FreeBSD vs Linux

[Vulpes Velox]

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 14:00:59 +0000
Dick Davies <rasputnik at gmail.com> wrote:

> [Let me first point out I've seen about 4 different 'unix/windows is
> teh gayz0r' threads on completely unrelated mailing lists in the
> last 24 hours.
> If I sound bored rigid with the whole subject that might be why.]
> 
> Can we please stop comparing *NIX to windows. They're nothing
> like each other. Like all software, they bothsuck in their own
> unique ways, it's just that BSD sucks in areas I mainly don't care
> about, and windows sucks at most of the things I do care about.
> 
> On 18/01/06, Martin Tournoy <carpetsmoker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Windows almost runs everything
> 
> > Quite the opposite, try running some application from a few years
> > back on windows 200 or XP, big chance it won't work.
> 
> So what? That's exactly the same for FreeBSD, even it's core apps.
> And vendors rush to support MS' new OSes.

And stuff is updated on other OSes as well. This part all around
seems over blown... better APIs come and old ones slowly go away.

> >  Microsoft pays hardware manufacturers to
> > make drivers for their OS,
> 
> I seriously doubt it. They don't need to with their market share.
> 
> > Upgrading is a pain on windows, upgrading from 98 to 2000 more or
> > less needs a format and clean install, while on FreeBSD you have
> > much more flexibility, so you can upgrade much easy er.
> 
> Have you ever brought 4.x up to 6.x? It doesn't sound like it.

My vote is to backup and reinstall, on major version bumps. I feel
the same regardless of the OS.

> There are tools to solve this for windows, and there has been
> for a long time.
> Try updating 200 FreeBSD boxes, then try the same with a decent
> imaging system for windows.

man 1 dd

> > Unix is for the masses, the only problem it has is a proper user
> > friendly GUI.
> 
> Then it isn't for the masses. Deal with it.

It is not a problem with the interface, but one of a problem with the
users. Unix is what ever you want it to be and most people don't know
what they want.

If some one does not know what they want or what they are doing,
they are pretty much screwed regardless of the interface.
 
> > With Windows on the other hand, you *HAVE* to do things as the
> > Microsoft programmers envisioned and liked things, and lacks a
> > lot of flexibility that FreeBSD does have
> 
> Can you justify that at all? If what you're saying boils down to
> 'you have the source' then I don't think that applies to 99% of
> users.

I feel focusing on what the average moron would do and following in
line in ones hardware/software/etc decisions in all around a bad move.

Use what works and what you like.

> > Say whatever you want, but the Unix permission system is better
> > than Window's, it much more simple
> 
> It's also very outdated and has been reinvented several times.
> RBAC, SeLinux and MAC would indicate it's not flexible enough for
> most people.

Nah, it just proves it has been updated in multiple ways. I do agree,
what we have currently works nicely.

> > The same goes for window's configuration, the registry, it's not
> > a bad idea, but horribly failed, now you have a huge file with a
> > lot of data, half of it redundant, and the worst is that it's
> > undocumented. FreeBSD simply has a set of configuration files,
> > mostly in /etc and /usr/local/etc most of them have a man page,
> > and an example file in /usr/share/examples/etc
> 
> That's not in itself a good thing. As I understand it, the registry
> is a central place for storing configuration details. /etc has
> nothing like that.
> 
> Think of something simple like a webserver docroot. Apache
> obviously needs to know about that, so might your ftp server, your
> backup/mirror scripts and so on. If you ever change that
> directories location, you'll have to update everything
> that references that path. That's a pain in the arse, and it's only
> one of dozens
> of annoyances with /etc.
> 
> The arguments you're making above equally
> apply to 4.x /etc, and I don't think you'd argue that rcNG is a vast
> improvement.
> Have a look at things like Solaris SMF and you realise that rcNG
> isn't as good as it could be either.

The only problem with rcNG is it can't currently handle a dynamic
config.

I honestly feel this problem of /etc and /usr/local/etc is vastly
over stated.