Re: FreeBSD Advocacy (Was Re: Linux Replies (was WinXPActivation))
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 08:59:23AM -0500, C. K. Lester wrote:
>
>
> In the interest of the dissemination of all relevant information, I present
> the following:
>
> > > >> Use FreeBSD (http://www.freebsd.org) instead.
> > > jso> Why?
> > > Because it's the best!!!! :P
> > I've never used FreeBSD, so I can't fairly compare and contrast the 2.
> >
> > I'm interested in how your experiences with Linux compare with your
> experiences
> > with FreeBSD, tho. Maybe it is better. (I've heard that FreeBSD tends to
> be
> > smoother under heavy system load but doesnt have as good hardware or
> multi-
> > media support.)
>
> FreeBSD has great hardware support. I was shocked when I installed it and it
> automatically found everything I own, including a digital camera, a scanner,
> a printer, and my cable modem. I literally did nothing "manual" and I was
> automagically connected to the internet via my cable modem. Multi-media is
> my only complaint, but that's only because I don't have the time to learn it
> right now. I know that others have had great success with it.
What hardware is it? I wouldn't be too suprised if Linux had the same
support as well.
A lot of my hardware wasnt auto-detected, but that was because a lot of it
was windows-only. (Remedied more recently, with the release of linux drivers
for the Lexmark 1100 (by a third party, no longer supported but it works fine),
for the Lucent modem I have (by the company), and for the Iomega zip disk
support (in the kernel).)
>
> Since then, I have gone further and modified (tweaked, optimized) my kernel.
> If I wasn't a single dad taking care of two children, a dog, two cats, two
> rats, a fish, and a house, I'd be spending a majority of my free time
> learning FreeBSd even more. I'd be a strong advocate of FreeBSD. As it is,
> OS discussions don't come high on my priorities list, and to each his own, I
> always say (unless it's Microsoft). :)
:D
I've done tweaking, but not really in the kernel. Mostly, in the other things
I use. (Either the GNU parts (rare), the open source apps (more common), or
the apps I write myself (most common :) .)
>
> As it is, I'm a FreeBSD advocate because it's a stable, [relatively]
> easy-to-use, fast, multi-user, multi-tasking, highly-customizable, FREE, and
> Microsoftless OS.
So is Linux/GNU.
> Here are some links that can do better than I in
> explaining its viability as an OS of choice:
>
> http://www.offmyserver.com/cgi-bin/store/news/techtv_090303.html (with
> additional links there)
>
I didn't check out the links on the page, but the page itself says that the
comparision ended in a tie, a decision that was booed at.
> The *BSDs have been in development for more than twenty years and as a
> result they're fast, efficient and secure. *BSD OSes operate on a wider
> variety of platforms than any other OS, making *BSD the most scalable and
> portable OS in the world. There are four main distributions under the BSD
> Licence, but for purposes of time, space, and redundancy we're not going to
> include Darwin/NeXT (which is what OSX is derived from) in this article. In
> the table below we have FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD and one major
> proprietary distribution by Wind River, formerly known as BSDi. (from
> http://www.thejemreport.com/articles/sco.htm).
FreeBSD runs on only a few platforms. NetBSD and OpenBSD are the ones that
have been widely ported (especially NetBSD).
Also, the page given is misleading for Linux support. It does only 2 distros,
and doesn't speak at all about option things. (Linux can be made to be
as secure as OpenBSD, to be sure, with the right patches and a smart sysadmin,
to be sure.) Admitedly, adding those options are not a trivial task.
>
> http://www.internetweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=12800936 (last
> article on page)
Also misleading on several points.
For licensing, the terms are compatible. LGPL and BSD are pretty much
equal, the only thing that makes GPL less friendly is the fact that it is
"viral". Even with the GPL, you can use the code and sell it, tho.
On stability, while there are more distros, and this is a point of confusion,
the distros are also more compatible with each other.
And, new Linux kernel drivers are unstable simply because they are in the
process of testing. They develop faster because making the testing public
and globally avaiable to anyone allows for more developers to take part and
help fix bugs. If you don't plan to take part in this, then you simply
don't use the experimental drivers. Enough said.
Finally, Linux has support for SMP, firewall implementations, and several
journaling filesystems. I don't know enough about FFS and softupdates to
compare,
tho.
>
> Of the top 10 "most reliable and fastest hosts," Netcraft shows that FreeBSD
> is THE top-5... "Intriguingly, all of the Top 5 placed sites run the FreeBSD
> operating system..."
>
> http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/07/08/most_reliable_and_fastest_hosting_company_sites_during_june.html
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/10/1057783256883.html
>
> http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/07/12/nearly_2_million_active_sites_running_freebsd.html
FreeBSD wins here. BSDs are clearly better at servering and hosting than Linux.
(Part of the reason may be lack of distros that are specificly for large
scale servers, but on that I am not sure.)
>
> These are primarily third-party articles. Of course, www.freebsd.org has its
> own set of advocacy information.
So does Linux. Has its own newgroup even, comp.os.linux.advocacy.
>
> The FreeBSD method of installing software (via "ports") is simple and
> efficient.
> (http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports.html)
Looks a lot like RPMS or even SRPMS, which install source code ready to
compile instead of binarys.
>
> I have attempted to use Linux a few times and never got past the
> install/configuration stage. This has been a loooong time ago, however, so I
> don't claim to be familiar with today's Linux installs/configurations. All I
> know is I downloaded a floppy-disk's (or two's) worth of data and installed
> FreeBSD with very little hassle.
Caldera OpenLinux 2.2 and Redhat Linux 6.0 is what I tried. Both very
old, both very easy to install. I admit, I haven't tried FreeBSD at all,
so I can't compare.
>
> As always, YMMV... ;)
>
> -ck
>
jbrown
>
>
> TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
>
>
--
Outlook Users, please don't put my email address in your address book. That way,
my email address won't appear in forged emails sent by email viruses. (Which are
technically worms btw :P)
--
Linux User:190064
Linux Machine:84163
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
