FreeBSD vs Linux

[Bart Silverstrim]

On Apr 21, 2005, at 7:48 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
>> [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Bart
>> Silverstrim
>> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 4:33 AM
>> To: mmiranda at americatel.com.sv
>> Cc: questions at freebsd.org
>> Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
>>
>>
>> I'm afraid after playing with both FreeBSD and some different distros
>> of Linux, that "easy way" isn't necessarily Linux either.  If anything
>> it can get to be much more complex if used on the desktop when
>> it comes
>> to installing and updating software unless you only stick to that
>> distro's "way" of installing new software.  And if you set it up to do
>> more complex tasks it still takes every bit as much understanding and
>> altering of files as FreeBSD does! :-)
>>
>
> One of the sloppy kinds of talk that helps these wars rapidly 
> degenerate
> is the continual mixing up of the operating system, FreeBSD, with the
> applications that people want to run on them.

Technically correct.  Practically speaking, most people don't care 
enough anymore.  It's like the continual fight to "enlighten" users 
about security.  They don't care because it seems to work without all 
that complicated "stuff" that idiot computer people throw at them to 
*GASP* learn!

If companies want to sell things, they have to dumb them down for the 
market.  Thus the perception to the end user is...application?  
Operating system?  Whazzat?

Every sysadmin has been greeted with "Microsoft" as an answer to 
questions like, "What operating system are you running?",  "What word 
processor crashed?", "What program was it?".  Today you assume the 
answer since it's the monopoly, but I still remember when once in 
awhile you'd have to pry enough clues from them to find out that it was 
WordPerfect or what exact version of Windows it was...

I just didn't think we'd be getting into a semantics war on this kind 
of topic...I wrongly assumed that it was understood that they wanted to 
use the computer to do something, not just discussing the installation 
process of the OS.  In that case, Linux wins hands down with the most 
LiveCD options out there!  :-)

>> The only "easy way" to go with installing things on a computer would
>> have to be Windows (in the Intel world), since it is most often just a
>> matter of clickclickclickclick done.
>
> Ah, but you have to know what to click. And it is quite easy to click 
> the
> wrong thing and get yourself backed into a corner.

Setup.exe, then anything that says Next or Finish, unless it's grayed 
out in which case you mentally stumble, look up for an "I agree" radio 
button, then keep clickclickclick on next's, until it's grayed out 
again and you look up to see some kind of 30 digit keycode, you have to 
stop for twenty seconds to fumble with that keycode then double check 
it because having to RE ENTER it is such a frustration, then 
clickclickclickclick and it works magically again.  Droooool....

>> Really though; with Windows, it's a matter of "I want a web
>> server...down load "web server"...click click license yeah yeah
>> click... oooh! Web server! (don't know what it has open in the
>> background or what scripts are enabled or disabled or...but who
>> cares...web server!)
>>
>> With a Unix system it's "I want a web
>> server...<google>....hmm...Apache
>> looks like it should work...<search through ports>....make
>> install....edit config file...what's this
>> do?...oh...<google>....<google>...neat!...edit config...what's this
>> directive?...<google>....okay...edit...save...apachectl start...web
>> server with X, Y, Z enabled, ,listening on port X, logging to Y, with
>> virtual host Z.  WEB SERVER!"
>>
>
> Yeah, this is the procedure if you want a webserver for an internal
> network at your house that's behind a firewall.
>
> But if your planning on setting the server up on the Internet, you have
> omitted a whole series of steps that you have to follow for both OSs
> to lock down the server and keep it from being broken into.

Did you miss the part about "(don't know what it has open in the 
background or what scripts are enabled or disabled or...but who
cares...web server!)"?

Not always, but having to go through the config files and googling 
often helps in the security part.  If you do it right it will at LEAST 
open your eyes to some of the possibilities.  And you'll have a better 
idea of what's going on than with the point-n-drool approach.

It won't fix it entirely, but you're at least on the right track with 
the "UNIX way".

> When those
> steps are followed, your looking at a good 4-5 hours of labor for 
> either
> system.  Sure, you can get a Windows box up and running faster, but 
> with
> a public server, getting it running is only the first step in a long
> series
> of steps.  You really have to understand both systems throughly if you
> put them online.  With FreeBSD, you have to understand it throughly to
> get
> it to run, so the only real difference between them is that your 
> FreeBSD
> system will get running near the end of this 4 hour block, your Windows
> system will get running at the beginning of this 4 hour block.  But you
> still have to spend 4 hours on each of them.

Windows has always been a product of marketing.  It *discourages* 
thinking.  People don't like thinking.  It's messy and takes effort and 
comprehension.  Discourage thoughts and you'll have a far better 
(marketable) product.

You're correct in that Windows will get it up and running far quicker.  
It may be misconfigured or insecure or both, but it'll be running.  And 
for most people (and low-level admins in harried, understaffed 
positions with the higher-ups riding them to "just get it done") just 
getting it running will be all they're looking to do.  There's getting 
it done and getting it done right.  Windows encourages the former 
because you can know squat and still get it "running" (Windows, IIS, 
various apps made to run on it...).  Unix-type systems encourages the 
latter in general, although many companies are trying to abstract the 
interface to make it more user-friendly and dumb it down too.  
Configuring something down to the config files, having to read through 
it, going through the steps of finding out what a directive does or why 
it exists,...those things encourage you to learn something about what 
you're doing.  Not that it's mandatory.  Many people can get whomped 
with a cluebat and only walk away with a bruise, very few walk away 
with enlightenment.

Windows was made for the home market, the clueless.  The people that 
don't care about technology or how to properly use the tools they're 
using.  I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the 
first step in troubleshooting an error like "no dial tone" when trying 
to connect to a service provider.  You know it calls the service 
provider, it's a telephone call, and when you pick up the phone, you 
hear a dial tone.  People don't even seem to know that basic piece of 
knowledge that I knew before I even had a computer...what's a dial 
tone?  It's a loaded weapon being handed to someone without them having 
a clue how to safely use it.  Because the only way to make loads of 
money is to dumb it down to the point where the consumer doesn't have 
to think.  Thinking bad.  Just want click click click and works.  No 
think.