Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD
- From: George Ellison <notamisfit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:37:07 -0500
Centurion <spam.this@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Daveman750 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.
> ---8<--- SNIPPED ---8<---
>> Apple has had success using BSD-derived Darwin, which indicates that
>> BSD is basically a viable desktop OS.
>
> Apple's decision to use the FreeBSD code base had less to do with it's
> technical merits[1] and more to do with the BSD license. The GPL does not
> allow someone to come along fork the code and change it to closed-source.
> The BSD license on the other hand, DOES allow this sort of license change
> by a non-author.
>
True. And then, for some odd reason, Apple went and open-sourced their
already open-sourced code under a baroque weak-copyleft license.
> Having used both FreeBSD and Linux in both desktop and server roles, I think
> they both have their merits, and pitfalls. BSD's "ports" system is very
> similar to Gentoo's "emerge" and is a great (fantastic in fact) system if
> you're comfortable with compiling everything yourself. OTOH, many Linux'es
> binary and source packaging systems (deb/rpm et al) allow you to have the
> best of both worlds. Under Debian or RPM-based distros I can choose to
> compile from source, or use the pre-compiled binaries - I like that
> flexibility both on the desktop and in the server room. Whilst you CAN get
> pre-compiled binaries for the BSD's, it's far more common to use ports and
> compile yourself.
>
The main difference between ports and emerge is that the former is done with
shell scripts vice Python, and seems to be a hell of a lot faster as a
result.
Gentoo has a few binaries, but generally seems to steer clear of them. I
prefer this myself, but I can see where others wouldn't like it.
> [1] I'm sure if Linux were far superior from a technical point of view, the
> license debate wouldn't matter. The reality is that both Linux and the
> BSD's provide similar advantages and suffer similar bottle-necks.
> Head-to-head on the same hardware, it comes down to what is the best
> platform for task and for the administrator to support/secure. I use
> either, depending on what I'm trying to do.
I use Linux, but I've evaluated FreeBSD one time. IMO, it's nice, and the
cultural differences aren't too hard to figure out (compared to something
like Solaris). It really doesn't seem to be as responsive out of the box as
a Linux distro, but code compiling and such certainly seemed fast. There's
probably a way to change that, but I didn't stick around long enough to
figure it out (mainly because I found out I couldn't get an x86_64 driver
from nVidia).
--
Teacher: "The Central Planets formed the Alliance, so everyone can
enjoy the comfort and enlightenment of true civilization."
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD
- From: John Thompson
- Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD
- References:
- Linux Vs. FreeBSD
- From: Daveman750
- Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD
- From: Centurion
- Linux Vs. FreeBSD
- Prev by Date: Re: iterating over bash script params, preserving whitespace?
- Next by Date: Unix Administrator - Opening at Vcommerce Corporation - Arizona - Scottsdale
- Previous by thread: Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD
- Next by thread: Re: Linux Vs. FreeBSD
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
