Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:10:26 +0100 From: Ramiro Aceves <ea1abz@wanadoo.es> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Freebsd vs. linux Message-ID: <420DE422.3020102@wanadoo.es> In-Reply-To: <823196404.20050212105644@wanadoo.fr> References: <200502112313.28082.hindrich@worldchat.com> <823196404.20050212105644@wanadoo.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Anthony Atkielski wrote: [...] > > Still another reason why I prefer FreeBSD is that it places far less > emphasis on the desktop. Linux has been moving more and more towards a > desktop because that's where the hype and money is perceived to be. [...] Hello Anthony and FreeBSD fans I use Debian as my main system and I do not agree with you. I do not think that Linux distributions I use are doing more enphasis on the desktop. At least on Debian or Gentoo (the distros I know) you always have the choice (the whole OS) to install or not the X-window system. They also have a "base system" concept. If you need a server you only install the software you need for the server. If you want a desktop full of bells ans whistles, you install the X-window System, and whatever window manager you like. I think it is the same for FreeBSD. I have seen that the great ports collection contains the same software that I have on Debian. > Unfortunately, a kernel alone doesn't make an operating system. So > people began adding programs to the kernel in order to provide something > complete enough to actually run as an OS. Different organizations added > a different mix of programs, and each mix today is called a > "distribution." No two distributions are alike. The set of programs > you get in your Linux OS from Red Hat isn't the same as the set of > programs you get in your OS from Debian, and so on. > > The Linux situation is pretty unusual. Most operating systems, > including FreeBSD, are supplied as complete operating systems from the > start, including not only a kernel but also a comprehensive, coherent, > and consistent set of system programs to run under that kernel. You > don't need a "distribution"; the OS already contains everything you need > to run the system. In my view, this greatly improves reliability, > stability, and coherent of the OS, as there is only one version of the > OS for each release, and it is complete in itself. I asume that the Debian guys are expertise enough to put that "mix" in a comprehensive, coherent,and consistent set of system programs to run under Linux kernel, as you say. My system also never hangs and works very well. So I agree with Nick, I think Linux and FreeBSD are two great OSes, and that each one has its pros and cons. Choosing one or the other, is a matter of taste. I although have observed that in this list, some of you hate Linux. I have never seen insults to FreeBSD in the Debian e-mail lists. They some times talk about some experiences about FreeBSD, but never say things like " such crap FreeBSD ......" as I have heard here many times. Be in peace my friends. Anyway, I like both very much, I am following this e-mail list and playing with my FreeBSD install in another slice to get confortable and perhaps, one day, I will change. Also I try to help the FreeBSD proyect submitting some bug reports as I found them. I am not an expert but I enjoy helping others. PS: I am a christian and I DO NOT see any reasons to hate the beastie. I love the beastie, I find it nice, pleasant and kind. I like it very much. Do not change it please! ;-) Sorry for my bad english. Enjoy the Free OSes. Ramiro.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?420DE422.3020102>