. > As for performance, well FreeBSD 'seems' a bit slicker on my system - I > think it handles swap in a different way so maybe thats why (I don't really > know as I'm no expert). its teh networking (tcp/ip), freebsd still has a significant edge over linux especially under real load and in really tight situations .. this is as much a legacy of the way freebsd is developed as it is to the hardyness and resiliance of teh original tcp/ip stack, which is robust to begin with. as for the rest, well we use teh same gnu tool kit they do and they use the same gnu tool kit we do to a more or less degree so thier isn't all that much to crow about so to speak. as a freind of mine once said, i can see why thier are far more freebsd based "big commercial" sites that thier are linux ones. this is a paraphrase of a chunck of converstion almost taken out of context, here. but, it describes about the only real and tangible difference between microsoft windows nt, linux pick your distribution and any of the bsd's. we were discussing the merits of replacing a venerable, old and reliable ms windows v3.51 server with a " fast food, takeout" type of unix system. warm regards jonathan. -- =============================================================================== Jonathan Michaels PO Box 144, Rosebery, NSW 1445 Australia ===========================================================<jon@caamora.com.au> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-newbies" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19991102112515.A24304>