freebsd vs. linux - educated opinions wanted

David Kelly dkelly at
Fri May 16 19:00:55 PDT 2003

On Friday 16 May 2003 07:57 pm, Aaron Peterson wrote:
> 1. There is better hardware support for linux, and more features
> because there are more developers.

Better hardware support? I don't confuse "support of more hardware" with 
the claim of "better hardware support." So what if by some chance 
FreeBSD doesn't support some oddball reverse-engineered proprietary 1x 
CDROM hardware interface that Linux supports?

Is my understanding Linux does have better support for WinModems than 
FreeBSD. I would hate to go back to a telephone modem now that I've had 
cablemodem for so long. But I remember back in those days that all 
modems were finicky, WinModems even more so.

Finally over the past couple of years I have quit hearing Linux people 
recite a litany of their current patch level when describing their 
installation. In the past it was quite common to have to hunt down 
patches from various sources to get Linux to do something a real Unix 
system should do. Support for file size > 2GB comes to mind.

> 2. Linux code is often not as well written as freebsd because freebsd
> developers are more unified, focused and strict.

I think its more of a matter that Linux people are mostly religious 
converts from Windows and still measure things with a Microsoft 
yardstick. BSD people just love Unix and don't have to hate Microsoft 
to give meaning to their lives, but also do not let Microsoft set the 
standards for judging their self-worth.

David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly at
The human mind ordinarily operates at only ten percent of its
capacity -- the rest is overhead for the operating system.

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list