A Tale of Two Systems, Linux, xBSD 322
The monkey flying around in my butt writes "
In what has got to be one of the
better pieces
on the Linux vs. BSD debate
Wes Peters
talks about both OS's, the strengths and
weakness of each, and how they live
together to form a symbiotic circle. "
And the Licence? (Score:1)
el bid
(Logged in and everything. Am I still coming up as Anon Cow?)
Re:Core question remains unanswered (Score:1)
Because it's fun to hack one's own OS (or computer program). If you look closer you'd see that for almost any single program, you can find another that does the same/similar thing (KDE/gnome, enlightenment/windowmaker/fvwm/afterstep..., ...). While technically you could argue that one would be better of doing a single program in which all the features would be available, at least as options.
But this would ignore the very nature of free software developpers. They don't meet in a underground cave, and ask: "ok, what are we going to do to fsck Micro$oft. An application suite ? It is very boring to do but ok I'll do it". In fact they couldn't care less about Microsoft, Sun, SGI, IBM ; they are here just to write fun code. Thus we have at least 3 BSDs and 1 Linux (with numerous distributions), because there is more than one talented person (Linus) interested in supervising the design and evolution of an Unix clone.
Rather than having them constantly arguing them with each other on the kernels development lists, paralysing the evolution, it is better that they go and implement their ideas their own way, and let users have the choice.
The idea is that there are enough good hackers, that gathering them would result in "designed by comittee" systems (huge/elephantine, with all the ideas half-implemented as a compromise between conflicting sides). Besides, if you have 4 or more teams able to do good kernel development, Brooks' law (?), indicate that making an unique team would mostly result in a 4x slowdown :-).
Re:Hmm. (Score:1)
What?! NT is just as stable as Linux. My NT box at work has now an uptime of something like 8 months. As long as your hardware is up to scratch and you don't mess up the registry by hand NT is rock solid. How long did you use NT for? This is just another LinuxIsBetterThanNT myth. Some REAL benchmarking in this area would be nice.
Well, there's stability and there's stability. My home PC dual-boots NT and linux. I've had both installed for about a year and a half. In that time, NT has crashed twice, and linux has crashed three times. As far as not crashing goes, NT is pretty damn rock solid as a desktop OS. Actually, if I count X server crashes as crashes, NT has been a lot more reliable than linux. I mean, when X crashes, you have to restart your applications and rebuild anything you might not have saved. It's just a lot quicker to log back on than to restart your computer.
But the other part of stability is whether or not your system starts having bizarre problems for no reason. Like the time my wife downloaded some wedding planning software just before we got married. It proceeded to break ActiveX, which meant that every time she double-clicked on a folder with View as Web Page active, she got a warning that she was about to run an unsafe ActiveX control, and that Internet Explorer's Product Updates web site stopped working. After much swearing, I was able to solve the problem. Or a few months ago, when the performance of NT steadily became worse and worse, to the point where it was taking 5-10 minutes to log on to my account. My wife's account, or the administrator account, were both sprightly as ever. Problem solved by removing my user profile and re-adding it. Or all the problems people have encountered with Internet Explorer's Windows Desktop Update - GUI no longer functional, other programs no longer working because 7,891 DLLs were just updated, yadda yadda yadda. Granted, I know many more people who have experienced DLL conflicts on 95/98 than on NT, and I don't know if that's just because people using NT tend to be more experienced and able to work around problems, or if it is because application installs are less likely to have problems because of NT's better design.
How many people do you know who have formatted and reinstalled linux? How many people do you know who have formatted and reinstalled Windows? I'd imagine the latter number is much larger. For me, it certainly is.
The way I've described it to my Windows-using friends is that with linux, you do all your swearing and cursing at the beginning, as you're getting it configured to your liking and getting past the somewhat steep learning curve. With Windows, all of your cursing comes after the initial setup, either because It Was Working Yesterday and It's Not Now, or because you're bumping up against its inflexibility - having to log out in order to do something that requires administrator privileges, not being able to just mount the Program Files folder on a different partition ..
Of course, the perfect situation would be to not have to swear at the computer at all, and no OS is there yet.
Be your own master (Score:1)
Re:Core question remains unanswered (Score:1)
Linux _systems_ typically use a lot of BSD code and BSD _systems_ typically use a lot of GPL code as well.
Some technical information from a FreeBSD hacker (Score:1)
http://apollo.backplane.com/FreeBSD/
Why this is bad and unnecessary. (Score:1)
This is why open source "fragmentation" is mostly a good thing. Diverse groupings of developers allows people to team up with those whom they enjoy working with, and the natural cross-pollenation that occurs in open source software allows everyone to benefit from the work of others regardless of who belongs to which project.
Many people mistake the diversity of open source software with the very real and very crippling fragmentation that occurred in commercial Unix in the 80s and 90s. There are several differences, but the key is the lack of cross-pollenation back then because everyone was busy hoarding secrets from their competition and trying to own 100% of the market.
One thing that the author of the "Tale of Two Systems" article got right in spite of being an arrogant little bastard about it is that Linux and BSD, and the various distributions/variations of each, meet very different needs. Another point worth mentioning is that if BSD users were willing to use Linux instead of BSD, they would be doing it now since you can get a hell of a lot more software ready-made for Linux and it will probably work with most, if not all, of your doohickeys.
Finally, at the user level there is very little difference between the two operating systems. You've got bash and tcsh (and a score of other shells) on both. You've got X and you've got Perl. Most of the utilities are the same or very similar. They look like Unix and they quack like Unix, and the rest is only relevant to IP lawyers and historical purists. I suspect most of the people on slashdot, if faced with a command prompt that could be some Linux distro or some BSD, couldn't tell which without typing uname -a.
Sure, Linux has buzz. Right now. But who cares? Hey, I came to use mostly Linux from using mostly (Free|Open)BSD, but that's because Linux scratched a few particular itches of mine and it's close enough to the others that I feel no need to go back. If BSD scratches someone else's itch, why should they choose Linux instead just because of "buzz"? If I needed a really, really secure system I would probably still choose OpenBSD.
Diversity is good. There was a time when everyone thought elm trees were the cat's ass and cities planted them everywhere. Then came Dutch elm disease and suddenly there were cities with practically no trees.
They are all stable, but Linux is NOT as secure (Score:2)
I have experience with both Linux and all three BSD systems. I'd like to share a couple of my opinions:
1. Linux and BSD are both very stable. None of them lack in this department.
2. It's really hard to compromise an OpenBSD system. I mean REALLY hard. This OS has been through a really extensive security audit. Have a look at the bugtraq archives... I realize that security issues in Linux vary from dist to dist, but all dists share a lot of the same packages - packages that have not been properly audited. Linux seems to be inherently less secure than xBSD because it contains more software from more sources. If you run BSD you get your packages from the BSD team, not from a third party developer. That leads me to my next point:
3. Getting everything from one place makes it easy. In BSD, ls is ls - not part of the fileutils. Basically, BSD is packaged better than Linux is. I really like having one big source tree for the whole system. CVS rocks. the ports rock. nuff said about that
4. Linux has great hardware support. In my opinion this makes Linux better for desktop or notebook computers. On my workstation, I throw crap everywhere. It's not like the more organized BSD setup helps me at all in this case. Security and availability is also less of an issue. That lets me screw around with all the latest gizmos without worry. It's more fun to play with the features of the Linux kernel than a BSD kernel.
I like BSD more on servers because it is easier to install and maintain than Linux. Its development is less chaotic, and I worry less about it. On a server, having less hardware support is not an issue. Multimedia support isn't needed.. Servers just don't need to do a whole lot of that fancy stuff. BSD can run pretty much any Linux application, so lack of big apps isn't an issue.
One downside of BSD on the server is the SMP support. (I haven't tried FreeBSD on an SMP box in some time.. it sucked last time I tried about a year ago, but I hear it's much much better now) Anyway, I think the whole Mindcraft thing has shown everybody didn't already know that SMP isn't a big deal for most applications. Rather than get a big SMP box for a high traffic server, I would choose to use several cheap single chip machines. If I needed to run a big database off one machine, and SMP was the only way to go, I'd happily run Linux (or hell, even Solaris on a big sparc). It wouldn't matter. Nobody would be able to access the system directly over the net anyway. Nobody but me would have a shell account on it.. and it would be sitting behind a BSD machine. BSD makes awesome www/ftp/name/mail servers.
By the way, does the RedHat installation drive anyone besides me nuts?
Sean Comeau
scomeau@obscurity.org
If it is *nix is it Good (Score:2)
I got the impression that the author was giving the BSD is better than Linux speach, and with the replies I got the impression Linux is better that BSD speach.
That fact is, they are both Free, they both run on cheap PC hardware, and they are both Unix.
It's not BSD vs Linux vs Solaris vs AIX vs SCO vs etc, etc...
It is *nix VS the World. For the Last 30 years unix has been coming on strong, fighting everything to the high end mainframes to the lowly PC, and I don't see unix backing down.
They both are great unix operating systems, Free, runs on cheap hardware and both help fuel the massive war machine known as Unix.
Think of it this way, if the IT department give you a computer to run a network service, and you have a choice between MacOS 7.5 or some unix you never heard of, which would you choice?
Don't ask what unix can do for you, ask what can you do for unix?
Vote unix (any unix) today!
"Real" Unix users use Linux too! (Score:2)
Before becoming a Linux user and advocate, I had run systems and done development on SunOS 4, Solaris 2, HP-UX 9 and 10, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD. I was (and still am) a big fan of BSD, but one day I needed Unix on a particular laptop (probably one of those mostly useless doohickeys whatshisname was talking about, but it's no fun to travel on business as a sysadmin without a Unix box close at hand). I tried Solaris x86, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD before finally caving in and trying Red Hat Linux. It was the only one with which the laptop would function fully.
What I found was that in spite of my prejudices, I really liked Linux. It's a perfectly good system, better than old SunOS 4, that's for sure. It is NOT Unix with training wheels! Any training wheels that might come with a particular distribution can easily be unbolted and removed. It is true Unix in the sense of the book "The Unix Philosophy".
BSD fans, please just admit it: It quacks like a duck. Deal with it. That doesn't make BSD any less valuable.
Besides, if you want to see Unix with training wheels, take a look at any commercial "real" Unix. HP-UX has training wheels that can't be easily removed at all.
Re:Core question remains unanswered (Score:1)
Let me summarize my personal experience, which is not that extensive, but should give you an idea.
I've got three systems at my house. One is my firewall (as well as web/ftp/email server). Another is a Sparc 5 w/ Solaris 7 (mostly for old time's sake). The third is my desktop machine with Linux 2.2. I use Linux 2.2 on my desktop work machine as well, and an O2 w/ IRIX 6.5 as my server.
For starters, both Solaris and IRIX, despite being recent versions, feel VERY dated and clunky after you're used to all the nicety of a "modern" UNIX system (which means one of the free UNIXs, as discussed in the article). I like 'em both, but their day is past, except for a few specific strengths (I think Solaris can still support more simutaneous users than either *BSD or Linux, and certainly its SMP is much better).
FreeBSD still feels a little bit clunky to me, honestly. I do have an older version (it's getting on a year old now), but compared to the Linuxs from the same time period (RH 5.2, etc), it just isn't as slick. It's hard to pin down what it is, exactly: a slightly old version of 'tar' that doesn't have the "x" command line option; no bzip2 out of the box; the "route" command is more convulted.
On the other hand, FreeBSD does seem a little snappier on network response (as a server, I mean). That's the main reason I chose it. The second reason was that the Linux 2.0 kernel had incomplete firewall support at the time that was plagued with a few nasty slowdown problems. FreeBSD worked like a champ right out of the box. It was much more secure, too - which is inconvenient on a desktop protected by a firewall where security isn't a big issue, but for something that is accessable to the outside world it's very important.
In the meantime, the desktop stuff for Linux is going through the rough. Everything from KDE to WINE to the Gimp are developed on Linux first, and ported later. You'll get the best and brightest on Linux. 3D drivers like the G200/400, the 3Dfx, and nVidia's stuff can be made to work on x86/BSD, but it's a LOT easier to set it up on Linux, because that's what they were all developed for. Binary-only games like Quake [1|2|3Test] and Civilization can certainly be made to work on FreeBSD, but it's nice to be able to just pop in the CD and have it work. I'm hacker, but I want to hack stuff that's interesting and rewarding. Getting binaries designed to run on another system to work on mine is not on that list.
Finally, there's the old BSD vs. System V thing. My first UNIX was SCO, and after that it was Solaris. I was never very fond of commercial BSDs, and that continues into the free BSDs. Of course, I know plenty of people who feel the other way around - that's a totally subjective thing, and there's no "best" choice. It's whatever you happen to like.
Here's my recommendation: if you want to increase your geek prowess and have some spare time and some spare disk space, grab an OS that you don't already have. Install it, mess with it. Figure out the differences. Who knows, you might like it better. But then again, maybe not. I like FreeBSD a whole lot, and I don't ever plan to replace it on my firewall. If I upgrade the machine, I'll probably grab the latest version and put in on there. But Linux is still my choice for day-to-day work.
Re:Good and bad aspects of Linux and FreeBSD (Score:2)
1. SMP on FreeBSD is quite good for what it is: a stepping stone to a properly multitasking/multithreaded kernel, running on multiple CPUs. That is being crafted in 4.0 (no, not vaporware, but something being developed.) SMP is better in Linux because they've already gone through many of the issues beign solved here now.
2. SMB "mounts" are done using Sharity Light.
3. As per ease of configurability, FreeBSD is VERY easy. But why do things have to be SysV-like? That's a matter of preference, anyway.
4. The NFS has had major problems plaguing it for years. Matt Dillon (and some others) have fixed all of them that I can think of.
5. Our portability is not bad; just because many ports haven't been done doesn't mean FreeBSD is not portable.
I hope I cleared up a few misconceptions
Re:Practical Experience (Score:2)
One size doesn't fit all. This problem is a user error unless there's some kind of mbuf leak. None are known in FreeBSD.
Re:Core question remains unanswered (Score:1)
Probably because the GPL zealots will start screaming "violation! violation!"
Does no one take Linux seriously outside of the Linux community?
Linux has its place, as do the BSDs, but it does seem kind of silly to see Linux users on here insisting that everything be GPLed, and everything be free, as if the GPL is some kind of ultimate saviour.
Re:Linux feels like SysV while *BSD _is_ BSD (Score:1)
It makes sense if you think about it. Start with a working base system and let the user build on it from there.
I don't know how NetBSD and OpenBSD handle it, but you can run /stand/sysinstall to select and install all of your favorite GNUish stuff after your FreeBSD system is up and running.
Or, you can cvsup your ports tree and build them from source if you want.
Its *IMPOSSIBLE*, for good reasons. (Score:1)
It just doesn't work. Its like there is an imbalance in the Force behind Windows...
Re:Its *IMPOSSIBLE*, for good reasons. (Score:1)
I mean what I say from the standpoint of a PAID JOURNALIST, working for a large media entity. Impartiality in a critical review of Windows from a valid technical perspective is a *very* difficult position to maintain when your pay check, and the work environment you depend on, is largely supported by advertising from the very companies you're being critical of...
Old story, sure. But this is the basis of Microsofts marketing engine...
Re:Chip on sholuder? Plus a question (Score:1)
One thing I hated about linux distributions was it's upgrade process.
I say:
Yes, upgrading used to be a pain, but Debian has made great strides in this area. Upgrading an entire Debian system to a new release is now possible with just two commands. no pain. In any case, I recommend giving Debian a try, because Linux has changed -- a LOT -- since you last tried it.
P.S. I have tried OpenBSD and FreeBSD. I did go back.
Re:Core question remains unanswered (Score:1)
Not *every* Linux user wants everything to be free (I'm willing to buy software or use closed-source if it suits my needs). I'd say a bigger problem is stereotyping platform/distro users (RedHat's for newbies, Slackware's for experts, *BSD is for the 31337, etc.). Any *nix can be as easy or difficult as you make it.
Real-life example: my mother couldn't care less about why a car runs. My father's a mechanic that can rebuild a car almost from scratch. Yet they can drive the same family car, at roughly the same skill level. Get the point?
Now, let me jack up this here RedHat GPL system & take me look at what's goin' on 'neath the hood... :)
*BSD for servers, Linux for desktop? (Score:1)
Give me a GD Break! (Score:1)
This sounds like politics! One democrat trys to "out-liberal" another, and one republican trys to "out-conservative" another.
This should be settled with two questions.
1. Do you like which OS you use?
2. Does it fork FOR YOU?
If the answer to both of those is yes, then keep on using it and leave me the fuck alone.
Do you see professional athlete's in such fights as to which is better Nike, or Adidas?
People dying of cancer don't argue about whether Marlboro or Camel was worse.
GROW UP! We're all on the same side.
LK
why is linux not unix? (Score:1)
Why is Linux not Unix? I want SPECIFICS people!
Re:BSD is not SysV (Score:1)
A BSD derived syntax
Yes, but if you get the latest procps, you can make it work the right way... :-)
ps -ef
--
Re:Chip on sholuder? Plus a question (Score:1)
I've been using FreeBSD for four months, and I still prefer Linux and Solaris.
But, to each his own, y'know?
--
Re:User Friendly. (Score:1)
Once up and running, though, I find Linux to be much easier. With Solaris, I still have *lots* of work to do, adding miscellaneous packages, before I have what I consider to be a usable system. Under Solaris, after you dig around in CDE (yuk) or OpenLook (which honestly, I do not despise...no, really) a while, you find the shells, and the default shell is /bin/sh.
Don't get me wrong; I like Solaris, but only after it has been sufficiently GNUified...
--
Re:Linux != Unix? (Score:1)
I mean, if Linux is not unix, wtf is it then?
It's partially because of history, partially because of trademark law. BSD is a branch from the original AT&T source, at a point just after Version 7, so in that sense it could be considered "real Unix."
But in a technical, trademark sense, any OS can be considered UNIX(R) if it meets The Open Group's Single UNIX Specification (and you pay the $$$ to have the certification done); I understand that it doesn't even have to be based directly on SysV, and I also understand that at least one group was making a certified Linux distribution.
-lee
Re:Hmm. (Score:1)
Windows Cons:
Drive letters: more specifically, the logical volume structure *is* the physical volume structure. NT may be able to change the letter order so at least adding a new partition doesn't destroy all the links, but fundamentally you see the cruft. So instead of the beauty of a
Windows pro: Odds are you know someone who is pretty good with Windows to go to for help. Ditto on trying to hire programmers, admins, etc.
Windows pro: uniformity of interface for Windowed applications. While far from perfect, it is still more uniform than Linux ones.
Windows con: Apps generally designed from the ground up to have graphical interface, with batch modes added later. Linux stuff tends to be command-driven first and foremost. Thus Windows apps are typically less scriptable. Likewise scripting languages seem less mature, although perhaps VBA is getting usable for this.
Re:Chip on sholuder? Plus a question (Score:1)
Linux folks seem to _love_ having a big bad enemy to fight against just as much as any other minority OS community.
It makes sense, too. After all, if you happen to think that your pet system is the best thing since sliced bread, then you needa reason why everyone isn't using it. It clearly can't be because something else is better, and it clearly can't be due to a flaw in your perfect system, so all that's left is finding an enemy to blame it on.
Re:Core question remains unanswered (Score:1)
Re:Hmm. (Score:2)
About 10 seconds. I was there as a linux consultant, but they wanted to show me the windows version. As I sat down and hit something, it lost control of the windowing system. I asked, "but can't you kill things now." Not if the program you use to kill them is out of control . . .
I've also used it to download onto floppies for initial linux boot disks, and to transfer files since the floppy on my desktop went south. The P90's in that lab under wfwg (oops, not NT; haven't checkec again) had 20-25% of the networking performance of a 486/66 under linux.
Hmm, that's not why I'm posting this, that was a sidenote.
10 seconds of really trying to use NT, one crash.
Three years of linux, macbsd, and now freebsd:
macbsd: 1 kernel panic in 4-6 months of use. Apparently related to using a not-quite-ready driver for X.
debian: 2.5 years on my desk, no crashes or panics in 24/7 operation. We did have some panics while setting up scsi, but that's because we had no idea what kind of card it was, and had to use trial & error (insmod, then read). With the card identified, no more crashes.
debian: 1 year, we thought we had a crash on my boss's machine, but there were no logs indicating this after we reset it. When I went over to reset it when it happened again, it turned out that the problem wasn't a crash, but that half that building had dropped of the campus network.
freebsd: last three or four months, my desktop, I've found that accessing the defective floppy drive can clobber the kernel. It takes a couple of hours, but it never stops trying to access it (linux returns an error), and it slowly dies.
OK, so my NT sample is quite small, but in those 10 seconds, I had more real crashes than in 3 years of bsd & linux.
Re:Chip on sholuder? Plus a question (Score:1)
Re:Chip on sholuder? Plus a question (Score:1)
Re:Core question remains unanswered (Score:1)
Since when have OS's become so communist? All for the good of all.. This is capitalism, BABY!!
Re:Linux feels like SysV while *BSD _is_ BSD (Score:1)
Re:Hmm. (Score:1)
NT is a single user system with some multiuser abilities. *nix in general is a Multiuser system that can be USED as a single user system, but is not suited..
IMHO.. NT on the desktop, Linux on the server = least support costs.. (IN THE LONG run..)
If it looks like a duck... (Score:1)
Re:slashdot.org readers *own* biases (Score:1)
Re:RH 6.0 (Score:1)
I run Stampede with glibc-2.1.1, kernel 2.2.10, and it never crashes. period. I've had similar experiences with Debian Potato. Bad packaging can ruin a stable system.
In the sense that xBSD has a tighter leash, it might appear more stable, but carefully choosing your distribution will result in an equally stable machine.
It reeks of snobbery. (Score:3)
Since when is supporting affordable hardware an unimportant goal? I don't feel like buying the most expensive, and only supported device X, when I can have full support under Linux.
If anything, this article is thinly veiled Linux-bashing by a holier-than-thou BSD user, and as much as I like FreeBSD for running Apache, I've found xBSD users to have an air of distain for all things non-BSD.
Linux is not xBSD on training wheels. It's an alternative, original implementation of classic UNIX concepts. It happens to run Quake3 accelerated on my Voodoo3? Does that make it less valid? I can run it on my desktop, and run a web server, sshd, and ftp.
I've read more unbiased opinions from NT supporters, and that's really sad.
Re:Hmm. (Score:1)
Re:Lack of real technical content (Score:1)
The phrasing "step up" was unfortunate, I should have said "move to". The phenomenon of Linux users adopting FreeBSD, NetBSD, or OpenBSD *has* been a large portion of the new users of BSD in the past 18 months, and seems to be growing. This article was a comment on that trend, NOT an exhortation to Linux users to dump Linux and move to BSD.
As for a technical points, I'll point out one here that illustrates the difference in depth. In the virtual memory system, when a process needs a new memory page, both Linux and FreeBSD "zero" the page before handing it to the process, so the process won't get potentially privileged data, like passwords, from the previous owner of the page. On Linux, the page is zeroed as it is allocated. This works well. On FreeBSD, there is a queue of pages that have been released but not zeroed, and a queue of pre-zeroed pages. A kernel task running at idle priority zeroes pages from the free list and places them on the pre-zeroed list when the system isn't busy. This tends to make new page allocations faster when spare cycles are available.
Due partly to code like this, BSD has a well deserved reputation for running very well under heavy loads. It is commonly used by high volume web and ftp servers.
If you'd like to read more about details like that, read the white paper by Matt Dillon, or better yet, look into things yourself. This is only software, it's not voodoo.
If you really want to learn the technical differences between Linux and one or more of the BSD systems, the best way to do that is to install them both and live with them side-by-side. I doubt you'll find either one of the always the best for every task, but you may discover you like one more than the other for good reasons. Either way, you win -- you've made an intelligent choice rather than just clinging to prejudices and others opinions.
Re:Good and bad aspects of Linux and FreeBSD (Score:1)
Re:Good and bad aspects of Linux and FreeBSD (Score:1)
I don't know if NFSv3 is really "NFS done right," I'll defer to Mr. Cox on that one. I assume you're referring to Alan Cox of Linux fame, rather than Alan Cox of FreeBSD fame.
Re:How is Solaris x86 (Score:1)
If, on the other hand, you are running a heavily loaded server on a high-end 4-CPU server box with gigs of RAM, Solaris screams. It has arguably the best SMP support available, much better than NT or Linux, well tested and well developed multi- threaded servers (think NFSv3 here), and good commercial support for high-end applications like Netscape Enterprise server and Oracle database server. (Probably better support in the SPARC world than x86, but the x86 system is still very fast on high-end SMP equipment.)
You certainly won't be wasting your time or your ten dollars to order and install Solaris on a system and do some poking around. Make sure you have plenty of spare disk space, though, Solaris is huge.
Re:Good and bad aspects of Linux and FreeBSD (Score:1)
\U@\h stated we both know why NFS is mostly implemented in kernel-land.
Because it's an ugly, god-awful hack that requires kernel mode support to even work? Or did you have a good reason for putting something that huge and ugly into the kernel?
Re:Good and bad aspects of Linux and FreeBSD (Score:1)
They have been, and Solaris as well. Guess which one came out on top, beating even NT? Solaris, of course. Anyone who thinks those Sun guys and gals sleep for a living is deluded.
Like the Linux engineers participating in the test, the FreeBSD people participating learned a lot about sustaining high througput on a high-end server, and learned a lot about how the system performs currently and how it might be improved. I don't have specifics on the performance numbers, nor when they might be published. I doubt the numbers I heard had even been audited for accuracy yet, but I suspect that both Linux and FreeBSD will perform much better in the next round. Both have already seen development (in Linux 2.3 and FreeBSD 4.0) based on what was learned at this benchmark, and we'll all benefit from this.
It'll be interesting to see if Microsoft can keep up.
Re:Good and bad aspects of Linux and FreeBSD (Score:1)
Netperf is a tool for measuring network throughput, but has nothing to do with FTP throughput. If you want to measure FTP throughput, you have to use actual FTP servers and clients. A more fair test would be to install FreeBSD and Linux on both machines and test each combination of FreeBSD and Linux, server and client, running on each machine, to see if you can characterize performance. Short of that, you have a few datapoints but not enough to draw any conclusions.
Some of the FreeBSD ethernet drivers do actually work fast enough to overrun anything but a full duplex switched network. The time between packet transmissions is so short it has been known to run Windows ftp clients straight into the ground, stuffing data into them faster than they can take it. Linux, on the other hand, is capable of receiving these packets quickly enough to not require retries.
YOU reek of snobbery. (Score:1)
``I don't see a Code Warrior for xBSD''. I don't see a Code Warrior for Debian, or SuSE, or Caldera, or SlackWare, or Turbo, or any other Linux-based operating systems either. I do happen to have a beta of Code Warrior for Solaris at work, and like Code Warrior for RedHat, it's not terribly impressive. It's a half-baked editor with a cheesy binary project file build system wrapped around the same GNU compiler you can download for free from Cygnus. I'll stick with Emacs, thank you. If you want to look at an innovative approach to building complicated systems, see Jam/MR [perforce.com] from Perforce Software. It's available under a free license and runs on Linux, xBSD, and just about anything else. Before you jump to point out that CodeWarrior for RedHat will run on Debian, or SuSE, or whatever, let me assure you it will run on FreeBSD as well.
``Linux is not xBSD on training wheels. It's an alternative, original implementation of classic UNIX concepts.'' Yup, you're exactly right. What my article points out is that Linux and xBSD are very closely related, both by the direct cross-pollination between the development groups and by the amount of shared code they use. Both Greg Lehey and I have written before about the difference in focus between FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD, and I was showing our mostly BSD-based readership that Linux is very similar. In point of fact, it is probably the most like NetBSD, due to the portability of the Linux kernel, but is fairly close to FreeBSD as well, since much of the focus remains on the PC architecture. In addition to that, it has additional focuses, such as embracing a wide range of hardware, that differentiate it from all of the BSDs.
I suggested Linux is the best starting place for those who don't already know UNIX not because Linux is some goofball stripped down system with ``training wheels'', but rather because the developers of Linux have done such a good job of making it run and run well on just about anything. The developers of Linux also really care about those guys with the $29 tape drive, because they were all ``some guy with a $29 tape drive'' once themselves.
So, let's stop reading all your Linux snobbery into my article and take it at face value. When I say developing a device driver for a $29 tape drive doesn't mean the developer is wasting his time, that is exactly what I mean. I phrased it the way I did because that was the next natural question for the Horshacks in the audience to raise: ``Oooh! Oooh! Mr. Kotter! Doesn't that mean the developer is like wasting his time?'' ``No, Arnold, it means he has a working tape drive and you do too.''
Class dismissed.
Re:Could it be? (Score:1)
Go back to Daemon News [daemonnews.org] and read some of the other columns and articles, or maybe a few back issues. This isn't the only thing that has ever appeared there, you know. ;^)
Core question remains unanswered (Score:3)
The other thing that troubles me is the common thread that I saw running through the article and that I also see in some of the comments made so far here on Slashdot. That thread is the idea that Linux exists for new users to learn UNIX on, and if they want to actually do anything serious with their hardware, they need to "move on" to the *BSDs. This, to me, says that the common image of Linux in the UNIX community is that it is nothing more than "UNIX on training wheels." Does no one take Linux seriously outside of the Linux community?
Re:Lack of real technical content (Score:1)
>I've never used a laser, or even seen one in action.
Never listened to a cd?
--
Re:Hmm. (Score:1)
Windows will beat Linux like it beat Mac (Score:2)
What's missing from this (Score:1)
User friendliness. While use friendliness is a topic that does not usually come up in discussions about unix, it warrants mention here.
Linux is by far the most user friendly unix out there. Usually bash is included as the default shell with the emacs key bindings already set up. BSD uses csh with no CLI editing configured. This is a major turn off to a newbie. This is just an example - this kind of user friendliness pervades linux and is totally absent from BSD (and commercial unices as well). I remember when I first used linux, setting up my ethernet card was very easy. And I was utterly unix-clueless at the time. After a year of using linux, I decided to give FreeBSD a try and it took me quite a while to figure out how to set it up.
Linux has many little setup tools like linuxconf and the distributions usually include their own nice setup utilities.
Linux has a very strong user friendly focus. Linux aims to be for home users as well as professionals. Even slackware is easier than BSD. BSD seems to me a very insular community.
BSD is very painful for someone who does not know unix. BSD might convert some people from linux, but it will never convert anyone from windows.
right on (Score:1)
yes I've installed solaris ... (Score:1)
Re:Linux feels like SysV while *BSD _is_ BSD (Score:1)
Do you mean like Sun, Digital, SCO, Apple, SGI, HP, and any other SVR4 adopters have?
Re:Chip on sholuder? Plus a question (Score:1)
I agree with this every step of the way. I used Linux for about a year before I got fed up by the lack of documentation, bloated utilities and unexplained crashes. I installed FreeBSD on the system instead and it was a godsend. No more unexplained crashes. No more corrupted file systems. Things worked correctly, the first time. There is a clean, consistent interface. The code is significantly smaller and easier to understand. I can upgrade the source and rebuild and install with one command line. FreeBSD is truly a superior systems.
Re:Good and bad aspects of Linux and FreeBSD (Score:1)
> working on it lost his commit rights due to > personal differences with a core team member).
NFS is an insecure and scary way of doing things.
> smbfs isn't supported on FreeBSD, that's right.
...
> There could be possibly a new distro based on > FreeBSD. You could even sell it and not give
> away your source code, thanks to the BSD > license.
And how is this bad? Linux and GNU like to claim to be "freely redistributable" and like to give freedoms to the users. But this one isn't given. FreeBSD is far more free than GNU or Linux could ever dream of.
Re:Practical Experience (Score:1)
Re:Linux != Unix? (Score:1)
(So will Tannenbaum or Torvalds be the first to put a price on my head?)
Re:Chip on sholuder? Plus a question (Score:1)
Re:Chip on sholuder? Plus a question (Score:1)
Re:Linux != Unix? (Score:1)
Re:C'T is not as unbiased as you think (Score:1)
If it is Linux advocacy, it is at least good Linux advocacy. I can't remember the text in the HOWTO exactly, but it states something like:
Now, C'T' did point out some weaknesses in Linux, and even if it was a biased test, they recommended NT in certain situations./* Steinar */
Re:Hmm. (Score:2)
I would not call such people real Linux advocates. This article, and the Linux/NT (by c'n', or something, wasn't it?) are both examples of fair, well-written articles, and also counts as Linux advocacy, evne though perhaps it wasn't originally meant as such.
Every OS has pros and cons, and if you neglect that, you won't make a very good impression.
I think more people should read the Linux Advocacy HOWTO, and stick to it.
/* Steinar */
Absolutely (Score:1)
That's what it all comes down to. I think RMS has done wonders, but sometimes is too idealistic about GNU/Linux. ERS has done wonders, but sometimes is too insistent that OSS provides better quality control. I simply want to OWN the software I have, and not be dependent on big fscked corporations setting restrictions withlicenses and closed proprietary software.
--
BSD != non-Linux (Score:1)
--
Because proprietary software is too restricting (Score:1)
If I upgrade my OS, chances are the old software won't work. DLL hell anybody?
Or buy a different processor. With OSS, just recompile most of the time and you are ready to go.
I don't have to wirry about bugfixes also coming with unwanted upgrades, either. How many M$ upgrades come with IE, and won't work unless you install it?
That's why I don't like proprietary software. And M$ seems to lead the way in proprietary ugliness.
--
What do you think you're timing there? (Score:1)
Change one variable at a time, then try it. Or try all four combinations.
--
Chip on sholuder? Plus a question (Score:5)
In another annoying poke at Linux, he says BSD systems shine at this, with their ability to provide a usable email server for numerous users on a castoff 486 PC. Uh, pardon me, Linux too, excuse me. Chip on his shoulder again?
I'm also annoyed at the somewhat patronizing attitude that Linux is our most fertile recruiting ground, and When they move on to BSD, as if Linux is merely a step in the path to true enlightenment with BSD.
Well, well, not bad overall for a BSD fanatic. I suppose Linux has raving Anonymous Cowards, and BSD has patronizing snobs. Not sure which is worse. Wouldn't it be a nice world without both?
For what it's worth, I chose Linux because the development seemed more open, so to speak. Not so tightly controlled. Plus, there are 3 BSDs, and I often wonder how well BSD-specific code ports from one to the other. I imagine that if I settled on one of them, it wouldn't really matter much at all, but I want my system for exploration, not production, so it changes all the time, and I am not interested in monolithic upgrades. I expect I would be perfectly happy with the "UNIX-ness" of any them. But a choice had to be made, and I am not interested in remaking that decision for "just another UNIX system".
--
Re:Linux != Unix? (Score:1)
Linux did not grow out of Minix... it does not and never has had any Minix code in it. It did use the Minix file system at first and Linus (I believe) used Minix as the initial development platform, but that is all.
We would thank you to not spread this kind of misinformation.
Xenix. (Score:1)
---
Openstep/NeXTSTEP/Solaris/FreeBSD/Linux/ultrix/OS
Re:Hmm. (Score:2)
We use NT systems extensively at my company, with quite competent administration, and the servers and workstations still occasionally crash (or become ultra slow and require a reboot - probably a memory leak or similar).
I have yet to see a Linux system crash, and don't even know what an 'oops' message looks like - by contrast, my mother, who is retired, has had to become horribly familiar with NT BSODs so that she can accurately report problems...
My one criticism of Linux as a server is its recovery from power failures - maybe our Linux boxes weren't set up properly, but they took a long time to be recovered after a power failure, even the one with an ICP Vortex RAID controller.
However, logging/journalling filesystems a la XFS should solve this, and we probably didn't have enough UPS capacity to allow a clean shutdown, so it could probably have been avoided. I don't know all the details as I'm not a sysadmin, but we do have a very competent BSD/Linux sysadmin here.
Re:Hmm. (Score:2)
You have to include the cost of ownership. Nobody will convince me that Linux is cheaper to maintain than NT.
You may never believe it, but this is simply a fact for many of us. Generally, the Linux user is a more computer-saavy person than the Windows user. They're more likely to fix their own machine than to incur costs in paying someone else to come and do it.
Many of us who have run both kinds of servers believe that Windows is less reliable than Linux, and this really does affect support cost. There are other more measurable means to make this argument though. I have a Mac at home, and I run a remote Linux box that does DNS for 8 domains, a web server, ftp server, mail (SMPT/POP), etc. If this machine were a PC, I'd have to buy Timbuktu to do any remote maintenance from my house or work. As it is, I just log in via a rhs/ssh/telnet/whatever, do my work, and log out. No cost incurred save my own time.
Hardware is another issue. Because of Linux, I can get a server-quality OS for free that will run on the hardware I already have. This box is a PowerPC Linux box, so I couldn't put Windows on it anyway. I saved a good bit of money right there.
What?! NT is just as stable as Linux. My NT box at work has now an uptime of something like 8 months. As long as your hardware is up to scratch and you don't mess up the registry by hand NT is rock solid. How long did you use NT for?
I have an NT4 box at work. The registry is corrupted, and I never edited it by hand. I can't get it to run Flash content, because it seems to believe that all Flash content is some kind of inheirently unsafe ActiveX control, and it won't let me. Admittedly, I'm not a Windows guru, but I'm pretty competent. Because NT is commercial, and I don't want to turn the corporate support guys loose on the machine I depend on to get work done, I have to use a much slower Mac to do all my Flash/Generator testing. Reliability means more than the lack of a BSOD/kernel panic. In Linux, the web browser is an application. If it gets corrupted (not likely, since I can't modify it unless I'm root), I just reinstall. In WindowsNT, the browser is "integrated", and reinstalling it doesn't fix the problem. It's not like a Mac either, where I can just go find the offending file and delete it. You're stuck relying on "Uninstall", which doesn't work reliably.
On a side note, my NT box generally goes about a month between reboots (usually a crash), compared to about every two months for the Linux box (getting a new kernel, etc). Both are acceptable uptimes for what I use them for.
Re:Hmm. (Score:2)
1) Many people using Linux/*BSD have tried Windows and found it painful/bloated/expensive/etc., and are thus not particularly interested in a comparison.
2) Many Linux/*BSD users are quite simply not interested in a non-free OS.
3) Any such comparison would eventually deteriorate into "Linux/*BSD has this - Windows doesn't", "Windows has this - Linux/*BSD doesn't" discussion, simply because Un*x systems and Windows systems were originally designed for very different purposes. Windows was designed as a graphic shell to DOS; Linux was designed as a Un*x replacement; the *BSD design comes from the original Unix, aiming for a proper multiuser OS.
And last of all:
4) I find your comment about Windows - "most aspects of it suck" - to be a more than sufficient answer to your question.
Re:Core question remains unanswered (Score:2)
The answer is simple: Not all user needs are the same.
Prime examples of why Linux is better for newbies: The basic tasks of installing 3rd party software, and kernel configuration...
For a new user, trying to figure out what the options in a BSD kernel config file do is hellish. The menu-based system Linux has is easy to figure out and much more comfortable for newbies, especially if they come from a Windows background where everything is menu-based. On the other hand, if I (a FreeBSD user of about 4 years) just want to make a quick change, firing up a text editor, finding the line I want to edit, changing it, and saving the file can take well under 5 seconds. Digging through a menu system is a bit more tedious. While it is possible to cross the systems (have a menu program that creates a text config, or a text config that sets the menu options) there doesn't seem to be sufficient demand in either camp AFAICS (though I haven't used Linux since Debian 1.1). Both camps are happy with their way of doing things.
Third-party software install is also different. Under Linux, there are fancy menu-based (usually also accessable by command-line) programs that are devoted to package management. Again, new users will find a menu system to be more comfortable. On the other hand, *BSD, instead of using a special menu-based packaging program, uses a "ports" system that is based on standard compiler tools. You cd to the software's skelton port directory (which contains only a few files, and the entire ports tree is just 8 megs to download) and type "make install". The ports system automatically does dependancy checking and installation, downloads the actual software from one of the distribution sites, checks the MD5 signature, unpacks the files, applies any patches that might be needed, compiles the software, installs it, and registers the installation. It does everything the fancy packaging software in Linux does, but does it the "Unix way" of combining a bunch of generalized tools to perform a specific task.
The important thing to remember though, is that both systems work. The differences I've outlined above (which are probably the two most obvious differences for most users) are religious differences. Both systems work but you get to choose which system you prefer. New users almost always prefer the Linux way (which is why BSDers consider Linux a "training ground"), but once they learn how things work they actually have a choice in what religion they prefer for their everyday activities.
Choice is good.
Good and bad aspects of Linux and FreeBSD (Score:3)
Linux
-NFS server: not so good (is there any work being done on this?)
-SMB client: good
-SMP: good (could be better)
-Portability: good
-Ease of configuration: good (I love System V and kernel modules)
-RAID: never tried
-TCP/IP: good (I add this just because the older Linux kernel didn't do TCP/IP near as well as FreeBSD)
FreeBSD
-NFS server: good
-SMB client: not so good (I don't think kernel level support exists - ie smbmount. does it?)
-SMP: not so good
-Portability: not so good (use NetBSD - whole other topic)
-Ease of configuration: Ok (but I really wish they would move to System V - is it possible to make a disto that is System V?)
-RAID: good (I love vinum)
-TCP/IP: good
I know, I know - some of my opinions are probably ill formed, please correct me where I may be wrong.
Re:xBSD = (Score:2)
cjs
Re:Core question remains unanswered (Score:2)
The need comes from differing needs in the user and developer groups. A quite typical example is `bounce buffers' to let you use an Adaptec 1542 in a machine with more than 16 MB of RAM. NetBSD lived without this capability for almost two years longer than Linux, until a clean, general, platform-independent solution was implemented. This has advantages (NetBSD is still the only system in which you can put a 1542 in an Alpha and have it work), but there are a lot of users out there who didn't care how ugly the hack was, they wanted that 1542 working right away. They got what they needed in Linux and FreeBSD; the purists got what they wanted in NetBSD. Now, in your proposed merger, which user group were you going to tell to get lost?
cjs
Re:xBSD = (Score:2)
You should learn a little more about the history of Unix before you start talking about how old BSD is. Peter Salus has a good book on it.
cjs
Re:Linux feels like SysV while *BSD _is_ BSD (Score:2)
This hits on something that the article, and most bsd'ers, fail to mention. I hear a lot of people citing the stability and security of *BSD compared to linux, but it's not an even comparison. If you compare kernel-to-kernel, they're probably about equal. Most linuces ship with a far greater spread of applications than the *BSDs, and are therefore mathematically more likely to contain a set of exploitable code.
So, until someone comes up and says, "codewise, thise, this, and this methodology are employed in SomeBSD and are proven more stable/secure/sexy," I don't buy it. the BSD's I've played with are, at heart, just like linux, without the toys. I like toys.
And, of course, as soon as you prove a linuxism wrong, someone will fix it. IF BSD really _was_ better, someone would have adopted the code long ago.
Long rant short, it's all the same crap. Shut up and code.
Then please find some (Score:2)
Look, I'm on a number of mailing lists and projects (generally in the periphery (sp?) for most), and the people there are virtually all intelligent, level headed people. You tend to find more people who believe in the GPL than you will in other places, but by and large you find competent people getting work done.
Go to LUGs, you'll find linux users from every walk of life. Some smart, some not so smart, some brilliant, some questionably mentally incompetent. A wide variety of people like and use Linux, and forming your opinion of them in a place nearly guaranteed to be unrepresentative is a little strange.
Oh, Linux is a better client side OS than NT as long as you have a sysadmin for it, if for no other reason than it's not the path to hellish vendor lock-in. I've seen a place which runs just about every incarnation of windows under the sun (including different service pack levels of both NT 3.51 and NT 4.0) because some particular proprietary software package will only work on that particular version, heaven knows why. And let's see you remote display on a Mac's interface. Of course, you can probably come close to duplicating a Mac's wm/interface nowadays with gnome/E, so it's not even much of a point.
Note, the interface issue is a really dumb one to bring up. I'm a power user, so I can't stand the mac interface. Some people love it. Interfaces are extremely subjective things.
Anyhow, my experience with *BSD people, aside from slashdot, has them generally being pretty decent people, and I've whitnessed great levels of cooperation for portability whenever needed. These holy wars generally only exist in isolated places. The majority of people live with each other, just like the rest of life.
I'm not surprised at the insecure people who find meaning in their lives through enemies bashing everything but their one true foo. That's always happened and always will. i'm a bit surprised at level-headed sounding people thinking that those people are at all representative.
Oh, and microsoft is a real enemy. Just like carthage to the romans, microsoft must be destroyed for the good of the computing community in general, be it mac, sun, *bsd, linux, os2, etc. Everyone else can work with each other relatively well, M$ is the only one who's trying to kill off the rest. Personally, as a linux user, I hope that both linux and the BSDs flourish. As a man who has to live in the world, I hope that microsoft dies. There are real enemies and there are fake enemies. The BSDs and Linux are anything but enemies. Microsoft and everyone else are nothing but enemies. Please keep the two straight.
As for the users, there's no real generalizing them. I've seen everyone from great programmers to great novices using Linux, just like nearly everything in life. Why overgeneralize? life's to short to be wrong.
Re:Hmm. (Score:2)
1. Only making left turns under 9 mph
2. Never going faster than 55 mph
3. Always using extra high super octane fuel
4. Always getting manufacturer supplied hyper-expensive parts
5. Not adding things like GPS units, replacing the air conditiong system, or getting a CD player.
6. Occasionally turning my car off and starting it up again while I'm driving.
Would you say that that's the mark of a good car?
As long as you're willing to redefine normal operating conditions, anything can be stable. That's not the point. Stability isn't about adapting your computing to your computer, it's about adapting your computer to your computing.
Do you really not think that users not being able to install their own software is normal? Hell, UNIX/Linux systems are designed in such a way that users can add their own system libraries without affecting any other user or system stability (minus disk space requirements).
Re:Lack of real technical content (Score:3)
I was hoping to read about the real, nitty gritty differences between the two, like:
"Well, FreeBSD handles network configuration This Way and Linux does it This Way"
I have never used a BSD, or even seen one in action. I have been using Linux for a year now and was really hoping to learn what BSD was all about, specifically what it does better than Linux.
The author seems to have a attitude that Linux will train the newbies who will then "Step Up" to a BSD, but he really gives me no reason to, no hints as to why a BSD would be a step up from Linux.
Anyone want to post what the BSDs do better than Linux and vice-versa?
-geekd
Lack of real technical content (Score:3)
Practical Experience (Score:2)
Having used FreeBSD and Linux for a number of years now... well, I'll share my own opinion on the xBSD vs. Linux ball of wax.
Linux gets the nod from me for a desktop workstation. It's got the widest support of obscure hardware, multimedia support, graphics support, and so on.
xBSD (FreeBSD in perticular) gets the nod from me for serving. It is infinately more stable and secure then any flavor of Linux I've tried, out of the box, without any tuning. My Linux boxes are just fine for creating content, and mild serving. But, past experience has taught me not to trust them for serving huge mission critical projects.
Don't get me wrong, I like Linux. However, the development structure is just too muddled. There's some excellent code, some good code, and some not so good code. FreeBSD (and call this snobbish if you will, but it works) has a 'tighter fist' as I put it on source, Open but it gets scrutinized more, as such it's stable and secure as a rock. Sure, explots show up (e.g. the 3.2 natd thing) but they are much less common then the Linux expolits which turn up. e.g. Teardrop, and the fistfull of other DoS attacks on Linux. Sure, they are patched within hours of being found, but with xBSD they generally aren't there to begin with.
FreeBSD, from the people who brought you TCP/IP.
Re:Chip on sholuder? Plus a question (Score:2)
If you want set up a free UNIX [-like] workstation, I would recommend Linux for a variety of reasons (which I won't cover here. It's late). But, for me, when I'm putting together a server, I tend to go with BSDs. For that purpose, they just work better. It's simple a question of the proper tool for the job, not advocacy, religion, or otherwise. If I'm doing graphical work or word processing, I prefer to use a Mac, even though I guess I could run the GIMP and some office app on a 'NIX box.
If you're serving lots of data and want a ridiculously reliable system, I would say to go with a BSD although I would never use it as a desktop OS.
To paraphrase, use what works best for the task at hand, Linux, BSD, or otherwise.
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
Re:Hmm. (Score:2)
I've been thinking about this. I'm beginning to notice that in many ways, some of Microsoft's products are satisfactory for most of my "everyday" end-user type needs. They're even satisfactory for my net access needs. So, I wonder, why do I have lingering (OK, sometimes consuming) hostility toward them? Largely because of their behavior. I worry that someday they really might win and I'll have no choice. Though Open Source largely seems to have fixed the no choice problem for now.
I think I also hate them because I got my broadest exposure to their products from 1993-1995. I'd always thought DOS was emasculated
UNIX, but when I encountered FoxPro 2.5 for DOS
(and was expected to write a real application
in it; this while Delphi actually existed)and Win 3.1 and its ilk up close, I really hated Microsoft. But Windows 95 and NT really are better (than previous MS products). Although I will never touch FoxPro again, maybe not even for large sums of money.
Hmmm. I'm just meandering. I guess my main point is that it's snuck up on me that MS's products, by and large, have become tolerable for me. In some cases, even adequate. Anybody else feeling
this?
Re:Good and bad aspects of Linux and FreeBSD (Score:2)
Re:Hmm. (Score:2)
(All points are in no order, just as I thought them up)
Pro's of Linux
1) Affordability. The OS, the apps, free. And more then just free beer, free code too.
2) Portability. Runs across most any platform.. Arm, PPC, x86, Alpha, Sparc, etc.
3) Development. Always growing, updates quickly available. Sure it's not complete and buggy in parts, but it's being fixed! Plus, all devel tools (gcc, etc) are free too (see 1)
4) Community. This means a LOT actually. The community not only comments, critiques, assists and what not, it contributes through coding. This makes support free.
5) Configurability. Linux can be a DNS/SMTP server on a 486 in a closet. It can be a file sharing intranet server. It can be a webserver of large size (/. anyone?). It can also be a workstation, a development box, etc. Also, how can you not like themeable wm's and widget sets?
Linux's Cons
1) Software. Sure, we're working on it. But we aren't there Just Yet(tm). Sure we have apps that wordprocess (Abiword, StarOffice, WP, etc), but nothing quite as nice as Office (Please, I don't like WordPerfect's Motif feel)
2) Development. It's a con too, not everythings finished, and it's not going to change. Well, it is changing, all the time. It's a growing OS, always growing, making holes and filling them.
3) Install. (Way)Less of a point then it used to be, but it's not easy to, say, take your average WinBox and add Linux. You have to deal with partitions, installation, configuration, etc.
Pros for Windows
1) Community. If a lot of people use it, even if that's because it's all that's out there, this will mean people will know it. This makes for a lot of books, software, etc.
2) Software. Just about everything sold on the average computer store shelf is for Windows. This includes one of the Holy Grails, games. Sure, we have Civ:CTP and Q1/2/3 and a few more for Linux. But Windows has the rest. Not to mention the popular Office.
3) Compatibility. While not on as many platforms as Linux, you do get a lot of hardware support within the x86 architecture. Vid cards that don't have Linux support work in Windows, same with some sound cards (A3D anyone?). Sure, this is because noone needs release specs/source, many hardware companies are reluctant to do this.
Cons for Windows
1) Stability. Any OS that can be crashed simply because an app crashes is NOT good. Any OS that can crash for no real reason is NOT good. Need I go on?
2) Proprietary. Where's the source? Why's there a price tag? It's not open. If it breaks, you can't look at the source code to find out what's wrong and fix it.
3) Install. Hey, come on, Windows 95 had you click the mouse button on Next and decide on easily as much crap as my Debian install does. People don't notice this though, as it's always preinstalled.
As for learning curves? I remember when EVERYONE had a CLI. Remember DOS? Joe User could learn DOS. Heck, sit someone clueless down in front of Windows and they won't be totally effecient. I know people who have used computers for a year or two and all they know how to do is turn it on, launch IE/ICQ/Word and shut it down. Linux may take a little more base knowlege to use, but both systems must be learned.
Both systems have to be configured at some point. Plug & Pray still doesn't exist on a level that lets devices work flawlessly on insertion (with maybe the exception of a USB mouse).
Bottom line? I'd rather not say, my bottom line doesn't like Joe User and his I-Just-Want-It-To-Work and I-Can't-Be-Bothered-To-Learn-Anything attidudes. Computers are tools, powerful ones too. People should treat them as if they were as dangerous as a car or a buzzsaw.
In the end though.. I prefer Linux. So please note a slight bias
More technical details, please. (Score:2)
As some others have said, I also would have liked to see more technical details in the article. Before I read it, I expected at least a somewhat more technical article than it was. After reading it, I thought that there was very little content of interest to myself (and probably a majority of the others who read Slashdot).
I don't know a huge amount about the specific details of FreeBSD, but I have briefly installed and played with it (and will do so again when I free up a machine for it). I would have loved to learn a little more of the specifics, e.g. how the task scheduling and memory management is handled compared to Linux, etc.
I also found the article appeared to be a fair comparison on the surface, but to me the author seemed to be belittling the efforts of Linux developers, which is a real shame.
However, I don't know who the target audience for this article is, but I have a feeling that it's not the technical community, but more people who have a passing interest in Unix in general or more specifically, Linux/BSD.
One thing that was somewhat annoying was the author's example of running FreeBSD on a small system, and then saying that it scaled right up to big systems like Yahoo/Walnut Creek/etc. Although he provided some good examples of large systems which run FreeBSD, it was almost as if 'Linux can handle the in-between tasks'. However, I can't think of an example of a big/famous system running Linux to use as a counter (although I'm fairly sure that some exist).
Re:Hmm. (Score:2)
Anyone up to it?
Re:Hmm. (Score:2)
I try not to trash MS products. Inevitably, it happens, though.
My problem with Microsoft is its lack of stability. Even with a clean install of Windows, computers crash. Run a buggy program on it, it crashes. Restart the entire computer. Also, the fact that the system isn't reliable for long periods of time is an issue for me. Running a small web/ftp server means wanting my PC up for 24/7. Win9x can't do that. NT won't do that. Linux does.
Also, when Microsoft DOES come across a bug in their system, they say "We found this bug. We'll issue a fix for it with the next service pack..." 3 months later. In the Linux community, the story is "I found this bug. Here's what it is. Here's what it does. Here's a fix for it." In that instance, Open Source is a godsend. Bug fixes that are released WHEN the bug is announced? When do you see MS do that?
And my last point (for now) is a bit biased, but not because of a love for Linux:
Windows is too User Stupid. (flaimbait, or what?) It's been made so "user friendly" that a complete moron can sit down, use a few programs, play a few games, and turn the computer off (don't bother shutting down. Thank you for playing). I remember, in the not-so-distant past, when you had to LEARN how to use a computer. WHen you were faced with "C:\>" you needed to know what to do. I also liked having control over my system. Those cryptic dos commands meant being able to control what was happening with the system. With Windows, we're forced to use a GUI that has EVERYTHING predetermined in it. We're told what we can do and when we can do it.
Linux is different. Yes... There's a steep learning curve. Yes... it can be a pain to work with. But it also gives users control over what is happening. It forces a person to learn about a computer. It forces a person to learn how to use the computer. It forces people to read, ask questions, and search for answers. All of this, in my experience, leads people to a wealth of knowledge. How many different books can you have, with different info, for Windows 98? How many can you have for Linux? (I have 1 Win98 book and 5 Linux books).
I'm going to stop rambling.
Hmm. (Score:2)
--
Wonko the Sane
Re:Hmm. (Score:2)
Based on my experience this is LARGELY due to incompetent admins configuring and administering the boxes. We have some 90 NT boxes at the office. The servers DON'T BSOD, and neither do the workstations (although one or two may act weird every blue moon - a reboot usually fixes that).
NT can be very stable if you follow best business practices. If you just cowboy your NT boxes with cheap hardware, and the install-the-app-of-the-day routine that so many power users love, then you'll end up with a fruity box. We use stable drivers, we don't allow user-supplied software, and we test new software in the IS dept for a week or so before it's deployed. We use plain VGA drivers on servers and absolutely minimize console operations. We also don't allow all those damn little programs that come in through email to be run on the boxes. (Oh and we use NetWare for file services - the ACL's blow NT out of the water for configurability)
I drive the guys who work for me nuts with my rules, but they don't complain because they see the reliability pay-off.
Dave
NetBSD's scheduler/vm system (Score:2)
How to repeat: Start three compiling batches (you may even nice them to 5) and watch the response time (I tried console and ssh) drop off. I've never seen this behaviour on FreeBSD, Linux, and Solaris, systems I work with daily. A login takes several seconds at that time.
Anyone want to give me any hints? The system in question ran on a P200/96MB RAM, self-compiled kernel (tweaked GENERIC + i4b). Otherwise, I used only stock tools.
The system ran FreeBSD 2.2.x, 3.x and several Linux versions already, so I know that better response times are possible on exactly the same hardware.
Re:Good and bad aspects of Linux and FreeBSD (Score:2)
Note also that FreeBSD has some severe problems with NFS: Search on freebsd-hackers to find all the gory details (and that the main hacker working on it lost his commit rights due to personal differences with a core team member).
smbfs isn't supported on FreeBSD, that's right. But smbclient is, of course.
RAID is supported by both, each team claims to have better support, so I won't try to judge it. FreeBSD has a new SCSI subsystem which I always wanted to try (called CAM).
About the TCP/IP point: Yes, the Linux network code has been worse than FreeBSD's for some time. But it improved at a pace you wouldn't believe.
SysV-ish init system: That's a personal opinion. Search freebsd-questions and -hackers for this thread - it comes up almost every sunday.
There could be possibly a new distro based on FreeBSD. You could even sell it and not give away your source code, thanks to the BSD license.
Re:Practical Experience (Score:2)
Show me the person who worked on the first TCP/IP stack and who is still on the FreeBSD core team.
FreeBSD has very old, clumsy code. Matthew Dillon (FreeBSD coder) put it so:
I like to call it "algorithmic rot". In otherwords, after a decade or
two the kernel just isn't the squeeky clean implementation it could be.
I get screamed at a lot when I try to clean the rot up, because half the
time it involves not only documenting code but also rewriting routines
that don't actually contain bugs in order to prevent future rot. Kinda
like wood sealer. The KASSERT()s work that way too. You put them in to
force out the bugs and to prevent new ones from entering.
And now show me any FreeBSD system which isn't vulnerable against DoS attacks. I hope, you don't run any email server.
Re:Core question remains unanswered (Score:2)
It is sad that Linux if often portrayed as a ``wannabe'' Unix. It would be great if we could all stop bickering about FreeBSD vs. Linux, FreeBSD vs. NetBSD etc. and just get on with writing good code and making all the systems better.
From a very happy FreeBSD user, who also teaches SysAdmin with both FreeBSD and RedHat Linux.