Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!bcm.tmc.edu!news.tamu.edu!baja.pacificrim.net!olympic!khan From: khan@olympic.pacificrim.net (Khan Klatt) Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin,alt.os.linux,alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Questions about Linux vs. FreeBSD... Date: 17 Dec 1995 20:19:16 -0800 Organization: Pacific Rim Network, Inc. Lines: 70 Message-ID: <khan.819259341@olympic> References: <4ajc07$sb7@unix2.glink.net.hk> <4apnvc$hhk@er5.rutgers.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: olympic.pacificrim.net Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.admin:36117 alt.os.linux:6479 alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions:5145 comp.os.linux.advocacy:30631 comp.os.linux.misc:76090 comp.os.linux.setup:32706 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:10657 >achan@glink.net.hk (Alan Chan) writes: > Which is better? Linux or FreeBSD? Neither. Both are good. > Which one is more stable/better for networking as an Internet >Service Provider, a news server and a tape backup machine? Neither. Both are good. > What I heard is, FreeBSD is more stable on networking >performance, am I right? Correct me if I'm wrong! *BSD (4.4BSD Lite based) has the newest code revision, and some would argue it's better. But if you're dropping one packet in 10,000,000 compared to 2 packets in 10,000,000, do you really want to make your decision based on this fact? You could say "XBSD is twice as reliable as Linux" but that doesn't mean XBSD is better for doing what you're doing. > From my point of view, I see, there are more technical support in >the net for Linux, like more newsgroups, lots of HOW-TO documentation, >web pages, lots more hardware compatibility, etc... seems more people >know/use Linux than FreeBSD. Considering corporations use BSD based code (Ultrix, from DEC for example) and the "relatives" of FreeBSD like NetBSD, BSDI/OS, 386BSD, and such, I couldn't go about making that statement. What I will say is that when I attempted installing Linux TAMU release about two years ago, and the NetBSD release, I thought both *really* sucked. I was clued into Slackware, and have been a happy Linux user since. > So, which one is better overall? Installation wise, -from my experience- Linux is better than *BSD. (again, keep in mind this was *TWO* years ago, so things could have changed). However, you want to use software that is *commercially* being developed, you might consider moving to (what I'd consider) NetBSD. You got a Sun, a DEC, and an Intel Box? You want one OS? OK, install NetBSD. Beauty. Further, NetBSD (and perhaps FreeBSD, I'd assume, but I do not know) can run BSDI binaries. You want just a few old clunker PC's to run a Un*x like OS, real quick like, get Linux. If you want to start an Internet Service Provider, and have questions about "Networking" and "Technical Support", why are you *even* considering Linux or FreeBSD? If you're concerned with stability and tech-support, the obvious selection is BSDI/OS 2.1 (2.0?). It's commercially supported, provides easy installation, and has the legends of Kolstad, and Sanders working there. What else do you want? If you're starting a ISP, you really should read Kolstad's paper on doing so. If you're starting a ISP, you should not base your business on free, unsupported software. For a personal Unix, I'd go for Linux or NetBSD anyday. I wouldn't base my business on it though. -Khan -- "Anytime I see something screech across a room and latch onto someone's neck, and the guy screams and tries to get it off I have to laugh, because what _is_ that thing?!" -Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey