[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Free Unix OS's on x86



well, i cannot resist, though i have limited expirience with
BSD and Linux

On Thu, 30 Oct 1997, John Goerzen wrote:

> Andy,
> 
> My opinions follow...
> 
> I am a person that started out with FreeBSD and switched over to
> Debian later.

Linux -> FreeBSD -> Linux

> Today, the situation is different.  Linux has evolved a LOT faster
> than has FreeBSD; 

that's true. But some people see that as Linux disadvantage.
FreeBSD tried to be solid and stable at first and
features rich at second, IMHO. 

Still there are areas where FreeBSD has more features
than Linux.

> Debian has evolved quickly in particular.  Debian's
> nice package management system far outshines FreeBSD's system.

Keep in mind, that FreeBSD doesn't have distributions like
Linux world - there is only one true master source and
set of packages. That's great advantage, imho. 
I agree that FreeBSD packaging system is quite primitive in
compare with debian.

> stability now is very good (with the exception of a few bad apples
> like 2.0.30), and Linux makes an excellent production-quality server
> (as I have readily seen on the job).  

as FreeBSD, i believe. Some quite large sites like walnut
greek run BSD

> Linux's low resource
> requirements cause it to make an excellent workstation as well.

hmm...
Is FreeBSD requirements much larger ? Do you have
any numbers to clarify your point? 
Just curious...

> Linux has always had better hardware support than FreeBSD; today,
> those two OSs sometimes borrow each other's code for use in the kernel.

in drivers - maybe, in kernel - no, IMHO.

> Hurd is not yet released.

that's not true. HURD was released in August 1996.
Current version is 0.2 and basically all
GNU soft run on HURD just fine
(including glibc 2, gcc, emacs, fileutils, binutils etc).
Still no X though...

> > so here are some of my questions: since practically all these OS's
> > (including Linux) are free, and use a lot of GNU software, why
> > would one choose one OS over another?  they are all Unix variants,
> 
> Correction here: Of the OSs you mentioned, Linux and Hurd are not
> derivitives of Unix.  Linux has been written from the ground up.  *BSD
> are drived from 4.4BSDLite.

What do you mean "are not derivitives of Unix"?
They didn't come from AT&T lab?

well, BSD is not a UNIX either - all pieces of ATT
proprietary code were rewritten to allow distribution
under Berkeley license. You cannot redistribute
AT&T and/or Sun codes for free under BSD license.

> Linux is currently at a state where it can be said to be
> Unix-compatible; it implements everything to be expected from a modern
> Unix. 

well, there are set of standards to conform in order
to get Unix compatibility. It is Unix 95 specification
soon to be superseeded by Unix 98 specification.

You can get all Unix 98 spec online from
www.opengroup.org.

Not linux nor freeBSD conform Unix 95 or Unix 98.
Linux is quite a bit close to be called Unix9x-compatible

> Actually, there are quite large differences.  I have found Linux to
> have many more features than FreeBSD; software is generally more

still there are areas where FreeBSD has more features.
Check www.freebsd.org - maybe it'll suit you better.

regards

OK


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .


Reply to: