BSD vs. Linux

[DrDrake]

Ok I have a shiny new copy of BSDI here. Comes with Xfree86 4.0.1 and even KDE 2. From almost all aspects, it seems BSD is better than Linux. Even the hardware support is much better. Why use linux instead of BSD is what I am asking myself (BSD runs all linux programs very efficiently also)?

DrDrake

[bkurt]

So use it then.

[DrDrake]

Well that was a very intelligent response. If anyone has a reply that is not under 12, I would greatly appreciate it. I am simply looking for Pros and Cons type deal, not a flame war.

[This message has been edited by DrDrake (edited 18 December 2000).]

[bkurt]

Sorry, it seemed like the obvious answer to your question. If you think it is better than use it. More in depth I would say Linux is just used more in the web arena and that has made it so big and from there it just keeps growing. From what I've heard there is a lot more software being created for Linux then BSD at a faster rate. i could be wrong though. Sorry about the first answer didn't mean it in a derogatory sense and didn't mean to cause a flame war by any means. Just thought it fit at the time.

[lad24mx]

Originally posted by DrDrake:
Ok I have a shiny new copy of BSDI here. Comes with Xfree86 4.0.1 and even KDE 2. From almost all aspects, it seems BSD is better than Linux. Even the hardware support is much better. Why use linux instead of BSD is what I am asking myself (BSD runs all linux programs very efficiently also)?


DrDrake

Here are my two cents:

From what little I know about BSD, yes; it's better than Linux. It's kernel it a whole lot better, a lot more secure among other things.
Yes, there is more software being developed for Linux, the reasong being the BSD license. I believe their license (BSD) reads something like "if you improve our system in any way, you don't have the responsibility of giving away your code" (that's speaking in general terms, of course. The actual text reads differently.). So, as you can see their license is quite different when compared to the Linux licensing.

Hope I've been of help.

[milanuk]

Originally posted by DrDrake:
Even the hardware support is much better. Why use linux instead of BSD



Because traditionally (not saying that this has/hasn't changed) the *BSD's concentrated on doing server stuff only. Linux made the 'push' into the other arenas like desktop, embedded, etc. There's nothing to stop you from doing exactly the same things w/ BSD as you can w/ Linux, other than the odd ball low end hardware seems a bit better supported in Linux than in the BSD's. Perhaps this was an extension of the legendary *BSD snobbery, who knows? For some, I'm sure, that 'attitude' in and of itself may be a major reason _not_ to use *BSD's.

YMMV,

Monte

[*Lo*Tek*]

from what I have read in some articles here in the 'net, the 'BSD's are said to be more stable than Linux... haven't proven it for myself, though... however, it falls short in terms of application support for people who mainly use computers at home... it just isn't targeted for that group, unlike Linux...

[klamath]

More FUD, yikes (both pro and con BSD).

I would say Linux is just used more in the web arena

Not really - there's nothing wrong with BSD as a web server (e.g. it's used by Yahoo, Hotmail, Sony Japan, Apache.org, and other 'big name people'.)

there is a lot more software being created for Linux then BSD at a faster rate

Software is generally written for UNIX, not a specific variant. The vast majority of all software that runs on Linux runs on BSD (without even needing emulation). I'd challenge you to name an app off the top of your head that runs on Linux but not on FreeBSD.

It's kernel it a whole lot better,

It's simply not. The FreeBSD kernel does have some pretty significant problems (e.g. SMP), and there are areas where Linux is definately a better choice. Saying one or the other is 'a whole lot better' is demonstratably false.

I use both Linux and FreeBSD. At the moment, I use a Linux desktop, and do most of my development on my FreeBSD box (which also runs Apache/mod_perl + Postgres + firewall/SMTP/IMAP/other stuff), so I'm not really biased either way. Use whichever you prefer, in the end they're pretty damn similar.

------------------
- Klamath
Get my GnuPG Key Here (http://klamath.dyndns.org/mykey.asc)
Looking for an open source project to contribute to? Check out the Better Bulletin Board (http://bbb.sourceforge.net)

[bkurt]

I didn't say Linux was a better web server just that it is more widespread.

[DrDrake]

Well I just installed bsdi and it was really easy to install, but I enjoy my rc.d/rc#.d files and just everything about linux. I guess thats why I hang around here instead of bsdnewbie hehe..

[tko fx]

I don't know if this is correct or anything, I heard this in a conversation about BSD/Linux, anyways...what I heard was that BSD has better TCP Stacks than in Linux...I don't know if that makes a difference, or whether or not it's true, but I just thought I would hand in my gained knowledge(hopefully truthful knowledge) to everyone.

[vhg119]

My two cents:
If anythings sucks in linux, it will be fixed in the next version.
Anything bsd (or another OS) claims that it does better than linux, that won't be true in the future. The fact is that the linux community is very competitive. If the investment and momentum behind linux remains the same, you'll see that linux will surpass all the OS in any meaningful aspect. That is also because the licensing behind linux requires any improvments (or changes) to be shared with the rest of the community. BSD has Apple now, but i don't think that Apple will be releasing any sources to the BSD community.

[MrPenguin]

Hrmm, Funny that I stumble on this msg when I did. I was a debian fanatic, and still am. I switched to FreeBSD about 5 weeks ago and im not looking back. I still run debian on a machine but ive installed FreeBSD on my workstation (at work), my workstation (at home) and my webserver (also at home, running off a DSL). Here are the reasons why I am using FreeBSD over linux at this point.

1) I feel FreeBSD is a faster and more stable OS. I see a difference (not a huge difference, but a difference) in performance and memory management.

2) It is more secure by default. Yes I know security is mainly up to the admin, and I completly agree. But the layout of the security in *BSD is better then it is in linux.

3) All my hardware is supported just fine and it seems much easier to work with than linux. IE, I got a new burner last week, I popped in the box and booted up and I was ready to rock. No kernel hacking, No SCSI emulation, etc.. Ofcourse, SCSI emulation is a very cool part of the linux kernel http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/smile.gif

4) The directory structure and "ports" (the package management). I like the way FreeBSD keeps most of its software and files in a certain location (95% of the time it goes to /usr/local). Debian had a bad habit of throwing files all over the place and I would have to change the config's, etc.. to place stuff where I wanted.

I can go on, but dont wanna http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/smile.gif But, I also miss things about linux.. For instance the nat capabilities in the 2.4 kernels is better then FreeBSD's natd. Its a lot more advanced, and had me considering to switching back to linux on my router for that purpose. I am not doing anything to advanced so I decided to stick with FreeBSD.

In my experience I am finding that they really arnt _that_ different. Much like the difference between distro's. Directory structure, package management, and kernel's. I think FreeBSD has advantages over linux and vise versa. Just my $0.02

------------------
Peter
Use Linux, Be Happy!
psanchez@underside.net
ICQ: 1528947
GnuPG key is here (http://www.underside.net/key.txt)

Slackware is liked. Debian is loved!

[Beowulf_Ghost]

For me, the difference between BSD and Linux is that freeBSD seems to have been planed out better.

The thing about Linux is that there are so many different and slightly incampatible distro's. While freeBSD has one central authority on how freeBSd is supposed to work. Downloading software for Linux can be a crap shoot. Some software works perfectly as soon as it's compiled. But some of it never works do to inconsistancies between the distro's. It way work fine on Red Hat, but it won't in Slack. Or works in Debian, but not Caldera. Everything I downloaded for freeBSD worked.

I can't exactly figure out were Linux is going. FreeBSD strives to be a good server OS. That's their goal, and they stick to it. But Linux is begining to sound like MS. "Win^H^H^H Linux on every computer". Linux on desktops, Linux in car stereos, Linux on mainframes, Linux powered toasters, Linux on PDA's.

BTW; BSD"s claim to fame with their TCP stack, is that they were the first OS to use a TCP stack. They have had like a 20 year haed start. But all the other OS's are catching up. With many, it's so close, that you can't really call a winner. (Linux is pretty damn close, and last I heard OS/2 was close too).

[Wonock]

I have great love for both Linux and *BSD systems. I use Slackware (current) and FreeBSD/OpenBSD (sometimes I switch the two when I am bored). They both have there ups and downs.

*BSD's are a bit faster, a bit more secure by default, have Linux Emulation, and use BSD boot up sequence and loader.

Linux has much much more software for it (IE: compiles with out using BSD patches to the makefiles), has a bit of a wider goal like a jack of all trades, most dists uses SysV, and has many distributions to choose from depending on your needs.

They both want to keep the OS free too (Linux from Linus, and *BSD comming from BSD 4.4). There is a diffrence in the Licenses though ... I believe that BSD's says you can take a part of the system/software under BSD and make it into propertary things. Some people say thats real code freedom ... I am not sure what I think about it :-P.

I don't believe Linux is turning out to be like MS.

(1) Linux is still free
(2) Linux is not one Corporation
(3) Linux fixes problems (through Open Source)

Linux users may and are proud that they use a great OS and want the rest of the world to experience it ... but OS pride doesn't mean a change into Microsoft(R)(TM).

Just my opinion :-).

Wonock

------------------
Not everyone can be right
But everyone will decide!
-Face To Face

[Beowulf_Ghost]

I was likening Linux to MS because they both have the same goal; To have their respective OS on every computer in the world.

The "openness" of Linux means nothing to someone who can't read C. And the whole OS pride thing is getting way out of hand. Slashdot is an excelent example of Linux users that are way to out of touch with reality. Sure, you can hack Linux to do most anything, but that doesn't mean joe blow can do the same thing. To date, I've never gotten a single sound card to work in Linux. ESS Solo-1 and Maestro, Turtel Beach Montego and Montego II, SB AWE 64, SB PCI 128. Six different cards, for three different makers. All of them worked in Win9x, and all but the ESS Maestro and the SB PCI 128 worked in BeOS 5 (which every one says has poor HW support). I don't know enough C to hack the kernel, or write my own drivers and modules.

The other day, Slashdot had a couple articles about BeOS. I saw huge amounts of FUD coming from Linux zealots. They basicaly think that BeOS can't be anywhere near as good as Linux, simply because it's closed-source. Several said that Linux was better then BeOS at playing audio (I still don't have a working sound card).

I just think Linux should be focused on a perticular area, and shoulded be forked for other areas. Fork Linux into; Linux as a flexible server, Deskux for the desktop, Embedux for embeded devices, etc... So instead of being meiocre at everything, it could be the best _IN _ITS_FIELD_. MS does this (Win9x for home users, WIn2k Pro for workstations, Win2k Datacenter for large servers). Be Inc. does this (BeOS for high bandwidth media, BeIA for embeded devices). BSD does this (BSDI for large servers and clusters, freeBSD as a fast server, openBSD for security, netBSD for portability).

I just think it's time for Linux to fork itself properly, before it's required to do a quick messy fork due to other pressures. Joe Blow picks up a copy of Red Hat at Walmart, and now he has an OS that can supposedly run on everything, from wrist watches to mainframes. I doubt a stock install of Red Hat will work on his Swatch, or on his companie's AS/400. I think it's time for Linux to stop being an academic pissing contest, and define itself as an OS.

[Bert]

Do you have to buy BSDI or can you download it? Is there an ISO available or is an FTP install only?

Thanks,
Bert

[Derango]

The amount of unrealalistic Linux users at slashdot are what keep me from reading the discussions of the news stories. I just read the news http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ubb/wink.gif

[Wonock]

Yeah, Slashdot isn't my favorite place to read opinions :-P. Unfortunatly I don't think a single OS doesn't try to be portable (besides DOS-like operationg systems). Look at NetBSD ... one of the whole ideas is that it can work on a up to date computer, to blender. If you look at Linux now and then look at it 2 years ago there is much, much more compatibility with hardware. I don't know whats wrong with that.

Also, whats wrong with an OS that can be a server, a desktop or hacked into an embeded system?

BeOS is a pretty cool OS! I like it, but unfortunatly it doesn't recognize my sound card or NIC or I would duel boot with it. I like it's web browser and speed a lot!

Wonock

------------------
Not everyone can be right
But everyone will decide!
-Face To Face

[Shad]

On several things, I hear there are slight incompatibilities between OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and NetBSD. It is just that there are not as many *BSDs as there are linux distros.

Beowulf_ghost, sorry about your sound cards, but my ESS Maestro was recognized out of the box by Mandrake. My Brother-in-law has SB PCI128, and works fine. I did have a PCI sound card that gave me fits, but eventually I did get it working in RH5.2 (that's how long ago it was.) I now have a SB Live and works great.

I do know that certain hardware combos just don't seem to work together very well. I had a 56k Hardware modem that since I put a jumper on it it just worked. When I gave the modm to my brother-in-law, with a different MOBO, but the same chipset, it gave us both fits to get it working.

About BeOS, At least at the time I tried it, there was no PPPoE software, and no games. I couldn't get online with my DSL, and had no software to use with it. There was nothing I as a user could do to enhace the OS besides buy it and get my friends to buy it. At least with linux, if a program crashes, it asks me to fill out a bug reprot and maybe it will get taken care of and make the software better.

------------------
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life

[DrDrake]

On a side note, BSDI is commercial, but I am not using it, I am using freeBSD instead. BSDI makes the install way to easy for my taste, so I am using freeBSD. Just did the ftp install, hella cool.

BeOs would suck for me also, I got PPPoE and so do almost every adsl customer in america.

Also bsdvault.net has good tutorials on bsd, I enjoy going there for bsd releated stuff.

On a note with sound cards: I had to turn the PNP OS function off in my bios to make mine work with Drake.. give that a try

And to all my Mandrake and Debian homies, fear not, I am still using them. Mandrake is my main gaming machine, Debian is my router. BSD is just my webserver and a computer to screw around with.

DrDrake

[thully]

How did you get your BSDI? Is there a trial version? I'm curious to see how the commercial BSDI compares with FreeBSD and Linux. Also, I prefer to be "up-and-running" quickly with an easy install, so that I have time to use the software.

[Beowulf_Ghost]

I couldn't get Mandrake 7.2 to recognize an ESS solo-1. I guess your milage varies.

There is PPPoE software for BeOS ( www.bebits.com (http://www.bebits.com) ), and there are a few games. Not the newest games, and no OpenGL stuff till Be's OpenGL upgrade is out of beta. A big set back to games for BeOS happened when Wildcard Design was sued, and had to file for bankrupstcy, taking Civ CTP, Works Armogeden, and Shogo with it. But other games can be found, and others are in the works with beta OpenGL. As usual, the myth that BeOS has no software holds.

SB 182 PCI;
Creative changed the chipsets on these cards a couple times. If you have one of the older cards, you're lucky. I had problems with a newer 128, and exchanged it for a TB Montego, but a friend at school has an older 128 that works perfectly.

I have filed out bug reports for alot of the beta software I have for BeOS. Opera, usb-joystick drivers, SNES emulator, etc. And there is quite a bit of OSS projects for BeOS ( www.beunited.org (http://www.beunited.org) ).