Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!boulder.parcplace.com!imp From: imp@boulder.parcplace.com (Warner Losh) Subject: Re: [Q] FreeBsd and Linux comparison wanted Message-ID: <CEIGxI.M6s@boulder.parcplace.com> Sender: news@boulder.parcplace.com Organization: ParcPlace Boulder References: <UGAP114.93Oct6112959@alpha.qmw.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1993 05:08:06 GMT Lines: 98 <Line-eater-food> Executive summary: It's a wash. Try them both and see which one fits your specific needs better. In article <UGAP114.93Oct6112959@alpha.qmw.ac.uk> j.petersen@qmw.ac.uk writes: >Could someone please tell me or point me to information that >compares Linux and the FreeBsd objectively (NetBsd comparisons >welcome too). They all look real good, but I wanted to get some >idea of their relative merits (particularly for running on a >laptop). Here's a quicky reaction to the two operating systems. I've been using computers for about 15 years or so. I have a 486 DX-33 with an UltraStor 34F, 32M of memory, an ET4000 video card (I should have gone for the S3 when I had the chance), 1.5G of SCSI disk and a Tandberg 3800 that I stole from an IBM RS/6000 at work. I started using Linux because that is what my brother uses. I started using FreeBSD because there were a large number of requests for a certain program to be ported to the BSD on i386 environment and I wanted to fulfill those requests. I've used Linux for about 8 months, and FreeBSD for about 1 month. Linux seems to take less disk space, and is a little faster when doing larger compiles due to a fairly large disk cache. Linux's shared libraries make executables smaller, and reduce the startup times of those apps that use the same libraries, once one has started. So the first X program is "slow" while the rest are faster. Linux seems to be moving faster and in a lot of different directions, which can be both good and bad. It is good, because I see cool things faster. It is bad because there are parts of it that have changed so much that I can't upgrade until I get the time to sit down and understand the new rules. The networking code is bad about this. The distribtions that Linux has are getting better, but they still seem to lack a lot of polish, especially if you want to roll your own from source. Linux gives you plenty of choices, even to the point of having too many choices (what fs do I use, for example). Kernels, once configured, are easy to build. Linux supported my UltraStor 34F faster than *BSD, had I wanted to run *BSD 8 months ago. FreeBSD 1.0 Epsilon is quite polished. It lacks shared libraries at the moment, but that may change soon. It doesn't have a very large disk cache, but its file systems seem to be a little more reliable and faster than Linux. fsck on bsd seems rock solid, while there still seem to be some elusive flakies in the ext2 stuff (if I could track down bugs, I'd report them). The networking code supports SLIP and is something that I'm used to, so I don't have to relearn how to configure a network. The network code is also rock solid, having had 100,000 monkeys to pound on it for the last several years. The lack of shared libraries means that it will take up more disk space and things like X get really big. The build process for the entire system is done by 'make depend all install' in one location, which isn't going to happen anytime soon on Linux (for kernel and all utilities). The config of kernels is a little archane, but does allow for multiple configurations more easily than Linux. So far each release of FreeBSD seems more stable and tested than Linux, but I've been with Linux much longer, so it may be that FreeBSD has its periods of instability as well. As far as X support goes, I'd have to call it a draw. I haven't used laptops yet with Linux or FreeBSD. For speed, Linux used to be about 10% faster, but now it seems to be a wash for the one large benchmark that I've run and general system performance. I compiled a certain C++ X program that is about 46,000 lines of C++ on the my system, using same disk for both OSes. Linux took 31:22, while FreeBSD took 31:42. Numbers this close are a wash (less than 1%). I'd have to say that at the end of the day, it boils down to what is important to you? Do you have a tiny system? Then Linux tends to be a better choice. Do you want stable networking? Then FreeBSD is the way to go. Are you new to Unix and not sure what you want? I'd say it was a draw. Do you rebuild your system software often? FreeBSD is more integrated. Do you like Sys V flavored systems? Linux is closer to Sys V than FreeBSD. Do you have oddball cheap hardware? Linux will typically support it faster than FreeBSD. As an ISV, I'd have to give a very slight edge to FreeBSD (or NetBSD, if I had gone that route). There is a core group of people that are responsible for the entire system who try hard to be compatible with previous releases. This means that I'm less worried about having to rebuild any binary releases when the next major libc comes out. I understand that this tends to introduce a certain amount of cruft over time, but I'd live with cruft when it means that binaries don't break. Finally, I'd like to say that both systems are good and have their pros and cons. If you are really concerned about the right choice, then try both out for a while and chose the one that best suits your fancy. I've been able to get work done on both systems. Warner -- Warner Losh imp@boulder.parcplace.COM ParcPlace Boulder I've almost finished my brute force solution to subtlety.