FreeBSD vs Linux

Martin Tournoy carpetsmoker at
Wed Jan 18 04:47:49 PST 2006

> 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.

> Unix has not matured yet to compete with Microsoft.

Yeah, let's just forget that UNIX had stuff like network support
before windows even existed...
Windows has a few edged on Unix, DirectX for example, but on many
points UNIX is really in the lead, the fact that you can't get a
driver for some specific card doesn't have anything do to with
maturing, but with commerce, Microsoft pays hardware manufacturers to
make drivers for their OS, FreeBSD is non-profit and can't afford such
Windows has crap driver management, where you can simply use the ICH
driver for just about all Intel integrated sound chips, while you have
to get(download) a different driver for all the different chips on
Who has matured?

> Unix community simply did not get their act together and try to build an OS
> for the masses. The main argument for Unix is it is "Free", but
> compatibility and upgrade paths are different issues.

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.
Let's not talk about the windows update site, and 15 reboots required..

Unix is for the masses, the only problem it has is a proper user friendly GUI.
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, which makes FreeBSD for the
masses, it doesn't matter if your an average end-luser, or a nerd, or
whatever, everyone can do what they want the way they want to do it,
you really don't have that kind of flexibility with windows.

Everyone should use whatever they prefer to use, but there a couple of
very good arguments in favor of FreeBSD, and while there are also
arguments in favor of windows they are fewer...

Say whatever you want, but the Unix permission system is better than
Window's, it much more simple and elegant, which means less
headache's, less mistakes and more security.

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
This again is simpler, which, again, means less headaches, less
mistakes and better security, performance etc.

There are tons of examples like this, the fact that windows XP is 1.3
GB in size (Minimal!) is enough to know that windows is loaded with
complicated shit, while the much simpler and elegant approach in
FreeBSD works better.

It's same as physics or biology really, I came across this quote recently:
If you encounter a formula more that a quarter of a page long, then
forget it, nature doesn't make things that complicated.

Nature has been "In development" for billions of years, and learned
that simplicity is the key, why do anything different with computers?
Windows does...

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list