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.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.wildstar.net!serv.hinet.net!news.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.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: <4n2nl4$5qo@dyson.iquest.net> Sender: news@iquest.net (News Admin) Organization: John S. Dyson's Machine References: <3188C1E2.45AE@onramp.net> <4mnsc5$6qo@sundial.sundial.net> <4mr1pk$cdi@dyson.iquest.net> <4n0b6c$k7b@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 18:52:20 GMT Lines: 92 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:19256 comp.os.linux.misc:103225 In article <4n0b6c$k7b@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, Brian Wheeler <bdwheele@indiana.edu> wrote: > > What do you consider closed development? If I were so inclined, I >could write kernel code and get it included (providing it wasn't crap or >something), either in the official kernel, or as a patch. > Could I just hop over and write code for the FreeBSD kernel if I had >an Idea I wanted to implement? > Closed development -- ONE person making the decision and keeping control. FreeBSD actively recruits additional developers who will potentially be allowed to commit to the CVS tree. You start contributing significantly, and your stuff is good -- you most likely will be given access to the FreeBSD tree. FreeBSD is as open as it can get, without anarchy. What you have asked for is anarchy... QC comes to mind as being important. >>>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!!! > Huh? What does this have to do with support? Its unrelated to the >original poster's comment. > Huh? I was responding to a bogus response. It is valid to do so. >>(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. > Maybe I just don't know, but what does filesystem blocksize have to >do with programs running? Seems like nothing, really. > Alot -- if you don't understand the brokeness of the 1K offset in the Linux a.out format... Please be careful before you comment... We can run the broken binaries with our 4K,8K,16K filesystems. And boy do the large block filesystems make a difference (except on news-spools.) >>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. > Most people can run Linux as well. I've yet to hear of anyone >who has not been able to run linux...with the exception of some of the MCA >people. > FreeBSD is generally faster, and more robust -- in growth applications. > >>Of course, Linux isn't up to being the biggest FTP site is it? (Like >>FreeBSD's main site, ftp.freebsd.org is??) > What does ftp capacity have to do with "where to get xxx"? Seems >like you're just trying to troll. > If it is your judgement that it is so, it is best to be silent to a troll isn't it? I am not trolling -- sorry that I hurt your feelings... > > I'd be curious to hear the problems you have with linux under load that >you don't have under FreeBSD. I've been running my Linux box under pretty >heavy compiler loads for a while now, and Its not so much as hiccupped. > It isn't necessarily problems that I have had in the real world -- I have tested the performance under load, and Linux falls behind. In the "real world", we have people switching to FreeBSD all of the time, due to the light-load only friendly nature of Linux. > >>Unfortunately, many people are stuck in the Linux/Microsoft black-hole, like >>a bunch of sheep :-). FreeBSD is simply a better U**X. > > In your opinion it may be. However after trying FreeBSD, NetBSD, and >Linux (both RedHat & Slackware) I think that Linux is a better OS, and that >RedHat is a great distribution. > Actually, I have installed many versions of U**X over the last 15years, and RedHat and Slakware have taken more time to install than the latest versions of FreeBSD. The FreeBSD install has it's nits though. I have installed and run Linux many times (reinstalling on my benchmark partition), so I do know what I am talking about. > > Its also easier to find linux, it seems. > True. It is also easier to find Win3.11, Win95, WinNT than Linux. John dyson@freebsd.org