[PLUG] FreeBSD.

[Rajak]

On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, A Braunsdorf wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 
Let me restate, that was not exactly what I wanted.. I find Linux more
usable in general because I can get just about anything wrking on it..
BSDs I have had less success with when I have some obscure hardware..

In terms of applications + daemons and what not, they are near identical
in my mind, both share much of the same major things, X, sendmail, bind,
apache, sh's, you name it, there is probably a port in either direction.


> 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 not the most simple thing in the world, but I think its a step up from
what Linux offers you at the very least. When you come out of there you
are reasonably happy with the box. You have X working, you have networking
working, you have whatever installed, etc. You can go and choose exactly
what you want/need. I haven't found this alway to be the case w. Linux, sa
much as I do love it. Not that its hard for an experienced user to set it
all up after the install anyways, but its nice to have it all integrated
into the install in the form of post install configurations.


> 
> > 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.

*shrug* i refer to current BSDs, not those versions specifically aimed at
386s in mind, however I won't argue this, as its not my personal
experience, only the sayings of some trusted friends..

> 
> 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? :-)

As I understand it, the edge is not significant in speed anymore. The
TCP/IP stacks are near identical in speed and the actual 'fastest stack'
shifts from revision to revision. As for NFS, I have no idea. And
remember, just because someone originated an idea doesn't always mean they
will have the best. Case in point, Intel + AMD.. AMD came after Intel, the
underdog, and for a while just followed in its steps, but eventually, now,
its moved ahead. AMDs Athlon is faster than Intel's Pentium III. So who's
to say Linux's networking code isn't faster than BSDs, or that it won't
surpass BSD at some point in the future?  Of course the CPU argument is
flawed in that with Open Source development both sides just borrow good
ideas from each other, leaving 2 blocks of code that are probably going to
be pretty similar in speeds (else the slow side would just find out what
the fast side is doing right, and what they are doing wrong, and modify
their own )

Anyways, if you understood all of that, congratulations, I don't know if I
do.. on to the next part of the reply.. :p

> 
> 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.

Every BSD user I say this to says the same thing "We had ours first, you
fscked it up", but that is regardless, all I am saying is it is different,
not that one or the other is better.. be prepared to review the man pages
in BSD if you come from Linux, some options are likely to have changed.

> 
> 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.
> 
I haven't really decided which way I will go on this, I enjoy both OSes
(FreeBSD + Linux), but I don't have to set up anything important now
anywyas, so I will just stick to whwat I'm most familiar with, and thats
Linux.


> 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. :-)

and BSD copies other's codes as well, don't think its a one way street..
all the networking gods don't work on BSDs you know :p which is just
further proof of my point that they will eventually all be pretty
equivalent. 

I think its a pretty futile argument here, I've seen this entire thing
play out a hundred times in my linuxhelp channel, and its just an
extension of Linux distro wars.. Choose what you are most comfortable
with.

brian 'rajak' poole 






> ____________________________________________________
> The Purdue Linux Users' Group (PLUG) mailing list.
> plug mailing list  -  plug@csociety.purdue.edu
> http://csociety.ecn.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/plug
>