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>