Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 11:16:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug White <dwhite@riley-net170-164.uoregon.edu> To: Filip Stokkeland <filip@sprakrad.no> Cc: questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960419111144.25922B-100000@riley-net170-164.uoregon.edu> In-Reply-To: <286E679429A@sprakrad.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 19 Apr 1996, Filip Stokkeland wrote: > I'm an old DOS-user who has started to look at Unix. I've tried a > couple of Linux distributins the last weeks. Then I found this > FreeBSD stuff. What's the difference between Linux and FreeBSD? > And what's this NetBSD-thing? I'll post one of my favorite responses to this below. From what I understand, NetBSD is similar to FreeBSD (hey, they even borrow each other's code :) ) but is developed by a different organization. Check out http://www.netbsd.org for more information. > Do you know where to get FreeBSD on CDROM? Walnut Creek CDROM, http://www.cdrom.com. Here is the comparison: > From garth@pisces.systems.sa.gov.auFri Apr 19 11:11:27 1996 > Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 14:35:56 +0930 > From: Garth Kidd <garth@pisces.systems.sa.gov.au> > To: Rogers Pessin <rpessin@digital-storm.com> > Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux > 1) First off, why would you suggest FreeBSD over Linux, or vice-versa? > Does one have strengths over the other in any particular thing? First, I beg forgiveness for any inadvertent inaccuracy; I expect Mike Smith to correct me on all counts and to use the opportunity to make more rude comments about my clothing :). The canonical answer to your question is: "Don't ask here. That's a flame-bait question. Try asking in comp.os.linux.advocacy. Don your asbestos underwear first." True, there's nothing quite like your question (or any other "which of these two OS is superior?") to cause a flame-war. A slightly less jaded answer: FreeBSD is an on-going development of released BSD code. It's a genuine BSD with a long lineage. There's a high degree of code stability, lots of people know how the OS is put together thanks to experience with the N other BSDs out there, porting is easy because it's a standard BSD, and so on. FreeBSD is nice and familiar. The FreeBSD team are well organised; subscribe to cvs-sys and watch their updates flow in. Various parts of the OS are allocated to various people, who must check in any changes. Anyone can submit a change, but it won't go in until it has been thoroughly checked by someone who really understands the code it affects. There is one FreeBSD distribution. Everything ported to FreeBSD will work with it. Installing new software is usually as easy as downloading a pre-done package and installing it, or by downloading a few K of a port, typing "make", and watching your system download the rest of the distribution from elsewhere, making necessary changes and compiling it. Linux was put together by a talented individual, from scratch. That code which is not original has been borrowed from a wide variety of sources. In many ways, it's a mongrel. The code doesn't seem as stable as that of BSD. Porting isn't as easy as anyone would like -- Linux isn't a BSD, and isn't SysV, supports API elements from both, and has wierd behaviour in places. Linux is new and quirky. I have no idea whether the Linux team are organised or not. Linus seems to have sole control over the kernel, but the rest of the OS seems to be left to whomever happens to be around. I may be wrong, here. There are many "distributions". Red Hat has a kind of package support which makes installing new software easy, but it only works with their packages, and their packages only work on their distribution. Packages for one distribution may not work for another distribution. In-built Linux detection in various bits of software are often tailored for one distribution (Slackware) and may not work with another. > 2) How complete is FreeBSD's ability to emulate Linux (which would let > me have the best of both worlds possibly)? Someone else will have to field this one, but I've seen mutterings amongst the people doing the ELF support that they've more or less nailed down the capability to run the latest Linux-compiled binaries. I imagine FreeBSD can already run old-style "a.out" Linux binaries, but I'm not sure. If you're getting source code for things, this is irrelevant. Just compile for FreeBSD. > 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? "FreeBSD" encompasses the whole OS -- kernel, drivers, devices, filesystems, basic utilities, filesystem layout, and so on. If you're familiar with a FreeBSD system, you're unlikely to be get any nasty surprises using another one. Indeed, if you're familiar with any other stock BSD or even some variants (like SunOS), you're unlikely to get any nasty surprises. "Linux" encompasses the Linux kernel. Just the kernel. More or less everything else is up to the distribution, of which there are a few. If you're familiar with a Slackware distribution, a Red Hat distribution may well pack some surprises. Or vice versa. > 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? ELF is a new binary distribution format, soon to be handled in some way by FreeBSD. That aside, I'm not sure what it is, save that ELF binaries simply won't run on old Linux systems. In summary; if you want something new, exiting, and trendy, you can't go past Linux. There are plenty of nifty books with one of the distributions on a CD-ROM inside the cover and hints on how to do things on the pages inside. You'll find lots of other Linux fanatics to play with. Just ignore those people claiming that you're running the Amiga of Unix variants. After all, Linux is technically superior, right? If you want something old but up-to-date, familiar, and stable, you can't go past FreeBSD. There aren't lots of nifty beginner books, but there are lots of serious, heavy books that talk a lot about how BSD is put together, administrated and such. BSD is older than many of the people that install Linux. It's not trendy; it's an old, familiar and well respected part of the Unix landscape. You can leave the excitement to the Linux fans -- you prefer reliability and stability to the bleeding edge, right? I run a Linux system, a BSDI system (commercial BSD) and a FreeBSD system. I'm about to add an OSF/1 system to the menagerie. I do sysadmin stuff on SunOS, Solaris, NCR Unix (SysV) and AIX (mangled SysV). FreeBSD is -- for me -- the most comfortable and easy to maintain of the lot. Your mileage may differ. There are lots of happy Linux people out there, too. -- garth@dogbert.systems.sa.gov.au | Garth Kidd +61-8-207-7740 (voice) | Professional Services Division +61-8-207-7860 (fax) | Southern Systems | Adelaide, AUSTRALIA Doug White | University of Oregon Internet: dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu | Residence Networking Assistant http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~dwhite | Computer Science Major
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.960419111144.25922B-100000>