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)
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> 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).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?87687bx8e8.fsf>