Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:57:43 -0600 (CST) From: John Kenagy <jktheowl@bga.com> To: "Robert A. Bruce" <rab@pike.cdrom.com> Cc: Dave Yost <Dave@Yost.com>, freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The Linux PR firestorm disaster (w.r.t. FreeBSD) Message-ID: <199903010157.TAA22222@bga.com> In-Reply-To: <199903010058.QAA24952@pike.cdrom.com> References: <v04104408b2fc8ab8acfc@[205.219.69.138]> <199903010058.QAA24952@pike.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Robert A. Bruce writes: > Dave Yost <Dave@Yost.com> said... > >First order of business, I think is that http://www.freebsd.org/ must have a > >prominent main heading: > > FreeBSD vs. linux and others > >which leads to some simple, forthright information suitable for nontechnical > >journalists and TV news people. It should also have a big, forbidding table > >with lots of X marks for stuff FreeBSD has that linux doesn't and as much > >technical backup material as possible. > > > What does FreeBSD have that Linux doesn't? I don't think that such > a table would be very "forbidding". > > Seriously, I am working on a chart to hand out at the FreeBSD booth > at LinuxWorld next week, and I am having a hard time coming up with > a list of things that FreeBSD does better than Linux. > > Most claims of FreeBSD superiority boil down to: > > 1. "FreeBSD is more reliable", with no objective evidence to back > up that claim. > > 2. "FreeBSD has better performance", with little evidence to back > up that claim either. FreeBSD seems to have better performance > on network intensive applications when the system is heavily > loaded (http://advisor.gartner.com/n_inbox/hotcontent/hc_2121999_3.html) > but I haven't seen any clear evidence that FreeBSD outperforms Linux > in other areas or under other conditions. > > There are other points that people bring up, such as better kernel > architecture, etc. But that is pretty meaningless to an typical > end-user. > You forgot the one that sold me. A few years ago, when looking into "unix" for my PC, I was about ready to go for Linux when I cam upon FreeBSD. Having seen that Linux comes from "many sources" or lots of contributors working independantly (a worthy thing, too), I found that FreeBSD was of the BSD lineage and was a "single source" (ignoring all of the nitpicking about this definition). Result: FreeBSD wins, no contest, period. This is MY choice. Others may not find it as compelling but I do. I do not wish to worry about whether my new kernel will run with existing stuff or where I will have to go to complete my upgrade. I also find that the proliferation of the "commercial" linuces to be indicative of the same problem... for me. I'm sure these products are fine but I have no interest in variations on a theme. > If I was trying to come up with the opposite list (areas where Linux > beats FreeBSD) the job would be much easier: > > 1. Linux runs on way more platforms (sparc, powerpc, mips,... heck it > even runs on a PalmPilot). I don't have a palm pilot. I buy hardware from the Goodwill Computer shop here in Austin and have _never_ been stumped at Getting FreeBSD running on anything I've tried. (I even cleaned rat poop out of an old 486 and got it to run text based training manuals at work!) > > 2. Linux has better support for realtime operations. > > 3. Linux supports more perephrials (USB, etc.) > I have a Win98 (blech) machine in the kitchen that spools spiffy print output to an old Panasonic on my FreeBSD server. All of the necessary filtering and formating is done by the server. It was a no brainer. It _was_ more difficult to figure out how to get Win98 to print at all. > 4. Linux has real multiprocessor threads > > 5. Linux has a lot more native commercial applications. > I run all that I need to with the ports and packages. I manage a web site for my church, write documentation for my job, and control a LAN here at home (Adding a 5th machine - an old Apple LC II). I even use some of the commercial Linux applications. They are just fine. I will buy the FreeBSD Applixware when available. > 6. etc... > > So if you can send me a list of areas where FreeBSD beats Linux, > I would greatly appreciate it. If you can back up any claims > of better performance/reliability with published reports or > repeatable benchmarks, that would be great. But I am happy to > take anecdotes too. The chart is pretty sparse right now, so > I am not picky. > > -bob The issue has _never_ been FreeBSD vs Linux. It is reliability. I _beleive_ FreeBSD has a greater probability of reliable performance based on the coordinated and comprehensive development and distribution of releases from FreeBSD.org. I have _not_ been disapointed. I do not think it a good idea to get caught up in slaming the other guy. As an ole' time sales guy, you don't do that. It can get real embarrasing to later find yourself peddling the former competition.;-) John To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199903010157.TAA22222>