From owner-freebsd-newbies Mon Nov 1 9:22:29 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-newbies@freebsd.org Received: from probity.mcc.ac.uk (probity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.94]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C60E14BCD for ; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:22:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by probity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #3) id 11iL9u-000C69-00; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:22:18 +0000 Received: from localhost (jcm@localhost) by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA45710; Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:22:18 GMT (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 17:22:18 +0000 (GMT) From: J McKitrick To: Martin Mactaggart Cc: FreeBSD Newbies , Carsten Holst Subject: Re: A few questions In-Reply-To: <011001bf2489$ab82d1a0$a600a8c0@visualedge.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-newbies@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org >performance and server oriented than Linux, which in turn tends to be >considered by many as being more user friendly. There was a recent debate here over how FreeBSD's file system *may* be better for reliablility than linux, even though it *may* be slower. The FreeBSD TCP/IP processing routines are supposedly faster and more robust than almost anyone else's. Also, the filesystem makes more sense and is well laid out. FreeBSD, unlike Linux, is based on actual UNIX OS code, whereas Linux is a very good workalike to unix. > > Additionally, Linux is actually a Kernel (correct me if I am wrong) >rather than an OS: vendors add utilites to the Kernel to come up with an OS, >which is not the case for FreeBSD; FreeBSD is a complete, freestanding, OS This means FreeBSD can offer a level of integration and coherence that cannot be offered by linux. However, to the credit of several linux distros, linux autoconfigures much more in the way of hardware, and *can* easily be set up from the beginning to shield you from the console and go straight to an integrated point-and-click desktop (e.g. redhat, mandrake, caldera). I found it makes sense to play with linux for a while, then if you want the features of FreeBSD and are willing to make some sacrifices (installation/customization ease, hardware support, different package/port management), go for it !! >(I'm not saying one way of going about things is better). > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Carsten Holst >To: >Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 3:52 PM >Subject: A few questions > > >Hi all! > >I am looking for an alternative to Windows, and am currently considering >freeBSD and linux. The problem I'm having is finding the difference between >linux and freeBSD. Is there any? If there is, what are they? >Does anybody have links to comparisons between freeBSD and linux? > >What would be the easiest to start out with, as I am completely new to all >sorts of *nix and bsd? >I primarily use my computer for schoolwork, and some programming. > >Thanks in advance, for any input!! >-- >Regards >Carsten Holst >http://holstweb.dk > > > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-newbies" in the body of the message > > > > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-newbies" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-newbies" in the body of the message