Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!zdc-e!super.zippo.com!plnews!harborhi.com From: Tim <tsweeney@harborhi.com> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 03:51:53 -0400 Organization: Harborhi Consultants Lines: 58 Sender: Tim <tsweeney@harborhi.com> Message-ID: <pa7nq5.r51.ln@gate> References: <01bc8d33$3f7a4f00$6870d3c6@einstein> <33C4F625.41C67EA6@together.net> X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA 970613; i586 Linux 2.0.30] Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:44610 null <null@together.net> wrote: > FreeBSD is capable of running a good deal of linux binaries, as well as > those of BSD/OS, etc. So if 'compatability' is a concern, freebsd has > linux there. > Linux does have a larger following, but Windows has a larger following > than FreeBSD, and you don't see me running Windows. User base doesn't > make an OS good. No, it doesn't. It tends to make for greater availability of software, however. Certainly Windows has the widest variety, commensurate with its user base, and Linux has greater support, both commercial and free, than FreeBSD. Does that make Linux a better OS than FreeBSD? Nope. But if the goal is to run Linux binaries, common sense would tell us that Linux would be better suited to the job. > A lot of the software listed as a 'linux resource' often will compile n > freebsd with little work, because the authors generally support both > when they or someone else patches the software. I have generally found this to be true (excepting SVGAlib type stuff). > Linux tends to get all of the video game support, so I guess you could > say it's good for playing video games. Not that it's not capable of > running as server (and I'm sure many people use it as such), but it > tends to be unstable. > FreeBSD seems to me to be really stable and can be used as a cost > efficient server, although it's not set in this role. So lets translate, shall we. Linux is an unstable game loader that some misguided souls attempt to stretch into a full OS, and FreeBSD is a rock solid server quality OS but with the versatility to be so much, much more. Sounds like a typical "unbiased" advocacy response. I don't know whether this is the author's personal experience, or whether he is just parrotting the dribblings of past OS bigots. If it is the former, I cannot dismiss it, though from the wording of his comments, and the lack of any detail whatsoever, I would remain highly suspicious. If it is the latter, then it merits no more consideration. As to the question at hand: I run both FreeBSD and Linux boxes here, and have found them BOTH to be solid, stable performers. FreeBSD is put to work here as gateway/router, IMAP and NNTP server. Linux is used as a personal X-based workstation and local HTTP server. Both have essentially unlimited uptimes, and each does its job well. Sorry, bigots! Linux and FreeBSD are both great! Of course, your mileage may vary, as is true with all hardware and software, but please don't generalize in your criticisms. If you have specific problems, be specific. -- Tim Sweeney Harborhi Consultants Boothbay Harbor, Maine Not valid in all 50 states. Void where prohibited. The contents of this post are for entertainment purposes only.