Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 10:28:37 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: shovey@buffnet.net (steve hovey) Cc: rpessin@digital-storm.com, questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux Message-ID: <199603141728.KAA11243@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SCO.3.91.960314075528.23307R-100000@buffnet5.buffnet.net> from "steve hovey" at Mar 14, 96 08:03:04 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 1) First off, why would you suggest FreeBSD over Linux, or vice-versa?
> > Does one have strengths over the other in any particular thing?
Flame-bait. Won't answer this one.
> > 2) How complete is FreeBSD's ability to emulate Linux (which would let
> > me have the best of both worlds possibly)?
Enough to run DOOM and, in the -current code, QUAKE. Also NetScape
for Linux (with JAVA).
> > 3) In the news groups someone talked about preferring FreeBSD over
> > Linux because the former is an actual OS while the latter is just
> > a kernel... could you explain this difference to me? (not sure of
> > the difference between the two and the implications of such)
>
> I believe (but im no authority) that the people doing the kernal in
> freebsd also do all the associated programs like ls, pwd, rmdir, etc etc
> etc - whereas with linux just the kernal itself is linux, and all of the
> other commands are written by a cast of thousands, or by the maker of a
> 'package' like slakware or redhat. Its not a good argument to go either way.
Actually, there's a good "referential integrity" argument to be made
in terms of binary utilities matching kernels. Other than that, most
vendors now subscribe to the FSS ("File System Standard") for utility
location, /etc directory layout, etc.. They do not, however, have a
common packaging system, so each Linux distribution varies widely in
"feel" in some aspects.
> > 4) Linux has ELF files (or something along those lines), yet from what
> > I've read it seems FreeBSD does not. What is the significance of this?
The -current code has ELF support, including ABI support for Linux
ELF sufficient to run QUAKE.
There are certain issues with LGPL (not GPL) and dynamic linking that
are resolved by ELF shared libraries. Segment identification in ELF
also permits some elegant technical soloutions to some problems in
the kernel (no one has really applied it there, and they don't differ
significantly from the same soloutions provided by COFF).
Use of ELF segments in the initial ANSI C standard could have saved us
prototypes (by including attribution of arguments and return values in
with the symbol information and use of smart linker technology) if it
had been done correctly. Smart linkers would have also had the side
effects of getting rid of the "near" and "far" distinctions on Intel
compilers, and automatic support for ELF objects as ANDF objects (the
holy grail of binary distribution technology for UNIX and UNIX-clone
systems).
Oh well. Water under the Microsoft C compiler writer's seats on the
X3J11 committee.
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603141728.KAA11243>