Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mira.net.au!news.vbc.net!news.cais.net!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.artisoft.com!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Linux vs. FreeBSD ...
Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 16:02:35 -0700
Organization: Me
Lines: 202
Message-ID: <318FD68B.60AD12F6@lambert.org>
References: <3188C1E2.45AE@onramp.net> <4mnsc5$6qo@sundial.sundial.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (X11; I; Linux 1.1.76 i486)
Bryan J. Smith, E.I. wrote:
]
] Re: Linux vs. FreeBSD ...
]
] Currently, I've been exiled to FreeBSD because Adaptec doesn't
] support Linux. This is really the only advantage to FreeBSD
] -- they are a controlled distribution who can sign non-disclosure
] agreements with companies like Adaptec.
Not to imply anything or anything, but you're insane. 8-).
The FreeBSD and Linux Adaptec drivers are derived from the
same initial scratch rewrite of the sequencer code.
If Linux isn't supporting your particular card, this is a
maintenance problem for the Linux driver.
It's *not* a result of someone in the FreeBSD camp having
signed non-disclosure and distributing binary-only drivers.
There is nothing in FreeBSD that would prevent that from
happenning, but it hasn't happened.
Linux, too, could do this, to some extent, at least as long
as they could provide a BIOS-based driver to get up to load
the binary only driver as a kernel module (GPL would prevent
statically linking the thing to make a bootable kernel with
it built in, but a fallback driver plus a binary demand loaded
kernel module -- assuming they could do demand loading without
a user space helper program -- would provide the same function).
Linus *specifically* excepted kernel modules in his license
terms, over RMS's objections, to allow people (like Caldera)
to distribute binary-only kernel modules and treat the
exported kernel insterface as an LGPL library.
But they don't need to do this because they have seperate
AIC-77x0 SCSI sequencer download code -- the same code as
BSD.
] FreeBSD CAN run Linux binaries (including DOOM for X) with
] little modification and has a nice system of packages for
] download and ease of installation. FreeBSD also runs nearly
] all binaries for BSDI's BSD/OS. It also has the iBCS module
] for running SCO binaries (as does Linux). But hence, because
] it is a controlled distribution, it does not have the number
] of pre-compiled binaries as Linux does.
Again, you're insane. 8-).
FreeBSD isn't a controlled distribution, per se. Informagic
also sells a FreeBSD CDROM -- it's not just Walnut Creek. There
just isn't significant value add in making a bunch of different
distributions (without adding, for instance, Motif or CDE or
some other value-add like Caldera does for Linux) because
FreeBSD is a coherent whole -- not just a kernel.
I'd argue that since FreeBSD can run Linux programs, it has
the same number of pre-compiles binaries it can run as Linux
does -- since it has all of the pre-compiled binaries for
Linux.
It *also* can run BSDI binaries, and there are serveral things,
like IPhone servers, which are available for FreeBSD, but not
for Linux.
So in "the battle of the binaries" FreeBSD wins. But in
winning, it loses because emulated binaries haven't undergone
vendor certification on FreeBSD itself -- only on those
platformas where they were ported -- the ones FreeBSD is
emulating.
Linux has exactly this same problem with running IBCS2 binaries,
which are certified to run on the platform they were ported
to (usually SCO, but sometimes SVR3), and *not* on Linux. And
*not* on BSD. The user assumes some risk here.
] Linux, since it is written from the ground-up, is a much
] more efficient OS than FreeBSD (which has been written
] somewhat from the ground up, to prevent a lawsuit from
] BSDI, is still a lot of legacy OS code).
Both are "differently abled" in this regard. Linux has some
good ideas, just as FreeBSD has some good ideas, but that
doesn't make for an overall judgement of "more efficient".
Linux has faster interactive response, at great expense in
multitasking and server capability. BSD has better loading
characteristics, but soffers some one-user-on-console-using-bash
interactive response because of that. Still, no room for
claims of "more efficient".
] And FreeBSD v2.1 is a little dated (late '94)
As are Linux releases on the 1.2.x kernel base.
] and the current test version is still quite buggy.
As is Linux 1.3.x.
] FreeBSD is only available on CD-ROM from Walnut Creek
] CD-ROM for $50.
Infomagic. FTP. Mirrors. Private CDROM distributions, like
University of Virginia CS Dept., etc.). You could cut a CDROM
if you wanted. And the WC CDROM price you quote is inflated
by 20% at the suggested retail proves and closer to %50 at the
actual retail price.
] Linux can be found on a endless number of vendors CDs for a
] low as $10.
Generally with a $39.95 book accompanying it... 8-).
] Downloading a complete FreeBSD system along with a good
] number of packages took me 16 hours @ 28.8Kbaud (saving me
] the CD-cost and the agony of messing with an alpha-quality
] IDE/ATAPI CD-ROM driver) and takes up only about 150MB.
Your choice on the download. And you probably really meant to
say "saving me the agony of messing with an alpha-quality
IDE/ATAPI CD-ROM drive". The driver works perfectly if your
vendor didn't violate the ATAPI specification, one way or the
other, or if you don't have one of the buggy (3 out of 5 of all
available cards) IDE controllers.
Again, your choice to buy the hardware.
] If your looking for a ready-to-go package, check out
] Caldera's (co-founded by former-CEO Ray Noorda) Caldera
] Network Desktop (CND) for a mere $99.
Actually, Brian Sparks (who at one time worked two offices
away from me in the Novell Sandy facility) was the primary
motivator of Caldera. Ray is a venture capitolist in their
equation... actually, I believe it's the "Noorda Family Trust"
which supplied the capitol that Brian and others didn't
come up with themselves, without any help, and at great
personal cost. Don't denigrate Brian's efforts by painting
him as a "cash-flunkee".
] In essence, Linux has the latest and greatest software and
] drivers (only a few companies won't release information,
] like Adaptec, without the signing of a non-disclosure
] agreement -- which is impossible in a OS who included the
] source code in its distribution).
Not impossible, certainly. Politically inconvenient, maybe,
if you are a devout supporter of "GPL everything that touches
GPL'ed code".
] Try downloading the boot disk for FreeBSD and Linux. FreeBSD
] boot disk is on a single image file/disk from ftp.freebsd.com
] (it's really ftp.cdrom.com -- Walnut Creek CD-ROM).
Actually, ftp.cdrom.com is a FreeBSD box, and FreeBSD is seperately
incorporated (see www.freebsd.org).
] Try either Slackware 3.0 distribution
Yes, good comparison. Download it also from ftp.cdrom.com, the
FreeBSD box from which you download the most popular Linux
distribution.
] RedHat Commerical Linux v3.03 distribution (ftp.redhat.com --
] the distribution Caldera CND uses
And which is still not a 1.3.x kernel -- it's the "dated" 1.2.x
kernel; the only thing that's changed is the user space code).
] The boot/root disks for Linux are in many flavors for many
] different configurations whereas the BSD boot disk is a
] single disk for all configurations.
So be sure you know what hardware is in your machine before you
make the Linux boot disk, or you will have to reboot to DOS and
make another version and another version until you guess correctly.
] I hope this helped and FEEL COMPLETELY FREE to contact me
] (via voice or email) if you have ANY OTHER QUESTIONS/CONCERNS!!!
It certainly helped me know where you were coming from in this
Linux advocacy article you posed *only* in the non-advocacy
group comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc.
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.