Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!uwm.edu!reuter.cse.ogi.edu!psgrain!rainrgnews0!news.teleport.com!news.teleport.com!not-for-mail
From: bmk@teleport.com (bmk)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: Re: TCP/IP in FreeBSD vs. Linux
Date: 30 Jan 1995 19:45:27 -0800
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <3gkbon$b0u@linda.teleport.com>
References: <3gh6h1$hs8@nic.hookup.net>
Reply-To: bmk@teleport.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: linda.teleport.com
In article <3gh6h1$hs8@nic.hookup.net>,
Fraser Campbell <fraser@wingham.com> wrote:
>I'd like to hear some completely unbiased (I know it's hard!)
>opinions on networking in FreeBSD vs. Linux. I may be providing
>dialup Internet access. I've been using Linux for about 2 years.
I've used both. I'll warn you that I haven't used a real current
version of Linux, though. I use a pre-1.0 kernel at work, and have
FreeBSD 2.0 at home.
[snip]
>I do think that Linux offers better hardware support (am I wrong on this?)
>but it appears that the networking code is not up to par with FreeBSD (yet).
>Does FreeBSD support many multiport boards suitable for modems?
Linux seems to support more devices than does *BSD. You'll find more
"low-end" (for lack of a better work) hardware supported under Linux.
For example, I believe that Linux had support for the inexpensive
Mitsumi CD-ROM drives before *BSD did.
However, for a network server, you'll want the best hardware money can
buy. You'll find most of the high-end stuff well supported and tested
under *BSD. Forget about IDE disks. Get a high-performance SCSI host
adapter and fast SCSI2 disks.
BSD supports quite a few multiport serial boards. I've got fourteen
ports (2 AST 4 port boards and 1 Boca 6 port) installed in my DX2/66
using only three IRQ's. I understand that somebody's working on support
for the Digiboard intelligent boards.
However, if you're really serious about having lots of dialup ports, you
would probably do well to look into dedicated terminal servers no matter
what your choice of operating system is. You'll get better performance
and less load on your CPU(s). Although multi-port serial boards support
my current needs, I'm going to have to get a terminal server in the very
near future.
>I would love to be told I'm wrong on this so please give me your opinions!
>I am a Linux fanatic but I do want to use whichever is more reliable.
Having used both, it is my personal opinion that *BSD is more reliable.
Since I've not even seen the more recent Linux stuff, this should be
taken with a large grain of salt. I've heard lots of good things about
the later Linux kernels.
I'm sure that someone will respond in defense of Linux.
>How different would using BSD be from using Linux? Thanks ...
From a user's point of view? Not much. From an administrator's point
of view, there's a bit of difference, but it's not that great. Linux
loosly follows the SysV model, and borrows from the BSD model as well.
BSD, as one would expect follows the BSD model. (Imagine that!).
Basically, what this means to you as an administrator, is that you'd
need to get used to the BSD way of doing things. For the most part
there's NOT a lot of difference, but it does take some getting used to.
My recommendation to you is that you install both and find our for
yourself what works best on your hardware. Subscribe to the
freebsd-questions list and ask lots of questions.
--
bmk@dtr.com |
bmk@teleport.com |
bmk@atlas.com | finger -l bmk@teleport.com for PGP public key.
http://www.teleport.com/~bmk/