From: i...@corp.u-net.com (Ian Robinson)
Subject: FreeBSD vs LinuX (again) ???
Date: 2000/05/27
Message-ID: <3931336b.1078190@news.u-net.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 628062858
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: news@u-net.net
X-Trace: newsr2.u-net.net 959462039 195.102.200.18 (Sat, 27 May 2000 22:13:59 BST)
Organization: Starfish Prime
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 22:13:59 BST
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
I'm sure that this is old one .. but .. can anyone give me a hand
here
I've used Linux on and off for some 5 years on a dial-up desktop and
seem to have grown out of the playing phase. My academic background is
computational physics hence a familiarity with UNIX systems. (b.t.w
VMS used to be excellent for program development, saving a code
version was automated in the sense that one did not have to rename the
source and executable files. Autoincremented version numbers were
added to the file names)
Back to the matter in hand. I've played with loads of LinuX versions,
currently on Mandrake. As a computing lecturer I have had some sucess
in persueding my pre university level students to play with Linux.
I'm considering moving to FreeBSD.
A hunt around the net threw up the following.
1. Different file system structure and file system (?) sounding rather
like Solaris slices.
2. Most LinuX apps should work on recompiliation, plus there is some
sort of emulator ability built in ????
3. Claimed to be more stable .. though I've never had a problem with
LinuX
4. Mach rather than Linux kernel, developed by a closed(ish) group
5. BSD possibly rather faster as a server.
6. BSD possibly slightly slower as a standalone desktop.
7. Connections with the sexy looking new Mac OS X (if it ever
appears):- did'nt NexT use the Mach kernel? I am possibly interested
in developing for the Mac OS X, or at least getting my mitts on it and
drooling.
Thats my research so far, editing out vast amounts of petty squabbles
and flaming.
Am I correct in the above points.
Can anyone convince me to change, or is the difference largely
academic as the GNU apps are the same. Is there some sort of killer
app or killer reason to switch ??
Any opinions most gratefully recieved.
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted using Agent under the influence of WINE by someone under the
influence of wine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: vsync <vs...@quadium.net>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs LinuX (again) ???
Date: 2000/05/28
Message-ID: <873dn2k8bg.fsf@quadium.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 628274391
Sender: vsync@vsync
References: <3931336b.1078190@news.u-net.com> <8gplut$1r6n$1@walton.maths.tcd.ie>
<Fv9oz8.F0@news.online.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: wormhole.dimensional.com 959527044 206.124.10.153
(Sun, 28 May 2000 09:17:24 MDT)
Organization: quadium.net
User-Agent: Gnus/5.070099 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.99) XEmacs/20.4 (Emerald)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 09:17:24 MDT
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
th...@hotmail.com (Thomas F. Unke) writes:
> One should note one major advantage of FreeBSD compared to Linux:
> FreeBSD is just one system, but Linux is a dozen or so (Red Hat,
> Suse, Corel etc). This means, while many things on different Linuxes
> are same, there are always subtle differences in filesystem layout
> and administration. And these differences often make things
I do not see this as a disadvantage for Linux. I enjoy being able to
choose a different distro based on my particular tastes.
> incompatible. Thus if you get a Red Hat version of some application,
> it might not run under Suse (or only with some tweaking). The
Linux is "by hackers, for hackers". If you don't like tweaking, don't
use it. One of the BSDs is probably a better choice in such a case.
> Applixware CD for example has different packages, depending on which
> distribution you want to install it.
As far as incompatibilities, most of those stem from software
companies shipping stuff only as binaries, or simply incompetent
programming. I don't worry about the former, as I have managed to
shift over to using only programs for which the source is available.
I think the differences might actually encourage good programming,
though, as people can't just slam out code that works for _their_
configuration and forget about it.
--
vsync
http://quadium.net/ - last updated Sat May 27 01:22:21 MDT 2000
Orjner.
From: Rainer M Duffner <Rainer.Duff...@surf24.de>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs LinuX (again) ???
Date: 2000/05/29
Message-ID: <ant291711d07Zsav@duffner.surf24.de>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 628663733
References: <3931336b.1078190@news.u-net.com> <8gplut$1r6n$1@walton.maths.tcd.ie>
<Fv9oz8.F0@news.online.de> <873dn2k8bg.fsf@quadium.net>
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: surf239.surf24.de
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Organization: KVG Internet Services
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
In article <873dn2k8bg....@quadium.net>, vsync
<URL:mailto:vs...@quadium.net> wrote:
> th...@hotmail.com (Thomas F. Unke) writes:
>
> > One should note one major advantage of FreeBSD compared to Linux:
> > FreeBSD is just one system, but Linux is a dozen or so (Red Hat,
> > Suse, Corel etc). This means, while many things on different Linuxes
> > are same, there are always subtle differences in filesystem layout
> > and administration. And these differences often make things
>
> I do not see this as a disadvantage for Linux.
YMMV - but I see this as exactly one real big disadvantage of Linux.
Linux systems I've seen (SuSE, RedHat and probably almost any other)
tend to put _everything_ in /usr - all binaries, libraries, anything
ends-up in the Linux-equivalent of the C:\winnt\system32-directory.
Sure, the libs are numbered and don't normally interfere with each
other, but is this a good strategy for keeping a system clean and stable
over a period of time (years ?) ?
With no separation of OS and applications, how do you migrate from one
release to another without updating all applications ?
Each kernel-update may or may not bring-in the need to update some/most
or all system-related binaries.
FreeBSD handles these issues, that's why I use it and that's why I
deployed a lab full of dual-boot WinNT-FreeBSD boxes.
> I enjoy being able to
> choose a different distro based on my particular tastes.
Yeah.
That's what the big HDs are for, what ?
> > incompatible. Thus if you get a Red Hat version of some application,
> > it might not run under Suse (or only with some tweaking). The
>
> Linux is "by hackers, for hackers". If you don't like tweaking, don't
> use it. One of the BSDs is probably a better choice in such a case.
Uh.
That's probably why they have all these graphical installers in the
Linux-systems nowadays. Real Hackers don't use keyboards ;-)
> I think the differences might actually encourage good programming,
> though, as people can't just slam out code that works for _their_
> configuration and forget about it.
It might.
But don't hold your breath on that.
cheers,
Rainer
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|Rainer Duffner, E-Mail: duff...@fh-konstanz.de |
| & Rainer.Duff...@surf24.de |
|Fachhochschule Konstanz, Germany |
|"What's a Network ?" - Bill Gates, early 1980s |
| WWW:http://www-stud.fh-konstanz.de/~duffner |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: jim2@ii
Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs LinuX (again) ???
Date: 2000/05/29
Message-ID: <8gukf6$q8q@drn.newsguy.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 628759444
References: <3931336b.1078190@news.u-net.com> <8gplut$1r6n$1@walton.maths.tcd.ie>
<Fv9oz8.F0@news.online.de> <873dn2k8bg.fsf@quadium.net>
<ant291711d07Zsav@duffner.surf24.de>
Organization: --
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
In article <ant291711d07Z...@duffner.surf24.de>, Rainer says...
>>
>> > One should note one major advantage of FreeBSD compared to Linux:
>> > FreeBSD is just one system, but Linux is a dozen or so (Red Hat,
>> > Suse, Corel etc).
>> I do not see this as a disadvantage for Linux.
>
>YMMV - but I see this as exactly one real big disadvantage of Linux.
I have to agree on this. Linux is heading the same way Unix did in
the 80's. different falvours of the same thing. But as long as
the kernel do not fragment, users and third-party have to only
worry about user-level differences in distro's (which is alot anyway).
One think I do not understand. Why have not the big boys
taken on FreeBSD as they did with Linux? I am thinking of IBM, Oracle,
etc..
FreeBSD is more free than Linux, right? I mean there is almost no
restriction on using the freeBSD source code, right?
There seem to be more people working on the linux kernel than
on freeBSD, may be the feeling that freeBSD kernel is closed to
outside developers has something to do with it.
jim
From: "John S. Dyson" <dy...@iquest.net>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs LinuX (again) ???
Date: 2000/05/30
Message-ID: <393352EA.16308C72@iquest.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 628895140
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <3931336b.1078190@news.u-net.com> <8gplut$1r6n$1@walton.maths.tcd.ie>
<Fv9oz8.F0@news.online.de> <873dn2k8bg.fsf@quadium.net>
<ant291711d07Zsav@duffner.surf24.de> <8gukf6$q8q@drn.newsguy.com>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news1.iquest.net 959664874 198.70.149.90 (Tue, 30 May 2000 00:34:34 EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 00:34:34 EDT
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
jim2@ii wrote:
>
> There seem to be more people working on the linux kernel than
> on freeBSD, may be the feeling that freeBSD kernel is closed to
> outside developers has something to do with it.
>
You mean that Linus allows others to make large changes to
the kernel without his permission? The factiod that Linux
has a more open development than FreeBSD is mostly spin,
and has little truth to it.
On FreeBSD, numerous (and I mean >20-30 developers) can
commit directly to the FreeBSD kernel tree, without any
one developer's permission. Actually, theoretically,
any of the committers (probably over 100 of 'em now) can
change the kernel directly... When I mean 'change the
kernel' I mean the actual, real CVS source tree.
Under Linux, the control of the kernel development is
very centralized, and changes get into the kernel tree
only with a few (and I mean very few) developers actually
doing it.
The only real limitation on FreeBSD is the will and competency
of the developer making the change. J. Random. User isn't
going to be given permission, unless he/she has somehow
shown competency. At least, under FreeBSD, many developers
HAVE been given direct access to changing the real, one
and only, FreeBSD kernel tree. This fact and ability has
been in existance for over 5yrs.
FreeBSD is a much more open development than the Linux
kernel is. The myth of the 'open' Linux developmentis
self-perpetuating, and confused because of the large number
of people writing code for Linux, and then assuming that
they somehow have 'permission' to make changes to the
Linux kernel. 99.9% of those people are quite diluded, and
have NO access to the Linux change mgmt mechanisms. LOTS
of freebsd users (non-core) have access to the FreeBSD
change mgmt mechanisms.
A reality check is indeed in order regarding the truth
of 'open' development. Linux is under the control of
a single (or very few) developers with very controlling
methologies... Remember Alan Cox? Can he commit directly
to Linus' tree yet?
--
John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
dy...@iquest.net | it makes one look stupid
| and it irritates the pig.