[PLUG] FreeBSD.

[A Braunsdorf]

In message <Pine.SOL.4.10.9909211211480.11958-100000@herald.cc.purdue.edu>, Raj
ak writes:
> Yes, FreeBSD is a rather nice OS, with much of the usability of Linux and
> still solid like a BSD.

Not to be haughty, but you've got that backwards, right?  BSD
antedates Linux significantly.  The reason BSD was developed was
to improve the usability of the UNIX AT&T gave them.

The UNIX that Linus used at University that inspired him to start
the Linux project was almost certainly a BSD UNIX.  Unless he was
in school after the rise of Solaris.  Hmmm.  Anyone know?

> Install is very nice, with lots of easy
> configuration options, and upgrading and installing new packages is
> simple.

It's OK.  I think most UNIX products are way too hard to install
and configure, but I don't want to get off on a rant here.

> Its as stable and fast as Linux on good machines, although I hear
> nasty rumours about it on older machines. So you probably don't want to
> stick it on your 386...

Nonsense.  I haven't run a recent version on a '386 (I've got one
with 2.8 or so upstairs, but it's not in production), but we used
to run 386BSD on '386s all the time- it's not like we had a choice
at that time.

As for stability, for server stuff, especially NFS, the BSDs probably
have a significant edge.  BSD UNIX has always been the leader in
network stuff.  Heard of Berkeley sockets?  Why do you think they're
called that? :-)

If you absolutely want to be sure of NFS, run Solaris x86.  That'll
be all nice and Sysfivey for you too.

> If you are a dedicated Linux user its going to
> seem a little strange at first because BSDs change a lot of teh command
> line options for commands like route, but you will get the hang of it.

"The route command first appeared in 4.2 BSD." :-)

Command line options differ a lot between different flavors of
UNIX.  Considering that Linux is promoted as a kernel with other
people's user stuff, I'm not sure why they differ so much.  Maybe
to look more like SysV- but we never much cared for that either.

Many of the programs on both systems are GNU, so they're exactly
the same.  FreeBSD also runs Linux binaries, so some stuff can just
be copied over if you like it better.

> ultimately it comes down to you DLing the source and trying it out.. The
> only thing I have found truly annoying about freebsd is that I don't like
> their internet community as much.. freebsd users tend on the most part to
> be rather condescending of Linux users nad a bit more haughty in my
> opinion... Anyways, thats my thought on it, now go try it out..

I've got a problem with them too in that they often plant their
collective head firmly up their collective ass regarding making
changes that would actually improve the product for users.

They're often eager to make big strides in research (their virtual
memory system is second to none)- which is fabulous- but when it
comes to improving interface stuff or features that make a difference
to mere users, they are slow or unwilling to respond.

You can do stuff yourself, of course, but that defeats the purpose
of sticking with a standard distribution.  *sigh*


For running a moderate sized network, FreeBSD is my PClone UNIX of
choice, and I don't see any compelling reason to change, but for
single user machines in your basement, I doubt many of the differences
are going to sway you one way or the other.

If you're doing a lot of network service stuff, though, I think
you'll find the BSDs work better.  Almost certainly no worse since
most everybody else copies their network code eventually. :-)

ab