Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mira.net.au!pumpkin.pangea.ca!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!duke.telepac.pt!news.telepac.pt!alf.pmb.net!alf.pmb.net!jmg From: Jorge Goncalves <jmg@alf.pmb.net> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux Date: 19 Jul 1997 23:05:59 GMT Organization: . Lines: 126 Message-ID: <5qrh8n$pbp$1@alf.pmb.net> References: <01bc8d33$3f7a4f00$6870d3c6@einstein> <33C4F625.41C67EA6@together.net> <pa7nq5.r51.ln@gate> NNTP-Posting-Host: sj1-p5.telepac.pt Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:44698 X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA 970709; i386 FreeBSD 2.2-STABLE] Since I usually read this newsgroup I couldn't help and I am going to tell my experience with FreeBSD and Linux. Tim <tsweeney@harborhi.com> wrote: > 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. If you only use software with source code available you should have no problems... Remember that *BSD is more than 10 years old and Linux is a recent product. > > 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. I agree with that! Everyone seems to want a nice OS with buttons and icons and actually don't do anything... > 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. I agree but if you only have one machine and don't want to reboot at all time... then the Linux emulation is ok. Personally I have my computer up for 8 days now and I am running a program for 188 hours... therefore a reboot is not a Good Thing. > > 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. See above. > I have generally found this to be true (excepting SVGAlib type stuff). The SVGAlib is so good that the setuid zgv program that comes with some Linux distributions renders the console unusable when it opens certain types of images... If the machine is not in a network then the only solution is a hard reset which is BTW a Bad Thing in a Unix environment. The stability of the OS is so important for me that I use a VT100 terminal as serial console and I only use the monitor for X. > > 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. Any machines like ftp.cdrom.com or like the Yahoo! running Linux? No comments! > > 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. Perfectly true. > 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. First, Linux is not an OS it is a __kernel__ and only a kernel... FreeBSD, on the other hand, is a complete OS. Second, do the developers of Linux use a tool like CVS to keep control of the system? A new kernel gets out every day and the very, very busy system administrators can't take the machine down every day and play the game! If you want experience read the following: In my University since the money is not many we have a couple of PCs with several problems. One of them has a problem in its internal cache. The solution was to turn off the cache and install everything very slowly. We tried RedHat Linux 4.0 first (kernel 2.0.27) and it wouldn't recompile the kernel! The compiler reported an internal compiler error (11 if my memory is correct). We then did another make and the compiler compiled a bit more code... Tired of playing games we switched to FreeBSD 2.2.1. The compiles were slow and were done with only a command but everything worked. The machine is a Web server, it permits users to login via X-Terminals (we tried with 4 concurrent users running Netscapes and XTerms and there were no major delays), it also runs a IntraNet RealAudio Server and has a mailing list with 2000 subscribers. The other day the machine administrator and I tried to crash it opening thousands of connections to the sendmail port and it didn't crash. The machine is very stable and reboots are only done when there is power failure or when the administrator wants to. The LAST reboot was in the begining of May... :-) I call this stability! > 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. When XFree is quiting try to do a ALT+F1 very quickly... Sometimes my screen froze... That's why I switched to FreeBSD. > 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. No more comments... Jorge jmg@bug.fe.up.pt