Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.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!news.thepoint.net!news1!not-for-mail From: root@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson) Subject: Re: Linux vs. FreeBSD ... X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dyson.iquest.net Message-ID: <4mr1pk$cdi@dyson.iquest.net> Sender: news@iquest.net (News Admin) Organization: John S. Dyson's Machine References: <3188C1E2.45AE@onramp.net> <4mnsc5$6qo@sundial.sundial.net> Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 20:56:20 GMT Lines: 153 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:19125 comp.os.linux.misc:102872 In article <4mnsc5$6qo@sundial.sundial.net>, Bryan J. Smith, E.I. <b.j.smith@ieee.org> wrote: > > > >Re: Linux vs. FreeBSD ... > >Currently, I've been exiled to FreeBSD because Adaptec doesn't support Linux. > Hmmm.... You can run Adaptec controllers on Linux, or are the drivers broken??? > > This is really the only advantage to FreeBSD -- they are a controlled >distribution who can sign non-disclosure agreements with companies like >Adaptec. > This is getting wierder and wierder. FreeBSD is a very open consortium of developers. We have 3-5 developers actively committing to the kernel, for example. Linux is the closed (controlled) development. > > 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. > Sounds like a broken Linux driver to me!!! > >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. > FreeBSD is primarily a U**X clone. That means that we want to support as many U**X platforms as possible. > >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. > Actually, my latest current vs. a very recent Linux shows that we perform about 10% faster at one of our previously worst performance numbers: fork time. We used to be 3x slower at that. Even then, our paging performance was still about 2-3x better at paging in programs and about 50% better at paging out pages than recent (1.3.9x) vintage Linux kernels. Our networking is *still* faster, etc. Seems to be a fallacious argument to me. Much of our stuff has been redone significantly, with little regard to legacy 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. > FreeBSD is available from vendors other than WC in Japan, US, and Europe. > >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. > Yep, our IDE/ATAPI support is a little rough. That is one of the legit problems with FreeBSD right now. > >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). > Actually Linux has slower buffered disk I/O, so it has the best drivers and support??? B*LLHOCKY!!! If you want to compare the system you must mount the FreeBSD disks using the dangerous (like Linux) -o async option. We just don't think that it is taking care of people supporting default behavior that can lead to unnecessary data loss. We default to conservative behavior. > >Quite a few hardware (and even software >vendors) are supporting Linux (Buslogic has an excellent PCI SCSI-2 >Ultra-Wide adapter for $250 and AdvanSys owners claim theirs to be the >fastest PCI SCSI-2 Fast HA for a measly $99 -- both support Linux). > If you are talking about the BusLogic adapters with the processors on-board? Hmmm... don't they have pretty high command overheads??? This is really interesting -- in light of the small blocksize filesystems on Linux. This must exact a signficant performance toll. My benchmarks do show that the I/O subsystem on Linux is slower. On FreeBSD we have pretty advanced clustering that takes care of the command overhead. (BTW, if you try to upgrade your a.out Linux system to a nice (but wasteful) blocksize for ext2fs -- many of your binaries won't run.) Of course, FreeBSD with it's efficient 4K/8K/16K blocksize can handle the binaries just fine. > >If you can run Linux, it's the better choice unless your going to run a lot >of BSD and SCO software. Try downloading the boot disk for FreeBSD and >Linux. > Actually, it is best to say: If you can run FreeBSD (which most people can), then use it, because it has much more U**X type flexibility, and runs Linux binaries much of the time as well or better than Linux. In fact, I run my linux lmbench binaries often to benchmark FreeBSD. It is just easier to compare. >FreeBSD boot disk is on a single image file/disk from ftp.freebsd.com >(it's really ftp.cdrom.com -- Walnut Creek CD-ROM). Try either Slackware 3.0 >distribution (which is really dated about 6+ months) or RedHat Commerical >Linux v3.03 distribution (ftp.redhat.com -- the distribution Caldera CND >uses -- Caldera's mirror of redhat is faster too!), both which come on a boot >and root disk (some require 2 root disks). You'll need either "rawrite.exe" >for DOS, or use "dd" under UNIX to create the boot disks. 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. > Of course, Linux isn't up to being the biggest FTP site is it? (Like FreeBSD's main site, ftp.freebsd.org is??) > >I hope this helped and FEEL COMPLETELY FREE to contact me (via voice or >email) if you have ANY OTHER QUESTIONS/CONCERNS!!! > I am sure that your information is *slightly* wrong (to say the least.) FreeBSD is an extremely open development, and is targeting the U**X market, period. FreeBSD does a very fast workstation also. Under load, not much else competes with it including Linux. Under light duty, both Linux and FreeBSD have their advantages -- but I notice performance problems most when loading becomes an issue, don't you??? >> >>I'm trying to decide between Linux and FreeBSD 2.1. What are the >>differences, advantages/disadvantages of each? Does one make a better >>Web server than the other. >> > FreeBSD's network code is vastly superior, and is being used as the reference port for much networking research. Linux is just barely getting there -- and still has broken "features." > >>It's obvious to me now that Linux has a wider (if not more public) >>following. I tried to pick up a copy of FreeBSD in the Dallas, Tx. area >>today (called, called and drove). No luck! I found Linux everywhere. I >>know I can order FreeBSD, but that's just the impatient person I am ;> > Unfortunately, many people are stuck in the Linux/Microsoft black-hole, like a bunch of sheep :-). FreeBSD is simply a better U**X. John