Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 06:03:18 +0100 From: Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@rocketmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Questions About Message-ID: <20171128060318.7e1df700@archlinux.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <a7c061b7-9570-7e2e-c59d-37f7e76f9d44@columbus.rr.com> References: <CAH6qqSmDB=j9g5bKQwtL6yJM=n8q8ddmbduOeFb58tZC45pdnQ@mail.gmail.com> <20171127170322.7aaca527bebc2ec32ec95c58@sohara.org> <25393.128.135.52.6.1511807312.squirrel@cosmo.uchicago.edu> <a7c061b7-9570-7e2e-c59d-37f7e76f9d44@columbus.rr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 17:36:55 -0500, Baho Utot wrote: >On 11/27/17 13:28, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >Actually Arch Linux is the best documented system. A good example that already Linux distros differ a lot. I'm an Arch Linux user. One big difference between FreeBSD and all Linux distros might be the file system. However, the Arch Linux policy differs a lot to other major Linux distros. >> Over 5 years ago I started seriously looking which system to migrate >> Linux servers to. The reason (one of them) was: on average you have >> to reboot Linux every 45 days. There is either kernel update or >> glibc update, so you have to reboot. Compared to that FreeBSD only >> has updates requiring reboot about once a year. Recently there were >> other big turns Linux took which very many who use Linux dislike a >> lot (systemd, firewalld, and friends). A kernel update not necessarily requires a reboot, let alone that there are different upgrade strategies. Some Linux distros stay very long with the same software releases and only provide security updates and fixes of serious bugs, other distros, especially a rolling release such as Arch Linux, even when using a long term support kernel, are close to upstream and usually provide the latest stable releases of software. Partial upgrades are nearly impossible, they are frowned upon. One big differences between Arch Linux and FreeBSD is that FreeBSD stays longer with the same software releases, than Arch Linux does. As for all differences between operating systems, neither approach is better than the other, resp. it is important related to the user's needs. But there are distros, e.g. one very known, that isn't for free as in beer, that follow a contrary policy to the rolling release model. Something that FreeBSD and all Linux distros have in common is, that hardware support is less good than for Microsoft and Apple operating systems. I guess it's easier to provide an overview about the differences between BSD and Linux, when limiting it to a specific domain. A contrasting juxtaposition unlikely makes it easy to decide, if BSD or Linux is the better choice for a specific domain, but at least the list of comparison would be shorter and experts for specific domains could provide information based on experiences.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20171128060318.7e1df700>