Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD

"Daveman750" <dsimcha@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Ed Heagle wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
> By compatibility I mean that different "flavors" are reasonably
> compatible. This is not true in Linux. Binaries from a Debian
> machine, for example, will simply not work on a Fedora macine, for the
> most part.

Umm, bull***. The /packages/ might not be compatible, but if you meet the
requirements, and extract it from something like a tarball, it'll work.
.

Quantcast