FreeBSD & Linux distro
jerrymc at msu.edu
Tue Feb 19 16:40:37 UTC 2008
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:14:04AM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote:
A good rundown of some of the differences.
Maybe you can put this on a web page and get it added to lists
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 05:14:45AM -0800, Lone Wolf wrote:
> > But according to Wikipedia, FreeBSD is able to run Linux compatible software without any problems (exception for Linux Kernel 2.6)
> > I can't run Linux software on FreeBSD?
> "Linux" is technically the name of an OS kernel. FreeBSD has a different
> kernel -- the FreeBSD kernel.
> Various Linux distributions include different lineups of default basic
> userland software and OS infrastructure, but they tend to have a lot of
> the core stuff in common (in particular the GNU toolset). FreeBSD shares
> a few tools in common with most Linux systems (GCC, for instance), but
> many of the basic userland and other core system tools are developed in
> tandem with the FreeBSD kernel, and are specific to FreeBSD.
> Both Linux distributions and FreeBSD aspire (to varying degrees and in
> different ways) to a generalized Unix system design. FreeBSD is very
> much a descendant of the BSD Unix design (obviously) while Linux
> distributions tend more toward the SysV family of Unix. Because there is
> sort of a common Platonic ideal of Unix, however, they do tend to share a
> lot in common. Also, because Linux systems are not strictly descended
> from either the BSD Unix family or the SysV Unix family of operating
> systems, it differs from both approaches, and borrows a bit from both.
> It borrows a lot of code from the various BSD Unix systems, too, since
> three of the four major modern branches of BSD Unix are released under
> the BSD license.
> In my experience:
> FreeBSD tends to be more stable than Linux distributions. I'm sure
> some of this is attributable to the fact that the core OS is all
> developed as part of a greater whole, with exceptions for only a few of
> the core tools (like GCC). If those tools could be replaced with
> FreeBSD specific equivalents, or at least non-GNU equivalents, this
> might even improve further over Linux distributions, which are put
> together from collections of available software developed with no
> significant cooperation (other than the GNU toolset itself, whose
> development isn't even coordinated with Linux kernel development).
> FreeBSD tends to be easier to work with "under the hood" than Linux
> distributions. This is in large part due to the more unified design
> process of FreeBSD, but also seems to be a result of some other forces
> at work, since there are characteristics of FreeBSD system
> configuration and design that do not seem related to the fact it's more
> of a coordinated effort, but still contribute to greater ease of use.
> Most Linux distributions default to bash as the shell, while FreeBSD's
> default is (t)csh. This is a difference that occasionally catches new
> immigrants to FreeBSD from the Linux world off-guard. It's not a bad
> thing, though. For one thing, as far as I'm aware there are fewer
> dependencies for tcsh than for bash, so it's less likely to break if
> some underlying piece of software gets a bad update.
> Linux distributions, because they're basically just a kernel and a
> bunch of disparate pieces of software collected into a running whole,
> tend to include everything outside the kernel in a single software
> management system. FreeBSD differentiates between a "core" or "base"
> system and the ports system, which is the general software management
> system equivalent to the software management systems of Linux
> distributions. Because of this, your choice of software management
> system isn't so much a part of the identity of the OS you are using
> with FreeBSD, whereas with a Linux-based OS (aka "distribution"), your
> OS is differentiated from others of the same family by default install
> configuration, distribution project management of software archives,
> and the software management system.
> The FreeBSD community tends to be more knowledgeable and professional,
> and less crazy in its approach to OS advocacy, than the communities for
> most Linux distributions.
> FreeBSD documentation is some of the best OS documentation in the
> world. One of the reasons I made the switch is that I noticed I was
> actually using official FreeBSD documentation for working with my
> Linux-based systems as often as I was using the official documentation
> that came with, or from, my Linux distribution. The distro-specific
> documentation wasn't as good as the FreeBSD-specific documentation, and
> the distro-agnostic Linux-based system documentation wasn't as coherent
> as similar FreeBSD documentation -- even though the distro-agnostic
> documentation and FreeBSD's equivalent OS-nonspecific documentation was
> almost identical in terms of the sort of software it covered. Once in
> a while I miss the slightly greater manpage coverage of Debian, but for
> the most part FreeBSD's documentation wins without breaking a sweat.
> The single most stable software management system in the Linux world
> that I've ever used was Debian's APT. It's slightly less stable than
> the FreeBSD ports system, and the software tends to be a step behind
> FreeBSD's in terms of version numbers available, too.
> Hopefully that helps. It's probably more than you wanted to read.
> CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
> Rudy Giuliani: "You have free speech so I can be heard."
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-questions