FreeBSD vs Linux
rasputnik at gmail.com
Wed Jan 18 06:01:00 PST 2006
[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
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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It's also very outdated and has been reinvented several times.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
> 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
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
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
Have a look at things like Solaris SMF and you realise that rcNG isn't as good
as it could be either.
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
More information about the freebsd-questions