Date: 26 Jul 1996 18:54:23 +0200 From: Peter Mutsaers <plm@xs4all.nl> To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux -- one user's opinions Message-ID: <87687bx8e8.fsf@localhost.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: Bill/Carolyn Pechter's message of Thu, 25 Jul 1996 22:12:38 -0400 (EDT)
index | next in thread | raw e-mail
>> On Thu, 25 Jul 1996 22:12:38 -0400 (EDT), Bill/Carolyn Pechter
>> <pechter@shell.monmouth.com> said:
BP> FreeBSD's networking and NFS was a lot better than earlier
BP> Linux. I run both here (mostly FreeBSD though) and I've found
BP> that they both have advantages. Linux felt snappier under
BP> light loads. FreeBSD is industrial strength Unix with great
BP> support from people who KNOW Unix.
Not true anymore. I run both now, and for light loads both seem
equally snappy. When doing heavy I/O however FreeBSD seems to handle
it somewhat better.
BP> Linux is closer to SysV (my preference) but FreeBSD is a good
BP> Solid Berkeley varient.
That depends. You can run Linux with a BSD feeling too, since there is
not 1 distribution. For example, most distributions come with a SYSV
init and all these horrible /etc/rc?.d directories. But the standard
linux-utils package has a BSD like init and a simple /etc/rc and
/etc/rc.local sample file.
The same goes for most other things.
BP> FreeBSD matches up against the BSD admin methods and books on admin.
BP> Linux sometimes floats between SysV and BSD on a per-utility basis.
True, and as I said, often you can choose between both and follow your
taste (the problem is of course that every Linux system can be quite
different from another one).
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?87687bx8e8.fsf>