Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD
- From: Ed Heagle <eheagle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 23:34:13 -0600
In article <1134016707.701890.231830@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Daveman750" <dsimcha@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have noticed that Linux seems to be more popular than FreeBSD as an
> emerging desktop OS, while FreeBSD seems to be very popular as a server
> OS.
Somewhat true, I guess. FreeBSD is quite popular for Web servers or so I
have heard.
> Having used Linux but not FreeBSD, this seems to be the opposite
> of what is logical. Linux is very fragmented and modular, which can be
> a plus on a server that you set up once and leave, since it allows for
> more choice.
FreeBSD systems, in my experience, are just about as flexible. Depends
on what system you use more, your comfort level with the OS. You can
tune either system to peak performance. Both get it done.
> However, this fragmentation is a disadvantage on a
> desktop, where a major goal is wide compatibility.
Fragmentation in what sense? What do you mean exactly? And yes I agree
compatibility is a major goal, so is interoperability. Playing nice with
other systems is very important when you have a mixed network.
> Why has FreeBSD or
> some other BSD variant (my understanding is that FreeBSD is currently
> the most user-friendly) started to emerge as a desktop OS It seems
> that FreeBSD's more "unified" nature offers a huge advantage. Also,
> Apple has had success using BSD-derived Darwin, which indicates that
> BSD is basically a viable desktop OS.
The unified nature that I think you are referring to is important.
FreeBSD comes from one group. The kernel, userland apps, and so on are
from the same place. Additions to any of this, I believe, have to be
approved by the core group or something like that. If someone want to do
something different that isn't supported by the core group, the often
splinter off and create their own BSD, independent from the original.
Linux, in my opinion, suffers sometimes from having so many
distributions. You could go on all day on how many there really are. The
one big problem with this, in my opinion, is that each have different
ways of doing things. Different package management schemes, different
ways to configure, different ways to do whatever. Don't take this wrong,
this isn't really that bad but it can cause problems sometimes.
As for the whole desktop debate, either one works for the task. Either
one can do the job. Your milage may vary. Constant bickering isn't going
to solve anything. If either system is going to take any of the market
share from you know who, more work is going to have to be put in the
overall user friendly part to make it mainstream.
Lets not see this become a bloody flamewar...
--
Ed Heagle
"Funny how just when you think life can't possibly get any worse it
suddenly does." -- Marvin, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD
- From: Dances With Crows
- Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD
- From: Daveman750
- Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD
- References:
- Linux Vs. FreeBSD
- From: Daveman750
- Linux Vs. FreeBSD
- Prev by Date: Re: How to selectivey route messages?
- Next by Date: Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD
- Previous by thread: Linux Vs. FreeBSD
- Next by thread: Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
