🚀 go-pugleaf

Here in alt.os.linux, NIcholas Hedberg <flashbang@home.com>
spake unto us, saying:

>I want to know which is better in the followng catagories:

Many of your questions are too general to be answered meaningfully.

FreeBSD is a single entity, but the Linux distributions are not, and
the comparison of "Linux" with FreeBSD can vary quite a bit depending
not only on the specific distribution of Linux you're using, but also
on the specific hardware and software in use and the user's overall
experience level with each OS, etc.

In general, FreeBSD and Linux are comparable, and most of the folks I
know prefer one or the other for either personal preference reasons or
for licensing reasons (BSD license versus GPL).

>Ease of Use (not a big factor)

Depends on many factors, including the skill level of the user and the
specific applications, utilities, window managers, etc., installed.

I'd say that Mandrake 6.1 is easier than FreeBSD 3.3, but that's mainly
because Mandrake installed some user-friendly stuff that FreeBSD didn't
install initially.  That is usually correctable, though.

>Hardware (IDE, sound cards, video cards)

I'd say that mainstream Linux distributions have more comprehensive
hardware support than FreeBSD, but "better" can also imply quality of
support as well as quantity.  Some FreeBSD support might be better.

Both can use XFree86 and are usually bundled with it.

>Installation

This varies far too widely from Linux distribution to distribution to
be able to summarize meaningfully.  Linux can usually be installed in
a logical drive within an extended partition while FreeBSD cannot.

>Space required for installation

Again, this varies.  I find FreeBSD 3.3 to be roughly comparable to the
more common Linux versions (Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake) in terms of space
required, assuming that a comparable number of packages are installed.

>Security

This is normally a function of the administrator, not the OS.  Most
OSes will allow you to shut off unwanted services and block unwanted
ports, resulting in a reasonable ssecure system.

>STABILITY

Largely depends on hardware.

>Compatability

Too general.  Compatibility with what?  FreeBSD will run a lot of (or
maybe most?) Linux software, which is nice.  The reverse isn't true,
but I'm not sure how much software exists for FreeBSD that doesn't
also exist for Linux.

>TCP/IP stack (how good is it better than linux)

Which part of the stack, and how do you want it measured?

>Software (can I use tik and ICQ and napster? is there an MP3 player?)

FreeBSD can run most Linux software.

>Software (this time things like apache, word perfect, star office,
>netscape)

FreeBSD can run most Linux software.

>Speed
>speed of developement

Using which tools?  Most of the tools are the same.

>file system (ext2, FAT {hope not} or what)

Filesystem is UFS.  I don't know much about it except that I've never
had problems with it in the little bit of playing around I've done with
FreeBSD on my desktop.

--
   -Rich Steiner  >>>--->  rsteiner@visi.com  >>>---> Bloomington, MN
     OS/2 + Linux + BeOS + FreeBSD + Solaris + WinNT4 + Win95 + DOS
      + VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
                  The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then

I'm not answering your question here, just making an observation.
I've always felt that Linux would be a great OS for a high-school
kid (and I mean that in a good sense).  First, it's cheap.  Second,
it will run on cheap hardware.  Third, it's more hackable and
accessible than Windows.  Fourth, it's more standard (I know
some will claim that Microsoft has rewritten the standard --
I feel rather that they broke it.)  Fifth, it has a deeper heritage.
Sixth, it provides all sorts of tools that MS thinks
you don't need, including a C compiler.  Seventh (and this is
just accidental), the people who use it are generally more than
just word-processors or bean counters.

Anyway, seeing your note fit in with my thinking.

Chris

NIcholas Hedberg wrote:

> I hope I don't start any kind of a flame war or get anyone angry with
> me. I'm just a kid (I'm 16 and have been using it on my own computer).
> I've been doin the linux thing for 4 years now and I want to explore my
> other options. How is bsd? Thanks

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> I'm not answering your question here, just making an observation.
> I've always felt that Linux would be a great OS for a high-school
> kid (and I mean that in a good sense).  First, it's cheap.  Second,
> it will run on cheap hardware.  Third, it's more hackable and
> accessible than Windows.  Fourth, it's more standard (I know
> some will claim that Microsoft has rewritten the standard --
> I feel rather that they broke it.)  Fifth, it has a deeper heritage.
> Sixth, it provides all sorts of tools that MS thinks
> you don't need, including a C compiler.  Seventh (and this is
> just accidental), the people who use it are generally more than
> just word-processors or bean counters.
>
> Anyway, seeing your note fit in with my thinking.
>
Of course, if your any of the kids are prodigies, and
invent a singificant kernel enhancement, with BSD licensing,
the kid will be able to own and control the redistribution
of their enhancement...  With GPL, if the enhancement is
bundled with the Linux kernel, it will be more difficult for
the kid to directly profit.

All in all, BSD has all of the advantages that you state,
plus the one that I add :-).

--
John                  | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
dyson@iquest.net      | it makes one look stupid
                      | and it irritates the pig.

>
> I want to know which is better in the followng catagories:
>
> Ease of Use (not a big factor)
> Hardware (IDE, sound cards, video cards)
> Installation
> Space required for instalation
> Security
>

FreeBSD using the default installation IS more secure than Linux, using the
default installation. For the best default security use OpenBSD. The best
by far.

> STABILITY
> Compatability
> TCP/IP stack (how good is it better than linux)

It is my understanding that they all pretty much use the same TCP/IP stack
at base. There are ofcourse departures in each version, FreeBSD vs OpenBSD
vs NetBSD vs Linux, etc.


--
Later . . .
         . . . Bill
allenwc@home.com

I say have the best of both worlds and use both, or all three (winblows
being the third)  FreeBSD I have found to be more difficuilt to install and
get working, but it has helped me to think about my problems in diffrent
ways.
William C. Allen <allenwc@home.com> wrote in message
news:3934307B.8DD9427B@home.com...
>
>
>
> >
> > I want to know which is better in the followng catagories:
> >
> > Ease of Use (not a big factor)
> > Hardware (IDE, sound cards, video cards)
> > Installation
> > Space required for instalation
> > Security
> >
>
> FreeBSD using the default installation IS more secure than Linux, using
the
> default installation. For the best default security use OpenBSD. The best
> by far.
>
> > STABILITY
> > Compatability
> > TCP/IP stack (how good is it better than linux)
>
> It is my understanding that they all pretty much use the same TCP/IP stack
> at base. There are ofcourse departures in each version, FreeBSD vs OpenBSD
> vs NetBSD vs Linux, etc.
>
>
> --
> Later . . .
>          . . . Bill
> allenwc@home.com
>
>

On Tue, 30 May 2000 16:08:20 -0500, "John S. Dyson" <dyson@iquest.net>
wrote:

>Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>Of course, if your any of the kids are prodigies, and
>invent a singificant kernel enhancement, with BSD licensing,
>the kid will be able to own and control the redistribution
>of their enhancement...  With GPL, if the enhancement is
>bundled with the Linux kernel, it will be more difficult for
>the kid to directly profit.
>
>All in all, BSD has all of the advantages that you state,
>plus the one that I add :-).

The motivation for most if not all of the people that develop the
linux kernel isn't money, it's the reputation they gain. Search for an
article called 'The cathederal and the bazaar' it explains it better
then I can.

They can't directly profit but they can indirectly profit, they get a
good rep, they are able to get jobs alot easier. Do you think Linus
got his current job because of his resume?

Well Nick,

I can only tell you what I've experienced.  Having installed both I can say
that I appreciate what both camps are trying to accomplish.  I can tell you
what I appreciate about both linux and bsd.  I have run freebsd in the past
and I currently run linux-mandrake 7.1.  Keep in mind that the 3 BSD's
Open, Net, and Free have different goals.  OpenBSD sets out to be the most
secure.  NetBSD aims to be the most portable - that is it will run on
almost anything including the kitchen sink.  FreeBSD is a good all around
unix for X86.

BSD gives you the ports tree which is totally awesome!  You can cd into
/usr/ports and you'll find many folders describing catagories of software.
If you want icqnix, for example, you'd cd into that directory and type make
install and the source is downloaded, compiled, and installed.  This is
good because you won't run accross dependency "not found" errors you
normally get with rpm or dpkg.  If you dont want that software anymore you
cd back into that directory and type make deinstall.  It's so easy!

I also noticed that there are packages installed on BSD which I have yet to
see in any linux distro... or maybe I just have not looked hard enough.
FreeBSD comes with all the icq, aim, yahoo clones, and then some.  There is
no lack of software here and from what I've observed most linux apps are
also available for FreeBSD.  FreeBSD also comes with linux binary
compatibility.  Most linux apps will run under FreeBSD so well you'd swear
they were native to BSD.  I like the solid feeling I get from running
FreeBSD.  I've tried NetBSD and OpenBSD and I think FreeBSD makes the best
desktop unix out of all the BSD's.  It comes with more software initially.
The different BSD's have different goals in mind and they could all be good
desktops however, FreeBSD is the easiest to install.

On the server side, FreeBSD is untouchable.  The largest single machine FTP
server in the world is running FreeBSD - ftp.cdrom.com which does almost a
terabyte a day in transfers!  All the standard services you'd find in linux
are here too.

As far as linux goes, I have tried Debian, Corel, Redhat, Mandrake,
Caldera, and SuSE.  I must say, Mandrake is the easiest one for a
beginner.  Mandrake 7.1 comes with a utility called drakfont where you can
install some of your windows fonts.  Caldera is a good all-around desktop
with a working imwheel.  Caldera has all the mime-types for popular
streaming formats already preconfigured in netscape - great for the
internet addict.  The reason I use linux is mainly I like the sysV way of
doing things.  There are utilities like linuxconf, lisa, webmin, and others
that give you a graphical interface to configure your box.  In otherwords,
it makes configuration a breeze.  The only config tool in FreeBSD was
/stand/sysinstall which gives you a curses like interface which is, of
course, better than nothing.

I definately think linux is easier for the newbie or the experienced user
who just doesnt want to plow through config files.  If you want to learn
UNIX or you want to work in the IT field as a unix techie then you should
by all means install FreeBSD and give it a whirl.  The experience will help
you learn the underpinnings of unix.  I plan on building a BSD box again so
I can toy around with it.  I would have it running now only that I don't
like dual-booting.  Whatever you do, good luck!

erotus


NIcholas Hedberg wrote:

> Sorry about the multi-crossposts. With this letter I don't mean to start
> anykind of a flame war. I just want the straitght  facts. I should
> mention to the hardcore linuxers uot there that I am using RHL 6.2
>
> I want to know which is better in the followng catagories:
>
> Ease of Use (not a big factor)
> Hardware (IDE, sound cards, video cards)
> Installation
> Space required for instalation
> Security
> STABILITY
> Compatability
> TCP/IP stack (how good is it better than linux)
> Software (can I use tik and ICQ and napster? is there an MP3 player?)
> Software (this time things like apache, word perfect, star office,
> netscape)
> Speed
> speed of developement
> file system (ext2, FAT {hope not} or what)
>
> I hope I don't start any kind of a flame war or get anyone angry with
> me. I'm just a kid (I'm 16 and have been using it on my own computer).
> I've been doin the linux thing for 4 years now and I want to explore my
> other options. How is bsd? Thanks

FreeBSD works for me here at the college. I do let the students play with
various Linux releases, but the market here in Los Angeles is for admins
that  know Unix. The Walnut Creek 4.0 package is issued to each student, and
it's works well. (Even tho the book sucks a little) I even have my
programmers work with the scriping side of Unix.
But whatever you use, check out the HCL.
(One student cracked an iOpener net applaince and installed Linux, beOS,
Win98, NT 4.0, and FreeBSD. Cool, huh)

<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:3983F635.43B3FBAB@nowhere.com...
> Well Nick,
>
> I can only tell you what I've experienced.  Having installed both I can
say
> that I appreciate what both camps are trying to accomplish.  I can tell
you
> what I appreciate about both linux and bsd.  I have run freebsd in the
past
> and I currently run linux-mandrake 7.1.  Keep in mind that the 3 BSD's
> Open, Net, and Free have different goals.  OpenBSD sets out to be the most
> secure.  NetBSD aims to be the most portable - that is it will run on
> almost anything including the kitchen sink.  FreeBSD is a good all around
> unix for X86.
>
> BSD gives you the ports tree which is totally awesome!  You can cd into
> /usr/ports and you'll find many folders describing catagories of software.
> If you want icqnix, for example, you'd cd into that directory and type
make
> install and the source is downloaded, compiled, and installed.  This is
> good because you won't run accross dependency "not found" errors you
> normally get with rpm or dpkg.  If you dont want that software anymore you
> cd back into that directory and type make deinstall.  It's so easy!
>
> I also noticed that there are packages installed on BSD which I have yet
to
> see in any linux distro... or maybe I just have not looked hard enough.
> FreeBSD comes with all the icq, aim, yahoo clones, and then some.  There
is
> no lack of software here and from what I've observed most linux apps are
> also available for FreeBSD.  FreeBSD also comes with linux binary
> compatibility.  Most linux apps will run under FreeBSD so well you'd swear
> they were native to BSD.  I like the solid feeling I get from running
> FreeBSD.  I've tried NetBSD and OpenBSD and I think FreeBSD makes the best
> desktop unix out of all the BSD's.  It comes with more software initially.
> The different BSD's have different goals in mind and they could all be
good
> desktops however, FreeBSD is the easiest to install.
>
> On the server side, FreeBSD is untouchable.  The largest single machine
FTP
> server in the world is running FreeBSD - ftp.cdrom.com which does almost a
> terabyte a day in transfers!  All the standard services you'd find in
linux
> are here too.
>
> As far as linux goes, I have tried Debian, Corel, Redhat, Mandrake,
> Caldera, and SuSE.  I must say, Mandrake is the easiest one for a
> beginner.  Mandrake 7.1 comes with a utility called drakfont where you can
> install some of your windows fonts.  Caldera is a good all-around desktop
> with a working imwheel.  Caldera has all the mime-types for popular
> streaming formats already preconfigured in netscape - great for the
> internet addict.  The reason I use linux is mainly I like the sysV way of
> doing things.  There are utilities like linuxconf, lisa, webmin, and
others
> that give you a graphical interface to configure your box.  In otherwords,
> it makes configuration a breeze.  The only config tool in FreeBSD was
> /stand/sysinstall which gives you a curses like interface which is, of
> course, better than nothing.
>
> I definately think linux is easier for the newbie or the experienced user
> who just doesnt want to plow through config files.  If you want to learn
> UNIX or you want to work in the IT field as a unix techie then you should
> by all means install FreeBSD and give it a whirl.  The experience will
help
> you learn the underpinnings of unix.  I plan on building a BSD box again
so
> I can toy around with it.  I would have it running now only that I don't
> like dual-booting.  Whatever you do, good luck!
>
> erotus
>
>
> NIcholas Hedberg wrote:
>
> > Sorry about the multi-crossposts. With this letter I don't mean to start
> > anykind of a flame war. I just want the straitght  facts. I should
> > mention to the hardcore linuxers uot there that I am using RHL 6.2
> >
> > I want to know which is better in the followng catagories:
> >
> > Ease of Use (not a big factor)
> > Hardware (IDE, sound cards, video cards)
> > Installation
> > Space required for instalation
> > Security
> > STABILITY
> > Compatability
> > TCP/IP stack (how good is it better than linux)
> > Software (can I use tik and ICQ and napster? is there an MP3 player?)
> > Software (this time things like apache, word perfect, star office,
> > netscape)
> > Speed
> > speed of developement
> > file system (ext2, FAT {hope not} or what)
> >
> > I hope I don't start any kind of a flame war or get anyone angry with
> > me. I'm just a kid (I'm 16 and have been using it on my own computer).
> > I've been doin the linux thing for 4 years now and I want to explore my
> > other options. How is bsd? Thanks
>
>

OpenBSD is 'phat'

M Eisner wrote:

> > internet addict.  The reason I use linux is mainly I like the sysV way of
> > doing things.  There are utilities like linuxconf, lisa, webmin, and
> others
> > that give you a graphical interface to configure your box.  In otherwords,
> > it makes configuration a breeze.  The only config tool in FreeBSD was
> > /stand/sysinstall which gives you a curses like interface which is, of
> > course, better than nothing.
> >
> > I definately think linux is easier for the newbie or the experienced user
> > who just doesnt want to plow through config files.  If you want to learn
> > UNIX or you want to work in the IT field as a unix techie then you should
> > by all means install FreeBSD and give it a whirl.  The experience will
> help
> > you learn the underpinnings of unix.  I plan on building a BSD box again
> so
> > I can toy around with it.  I would have it running now only that I don't
> > like dual-booting.  Whatever you do, good luck!
> >
> > erotus
> >
> >
> > NIcholas Hedberg wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry about the multi-crossposts. With this letter I don't mean to start
> > > anykind of a flame war. I just want the straitght  facts. I should
> > > mention to the hardcore linuxers uot there that I am using RHL 6.2
> > >
> > > I want to know which is better in the followng catagories:
> > >
> > > Ease of Use (not a big factor)
> > > Hardware (IDE, sound cards, video cards)
> > > Installation
> > > Space required for instalation
> > > Security
> > > STABILITY
> > > Compatability
> > > TCP/IP stack (how good is it better than linux)
> > > Software (can I use tik and ICQ and napster? is there an MP3 player?)
> > > Software (this time things like apache, word perfect, star office,
> > > netscape)
> > > Speed
> > > speed of developement
> > > file system (ext2, FAT {hope not} or what)
> > >
> > > I hope I don't start any kind of a flame war or get anyone angry with
> > > me. I'm just a kid (I'm 16 and have been using it on my own computer).
> > > I've been doin the linux thing for 4 years now and I want to explore my
> > > other options. How is bsd? Thanks
> >
> >

"Ray Lopez" <raylopez99@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Look junior,
> 
> don't want to sound too mean spirited, but have you tried Windows 2000
> Professional?  Just point and click, and it's about 90% as stable as LInux
> (has not crashed on me yet, in over 3 months, and I code).
> 
> I know, I know...you need that 10% extra performance and are willing to
> devote decades of man-years trying to achieve it.
> 
> Well, good luck.  At the end of a decade you will be Linux proficient (and
> unemployable except at crackhead wages)
> 
> --
> RL
> 
> 
> M Eisner <meisner@disney.com> wrote in message
> news:elym5.1841$uf2.1000@typhoon.we.rr.com...
> > FreeBSD works for me here at the college. I do let the students play with
> > various Linux releases, but the market here in Los Angeles is for admins
> > that  know Unix. The Walnut Creek 4.0 package is issued to each student,
> and
> > it's works well. (Even tho the book sucks a little) I even have my
> > programmers work with the scriping side of Unix.
> > But whatever you use, check out the HCL.
> > (One student cracked an iOpener net applaince and installed Linux, beOS,
> > Win98, NT 4.0, and FreeBSD. Cool, huh)
> >
> > <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:3983F635.43B3FBAB@nowhere.com...
> > > Well Nick,
> > >
> > > I can only tell you what I've experienced.  Having installed both I can
> > say
> > > that I appreciate what both camps are trying to accomplish.  I can tell
> > you
> > > what I appreciate about both linux and bsd.  I have run freebsd in the
> >
> > > > file system (ext2, FAT {hope not} or what)
> > > >
> > > > I hope I don't start any kind of a flame war or get anyone angry with
> > > > me. I'm just a kid (I'm 16 and have been using it on my own computer).
> > > > I've been doin the linux thing for 4 years now and I want to explore
> my
> > > > other options. How is bsd? Thanks
> > >
> > >
> >
> >


I am proficient in it after 1 year and could move on to the lucrative job of a
'nix admin tinkerbell, and I use NT and Linux both regularly, have both on the
same machine and have had win2k on the same machine (They need a working voodoo
card driver), and neither compare, win2k is not 90% as stable, or as intuitive,
Gate's goons seem to need to redesign the interface with every new version.

And ya know Ray, you.......... are a monkey boy.