Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:46:29 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: elof@image.dk Subject: Operating System comparison chart, FreeBSD-Linux Message-ID: <19971014164629.55488@lemis.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi! I'm just finishing a book about FreeBSD, and one of the topics I
need to address is the difference between FreeBSD and Linux. Since
you've done the same thing, maybe we can help each other.
First, your comparison. Here are some things that I think might need
correction:
1. Periperals (note spelling :-)
==============
FreeBSD:
Nothing fancy, just the basic stuff.
Linux:
Drivers for most interesting peripherals in almost all areas of
UNIX-computing.
It's very difficult to quantify this, and as you'll see in my draft
below, I echo the same suggestion that there are more drivers
available for FreeBSD than for Linux. Others in the FreeBSD camp
contest this. Certainly there's more than just basic stuff in the
list of FreeBSD peripherals, but we have the problem that we know of
no single peripheral that Linux supports and FreeBSD doesn't. Can you
help here? Tell me some peripherals which Linux supports and which
you think FreeBSD doesn't, and I'll check.
2. Threads
==========
FreeBSD supports threads libraries, and work is well in progress for a
kernel implementation. This looks pretty much the same as for Linux.
3. Multiple CPUs
================
FreeBSD now supports multiple CPUs.
4. Address space
================
This is somewhat misleading. Linux doesn't support 64 bits on Intel.
5. Updates/bug-fixes
====================
FreeBSD: New releases about twice a year, frequent not-really-tested
snapshots.
Linux: As needed, Linux is often the first OS with a patch when major
bug's surfaces.
Somehow this looks like an apples/oranges comparison. I could equally
well change the statements around without invalidating them. What I
see is:
FreeBSD: Apart from the 2-3 times a year releases, there's also a
-STABLE branch of the tree which is updated about once a week. When
bugs are reported, the fixes are put into this branch of the tree.
The "snapshots" are of the development tree, which, like Linux, is a
bleeding-edge development. Does Linux still have the odd/even version
numbers for stable and development?
And, of course, FreeBSD is frequently the first OS with a patch when
[a] major OS-independent bug surfaces.
6. Availability
===============
These two are really saying the same thing. How about unifying the
description?
7. User base
============
What method did you use to come to your figure for Linux? We'll use
it to estimate the FreeBSD user base.
Secondly, I'm appending my current text. I'd appreciate feedback.
Thanks in advance
Greg
Greg Lehey LEMIS
grog@lemis.com PO Box 460
Tel: +61-8-8388-8286 Echunga SA 5153
Fax: +61-8-8388-8725 Australia
Linux is a clone of UNIX written by Linus Torvalds, a student in Helsinki,
Finland. At the time, the BSD sources were not freely available, and so Linus
wrote his own version of UNIX.
Linux is a superb example of how a few dedicated, clever people can produce an
operating system that is better than well-known commercial systems developed by
a large number of trained software engineers. It is better even than a number
of commercial UNIX systems.
Obviously, I don't think Linux is as good as FreeBSD, or I wouldn't be writing
this book, but the differences between FreeBSD and Linux are more a matter of
philosophy rather than of concept. Here are a few contrasts:
Table 1-1. Differences between FreeBSD and Linux
FreeBSD is a direct descendent of the Linux is a clone and never contained any
original UNIX, though it contains no AT&T code
residual AT&T code.
FreeBSD is a complete operating system, Linux is a kernel, personally maintained
maintained by a central group of soft- by a Linus Torvalds. The non-kernel
ware developers. There is only one programs supplied with Linux are part of
distribution of FreeBSD. a distribution, of which there are sev-
eral.
FreeBSD aims to be a stable production Linux is still a ``bleeding edge'' de-
environment. velopment environment, though many dis-
tributions aim to make it more suitable
for production use.
As a result of the centralized develop- The ease of installation of Linux de-
ment style, FreeBSD is straightforward pends on the ``distribution''. If you
and easy to install. switch from one distribution of Linux to
another, you'll have to learn a new set
of installation tools.
FreeBSD is still relatively unknown, Linux did not have any lawsuits to
since its distribution was restricted contend with, so for a long time it was
for a long time due to the AT&T law- the only free UNIX-type system avail-
suits. able.
As a result of the lack of knowledge of A growing amount of commercial software
FreeBSD, not much commercial software is is becoming available for Linux.
available for it.
As a result of the smaller user base, Just about any new board will soon have
FreeBSD is less likely to have drivers a driver for Linux.
for brand-new boards than Linux.
Because of the lack of commercial appli- Linux appears not to need to be able to
cations and drivers, FreeBSD will run run FreeBSD programs or drivers.
most Linux programs, whether commercial
or not. It's also relatively simple to
port Linux drivers to FreeBSD.
FreeBSD has a large number of afficiona- Linux has a large number of afficionados
dos who are prepared to flame anybody who are prepared to flame anybody who
who dares suggest that it's not better dares suggest that it's not better than
than Linux. FreeBSD.
In summary, Linux is also a very good operating system. For many, it's better
than FreeBSD. It's a pity that so many people on both sides are prepared to
flame each other. There are signs that both sides are learning to appreciate
each other, and a number of people are now running both systems.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19971014164629.55488>