FreeBSD & Linux distro

[Chad Perrin]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 07:24:01PM -0700, Predrag Punosevac wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> >
> >If anyone has suggestions for how to fix it up further, let me know.
> >
> >  
> Hi Chad,
> 
> Here is my honest opinion. I hope it will help you improve the post :-)

I do too.


> 
> I didn't like very much the tone of the article as well as some 
> pejorative conclusion. If you are going to post something even
> as a FreeBSD advocacy the tone of the article should be neutral and all 
> claims verifiable. Do not get me wrong. I
> do not like Linux and more over I have never used it in my life but I 
> would have hard time to swallow some of your claims.
> 
> How would you feel if I tell you that I use mostly OpenBSD because it is 
> easier for work than FreeBSD and in my experience much more stable than 
> FreeBSD.  Those are my subjective feelings and probably have little to 
> do with the reality. If anything statement like that are irritating and 
> have no value to a person who is deciding between using OpenBSD or FreeBSD.

Frankly, I might be inclined to believe you with regard to stability,
based on what I know of OpenBSD.  I'd also be likely to think your
"easier for work" was either purely personal preference or based on a
specific set of working conditions that might favor OpenBSD in
particular.


> 
> Try to find on the internet couple of advocacy articles by Greg Lehey.  
> They are  very  well-written. 
> 
> Example: Statement of the type BSD appears more stable than Linux is 
> non-verifiable.
> Statement of the type FreeBSD is direct decedent of the BSD flavor of 
> Unix started in mid seventies at the University of California Berkley 
> while the Linux kernel is Unix clone started in 1993 based on the 
> mixture of System V and BSD Unix is
> verifiable. Or 80% of all servers with longest up time run FreeBSD is 
> something that can be verified.

Good point, re: uptime numbers.  On the other hand, because of the
limited uptime number problem with Linux, that doesn't really mean
anything.  There's no verifiable and useful uptime comparison I'm aware
of.


> 
> You should definitely address the following things
> 
> 1. FreeBSD is longer in the development than Linux.
> 
> 2.  Probably 80% of the servers with the longest  UP time run  FreeBSD.  
> Give a link. Easy to find.
> 
> 3. FreeBSD is a COMPLETE operating system GNU/Linux is not.

That's not much of an argument.  A Linux distribution is a complete OS,
even if the Linux kernel isn't.  Saying something like "FreeBSD is a
complete OS, Linux isn't," would just sound like verbal trickery.  I
think I'll avoid that approach.


> 
> 4. It has different development and engineering process than Linux.

I addressed some of that.


> 
> 5. It has better quality control at least because Linux has no quality 
> control at all.

Untrue -- unless you have different definitions of "quality control" or
"no" than I have.


> 
> 6. The Largest FTP sever on the world run FreeBSD (your beloved freebsd.org)
> 
> 7. FreeBSD has one of the best systems for the installation of the third 
> party software (ports and do not forget packages
> as some people will jump at you and make a claim that Debian has better 
> packaging system as it is more efficient than compiling things from ports)

I started discussing this in my original, and I intend to get into more
detail at some point with an update of the page.


> 
> 8. Most extensive collection of third party software (over 18000 ) only 
> second to Debian.

Looking back at it, I'm surprised I didn't mention that.


> 
> 9. One of the best documented systems

I'm pretty sure I mentioned that.


> 
> 10. Mention the advantage of the BSD license  comparing to GPL for the 
> commercial use.

That's a matter that should be addressed separately, in a philosophical
sense.  On the other hand, it might be relevant for purposes of
discussing commercial use.  I'll have to consider whether that's
something I want to include on that page.


> 
> 11. It is philosophically different than most Linux distros as all 
> services are turned of by default.

That's something that needs to be handled carefully -- but I think it's
worth mentioning.


> 
> 12. Unlike Linux it doesn't claim that is the best and most suitable for 
> everything.  If you need security then Open is better choice. If you 
> need something for embedded devices probably Net is better choice.

I don't think Linux claims such, either.  Rather, some Linux advocates
claim that -- as do some FreeBSD advocates.  The fact that dramatically
fewer FreeBSD advocates make claims like that, however, is part of the
reason I referred to the fact that the FreeBSD community tends to be
"less crazy in its approach to OS advocacy, than the communities for most
Linux distributions."


> 
> 13. More secure than Linux if for no other reason but for PF which is 
> ported from OpenBSD. Note that PF is not ported for Linux.

. . . yet.  I seem to recall reading about plans for such a thing, though
now I can't find any mention of it.


> 
> 14. Kernel security level concept doesn't exist in Linux.
> 
> Try to disperse common myth that BSD doesn't support hardware but do not 
> be shy to admit that lack support for things like
> video conferencing.
> 
> Do not be shy to admit that virtualization is poor and maybe 
> intensionally as quite of few people do not believe that putting 
> somebody's else cra*p on the top of FreeBSD will not make that cra*p 
> working better or be more secure. If you need Window's application run 
> Windows.

As far as I'm concerned, this is just a net lose.  Virtualization is
handy when you want to be able to run two different OSes on only one box
at the same time, for instance.  That doesn't mean I won't mention it,
though, since the point of the page is more to mention differences
between FreeBSD and Linux -- not just to make FreeBSD sound good.


> 
> Does it make a good Desktop system? Depends what do you mean by that. If 
> you need everything working out of box
> for your grandmother Mily probably not. If you need Flash and Java 
> plug-ins probably not. But if you need ROCK solid
> workstation for academic work, occasional multimedia and want to be 100% 
> in control of your computer like me it is the best desktop OS around.

All in all, I think your email has given me some ideas for things to add
to the page, possible ways to modify what's already there, and stuff to
think about in general.  Thanks.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Phillip J. Haack: "Productivity is not about speed. It's about velocity.
You can be fast, but if you're going in the wrong direction, you're not
helping anyone."