*BSD News Article 22057


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.