Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!plug.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.mathworks.com!uhog.mit.edu!news.mtholyoke.edu!nntp.et.byu.edu!news.caldera.com!park.uvsc.edu!usenet From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux Date: 5 Apr 1996 05:17:22 GMT Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah Lines: 75 Message-ID: <4k2ad2$j8h@park.uvsc.edu> References: <4issad$h1o@nadine.teleport.com> <Pine.LNX.3.91.960401105810.31921A-100000@gallup.cia-g.com> <4jqpn8$euv@agate.berkeley.edu> <4jsq5i$5ko@main.gbdata.com> <4jvm5n$2v8@agate.berkeley.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com nickkral@america.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Nick Kralevich) wrote: ] My personal belief is that FreeBSD is behind the times, and that ] Linux is the superior choice, for lots of reasons, none of which I ] will go into here (unless someone really wants me to. After all, ] the title of this thread is "FreeBSD vs Linux"). ] ] Both operating systems, and both development groups, are excellent. ] I just think the future lies with Linux, and not FreeBSD. Of course, ] you are welcome to disagree with my opinion (and I suspect many people ] will). I disagree with all these opinions (and more 8-)). I have, in the past, sent via private email analysis of various technical aspects of BSD and of Linux. Which is best depends on which technical aspects you find important to the task at hand. I refuce to post such a comparison because the developement rate in both camps exceeds the flood-fill rate for net-news. Even if that weren't the case, Deja-news makes posting a bad plan: anyone who does will inevitibly be taken to task, publically, the moment a single point against [insert favorite OS] is invalidated. I will note that ELF, at present, brings absolutely nothing to the party. I will further note that your observation that a future switch in formats will disincent commercial ports is absolutely bogus. FreeBSD has an enviable track record in maintaining forward binary compatability for commercial software. As an example, FreeBSD-current, the basis for the next release, will run binaries for the recently released BSDI 2.x. It will also run binaries for BSDI 1.x -- something BSDI 2.x *won't* do. It runs Linux a.out binaries, and it runs Linux ELF binaries well enough to run both DOOM and QUAKE. I run both systems on a daily basis, and have hacked kernel code on the most recent version of both systems at various times in the past. Further, there are at least two fixes of mine, submitted through third parties, in the current Linux source tree. I am not simply a religious bigot of the kind threads with this title attract. And I say that the technical merits must be judged on a case-by-case basis, and my personal preference for BSD is driven solely by licensining issues that contradict my personal political beliefs, and merits in the areas that affect my personal research. Anyone without exactly the same requirements I have could come to the conclusion the Linux was better, following exactly the same process I used to arrive at BSD. Your statement of your opinions amount to little more than Linux advocacy in an inappropriate venue, and grandstanding, and I'd appreciate it if you at least had the decency to take it to an advocacy group. You'll note that BSD doesn't have an advocacy group. This is on purpose, and should be taken as a hint. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.