Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mira.net.au!inquo!in-news.erinet.com!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!cygnus.com!kithrup.com!sef From: sef@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan) Subject: Re: Linux vs. FreeBSD ... Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. Message-ID: <Dr1wrL.My0@kithrup.com> References: <3188C1E2.45AE@onramp.net> <4mnsc5$6qo@sundial.sundial.net> Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 19:57:20 GMT Lines: 141 In article <4mnsc5$6qo@sundial.sundial.net>, Bryan J. Smith, E.I. <b.j.smith@ieee.org> wrote: just too much disinformation for me to not speak up (as I expect others to). >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. My Adaptec AHA-2842VL (an older VLB SCSI-2 Fast Host Adapter) craps >out on boot since I changed my motherboard/CPU from a HSB i486sx66 to a >Alaris Nx586P90. FreeBSD and Linux should support the same Adaptec controllers, since the support originally came from Linux! (It has since, I think, been pounded on more on the FreeBSD side, but they should still related.) The FreeBSD team has not signed a non-disclosure agreement with Adaptec; if they did, they wouldn't be able to give out the sources! (That is what the "non-disclosure" part means, you know.) >But >hence, because it is a controlled distribution, it does not have the number >of pre-compiled binaries as Linux does. You lost me on that one. I don't see how one leads to the other. Also, just checking on the latest snapshot CD-ROM for FreeBSD, there are 367 pre-compiled packages for it -- all you have to do is type pkg_add /cdrom/packages/All/<name> and add that package. There are also several hundred (403, I think?) "ports" -- the binaries aren't included, but you can do cd /cdrom/ports/<wwherever> make and it will build the binary. Some of these "ports" are binaries that cannot be distributed as sources -- netscape, for example, is available as a "port." (Admittedly, it's the Linux binary 8-).) >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). And FreeBSD v2.1 is >a little dated (late '94) and the current test version is still quite buggy. While I will not argue that linux, being written from scratch, takes a totally different approach to being "unix" than FreeBSD does, that doesn't necessarily make it more efficient. I believe that, based on the work done by several of the FreeBSD members (John Dyson and David Greenman spring to mind for their work on the VM subsystem, but others have done tons of work as well!), FreeBSD may actualy be considerably more "efficient" than most other operating systems -- including linux. (It is telling to note that wcarchive.cdrom.com runs FreeBSD, and seems to be the single busiest Web and FTP machine on the internet.) To the best of my knowledge, there has never, ever been a threat of a lawsuit from BSDi about FreeBSD; the closest was, perhaps, an issue regarding the fact that BSDi now owns the trademark for "BSD." You are, presumably, confusing the fact that USL sued BSDi and the University of California over BSD/OS and the Net/2 distribution (which FreeBSD-1.* was based on). Currently, however, FreeBSD-2.* has no Net/2 files in it. I do not recall when FreeBSD-2.1 came out; it may have been late '94, but I thought it was closer to early '95. No matter either way. As for the "current test version" being "quite buggy" -- uhm... there's a reason it's a *test* version. It's still under active development. It is "pre-alpha" code (assuming you mean -current; -stable is probably closer to pre-beta code). >FreeBSD is only available on CD-ROM from Walnut Creek CD-ROM for $50. Linux >can be found on a endless number of vendors CDs for a low as $10. >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. There are a couple of other people who make FreeBSD CD-ROMs; they are typically behind Walnut Creek's distributions, which isn't terribly surprising. However, last time I checked, the FreeBSD CD-ROM from WC cost only $25 or so, from Walnut Creek -- and I've been able to get it for less than $20 at retail stores. There are more vendors offering Linux on CD-ROM, and that is true. I think that is a pity for the FreeBSD distribution, however -- the FreeBSD CD-ROM from Walnut Creek is *nice*. I like it a lot. It is a very nicely-integrated package, and installation is quite pleasant. Is that true for all of the linux CD-ROMs? >In essence, Linux has the latest and greatest software and drivers Do you have any facts to back this up? I do know that there are very few ports of software explicitly to FreeBSD -- I think a lot of that is due to the fact that a port takes considerable effort by a vendor, and since FreeBSD can run BSD/OS, Linux, and iBCS2 binaries, there's not a whole lot of need for a FreeBSD-specific version. I *do* expect this to change, by the way, in the future. >(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). Given that FreeBSD includes complete source code in its distribution, don't you think that your facts may be a bit wrong, here? >Quite a few hardware (and even software >vendors) are supporting Linux There is, as I said, no doubt that the vendor support for Linux is considerably superior to the vendor support for *any* of the BSD's -- NetBSD, 386BSD, FreeBSD, BSD/OS, OpenBSD. Why is this? I don't know the answer fully; a lot of it is due to the fact that Linux was out first, and spread like wildfire very quickly. (BSD development and acceptance was a bit slower, partially because BSD was not written explicitly for the PC. This has meant that the people working on *BSD have had less expertise with the PC, and a harder time fitting existing tools to the PC. That is my opinion, however. I will almost certainly be told I am wrong by Bruce ;).) >If you can run Linux, it's the better choice unless your going to run a lot >of BSD and SCO software. What OS is "the better choice" is so highly subjective that there is no possible way anyone can really answer it for someone else. For me, *BSD is "the better choice" becauyse I already have it -- and I started out with it because Linux' networking support when I got my PC was flaky. This has since changed, but I have not changed my OS. For other people, they started out with Linux, either because it was more readily available, or because it had some features the others didn't (Linux DOS emulation, for example, is better than FreeBSD's [which is just in development now!]). >Try downloading the boot disk for FreeBSD and >Linux. The best advice anyone could possibly give. A lot of your facts are disputable, or simply *wrong*, and you really should find out more about something before you try to declare what it is.