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.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!solace!nntp.uio.no!news.cais.net!bofh.dot!van-bc!unixg.ubc.ca!news.bc.net!berlin.infomatch.com!guym From: guym@infomatch.com (GM) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Linux vs. FreeBSD ... Date: 16 May 1996 18:48:29 GMT Organization: InfoMatch Internet - Vancouver BC Lines: 82 Message-ID: <4nft9t$9me@berlin.infomatch.com> References: <3188C1E2.45AE@onramp.net> <4mnsc5$6qo@sundial.sundial.net> <4mr1pk$cdi@dyson.iquest.net> <4n0dhd$cff@agate.berkeley.edu> <3194622D.41C67EA6@Ami-chan.res.cmu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: infomatch.com X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #12 "Yun-Ching (Allen) Lee" <yunching@Ami-chan.res.cmu.edu> writes: >First of all, I prefer FreeBSD's one-disk network installation method >over Red Hat's 3-disk installation. Red Hat's installation also >requires 8 MB RAM for network installation (quoted from a Red Hat >representative on the net). It wouldn't install on my friend's 486 with >6 MB RAM. FreeBSD was fine. Uhmm thats one distribution package of Linux , there are more than a few. >Also, Linux doesn't advise the user to follow safe partitioning >practices, i.e. have separate root and usr partitions. FreeBSD does and >warns the user if the partitions are not set up that way. Once, Linux >crashed on me. I resetted and the superblock of the main partition was >corrupted, and the kernel wouldn't mount the root device at all. If >this had happened to FreeBSD, the only partition that gets damaged will >likely be /usr, so I will still be able to go to single-user mode, mount >/ and fsck all partitions. I have not found a way to go into >single-user mode at will in Linux. Uhmm well I think there is enough documentation about file system structure at the file system level for most people to get by. I will admit to not creating seperate /var/spool/mail and the like but humm probably a good idea for all users to get a good Un*x admin reference before launching into an installation. The Oreilly series are always handy no matter how long one has been fiddling with Un*x. >FreeBSD's boot/kernel loader combination is far more advanced than Linux >Loader (LILO). FreeBSD has a visual mode configuration editor that >allows the user to configure the drivers before they are loaded. It is >due to this feature that FreeBSD was able to have >one-disk-for-everything installation, versus 71 flavors of RedHat 3.0.3 >boot disk images. FreeBSD's EasyBoot is simple and straightforward to >use. LILO requires some complicated setup and passing obscure >parameters if the hardware is non-standard. LILO is also sensitive to >change in drive configuration that if the drive setup should change, >LILO will hang with the "LI" prompt, leaving the novice user stranded. >As for me, my boot loader is OS-BS, which is roboust and yet simple to >operate and configure. All boot loaders require the kernel to be in the >BIOS accessible region of the IDE hard disk. Humm yes LILO can be a little tricky . There are other loaders as well and humm novice users should be aware of how boot loaders work , so again its a RTFM issue. Agreed , LILO can be improved. >Currently, FreeBSD does not have the recognition by the commercial >software companies like Linux does, but FreeBSD can run more different >OS's binaries, including Linux. Humm MULTICS was also a great idea way back but lacked support. OS2 had/has advantages to other desktop OS's but seems to be viewed as lacking an application base. *shrug* Great ideas without support remain just that. Lets hope developers can develope for both Linux , FreeBSD and other OS's to give users a choice. >A merit of FreeBSD's centralized development, it is far easier to obtain >the source to FreeBSD system files than hunting for source code to >programs that came pre-compiled on a system. I have used SUP to update >my /usr/src tree, and boy, nothing can be easier than this. Humm I have always been able to get source for Linux and most other pd apps. >So my recommendation is, if the user wants good performance, multiuser >system, and possible experimentation with the OS, get FreeBSD. If the >user is only going to use the system as a personal workstation, either >OS is sufficient. >Any constructive comments welcomed. (And if you can solve any of my >problem above, I'll be very happy. :) ) Humm well I can't say one OS is better than the other myself. Each has merits. I recommend users try out all their options and definitely RTFM and buy a good reference for BSD and SYS V. Regardless of OS choice a good fundemantal knowledge of Unix will help squeeze performance out of any Un*x OS. -- _____________________________________________________________ Guy Matchett guym@infomatch.com "Unix has everything"