1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Linux vs. BSD = No real difference?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by fiftyone, Sep 2, 2009.

  1. fiftyone

    fiftyone New Member

    Messages:
    15
    Thanks Received:
    0
    I hear a lot of people talking about Linux vs BSD but having been using BSD exclusively for a while now I can't honestly say that I have seen a WHOLE lot of difference compared to the various Linux distros.

    99% of all the commands are the same, the interface is nothing shocking that a Linux user would run away from...

    It would seem to me that any Linux user should be able to jump into BSD feet first and start running. (& vise-versa)
    Other than the ports system and Linux method of spitting out a million & 6 distros I don't see whats so different about BSD that would scare people away from it? Am I missing something?
     
  2. vivek

    vivek New Member

    Messages:
    809
    Thanks Received:
    184
    Key differences:
    1. FreeBSD full os. Linux is kernel. Linux distribution is os (100+ majro disrtos).
    2. FreeBSD everything comes form a single source. Linux is like mix of lot of stuff.
    3. BSD License vs GPL
    4. FreeBSD Installer
    5. BSD commands (ls file -l will not work) vs GPL command (ls file -l will work)
    6. FreeBSD better and updated man pages.
    7. BSD rc.d style booting vs Linux SysV style init.d booting

    However, most commands act and work like any other UNIX variant. Keep in mind FreeBSD is not Linux.
     
  3. Carpetsmoker

    Carpetsmoker Member

    Messages:
    943
    Thanks Received:
    136
    I assume that with ``BSD`` you mean ``FreeBSD``? As there is also OpenBSD, NetBSD, and DragonFlyBSD (And a wealth of historic BSD's).

    I guess FreeBSD and Linux are kind of the same. Just as Windows NT4 and Windows XP are also kind of the same.
     
  4. fiftyone

    fiftyone New Member

    Messages:
    15
    Thanks Received:
    0
    >>I know and I prefer BSD, I really like the "Weather" BSD brings with it, that might not make any sence but in Arabic it sounds good :D I guess I kinda missed the point of my own question. I guess what I was getting at is that the Os's are SO very similar it is strange that there is any seperation at all.
     
  5. CodeBlock

    CodeBlock New Member

    Messages:
    218
    Thanks Received:
    11
    No, they aren't that similar, mainly for the reasons vivek pointed out plus some other things (the bsd community is better than any linux community I've seen... ports, in my opinion, are better than any package manager, etc)..

    Might want to read http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php which summarizes the differences of both OS's.. Really though - they are quite different in quite a few areas. BSD (as far as I know) has a better security standpoint (especially OpenBSD), etc.

    I have nothing against Linux, but I very much prefer BSD now that I've been using it for a few months.
     
    zspider thanks for this.
  6. roddierod

    roddierod Member

    Messages:
    705
    Thanks Received:
    80
    One of the biggest differences is the file system layout. When I've tried Linuxes over they last few years and dropped to the command line, I can't find anything!

    I used Debian 12 or 13 years ago for 10 months or so until I found FreeBSD the switch to FreeBSD was much easier than trying to go back because the Linux file system are just a mess. Look up old post by Vermaden on this topic, he pretty much sums it all up.
     
    zspider and hwyhobo thanked for this.
  7. fonz

    fonz Active Member

    Messages:
    2,564
    Thanks Received:
    354
    Second that. Even when I was using Slackware (which is one of the Linux distros closest to BSD-style UNIX) about a year ago, it was still a lot of "where's that file" or "what file is that in" type of searching.

    @OP: There's SysV-style UNIX and there's BSD-style UNIX. From a casual (non-admin) user's point of view it's all pretty much the same but under the hood there are differences.

    Alphons

    Edit: It's like comparing Ferraris and Porsches. Different styling, handling and brand image but they're both high-performance sports cars (whereas Windows is a moped by comparison) :)
     
  8. ckester

    ckester New Member

    Messages:
    288
    Thanks Received:
    37
    I've always thought Neal Stephenson got this analogy right when he compared Windows to an old Soviet-style sedan: big, clunky, prone to breakdowns, and you're lucky if you can get the radio to work (not to mention the heater).

    Of course, his idea of a sleek, sports car OS was a Mac. So he wasn't totally enlightened. :)
     
  9. DutchDaemon

    DutchDaemon Administrator Staff Member Administrator Moderator

    Messages:
    10,767
    Thanks Received:
    1,872
    In both cases, the hood is welded shut ..
     
  10. sand_man

    sand_man New Member

    Messages:
    28
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Not all Linuxes use SysV init.
    I come from Arch which uses the BSD style rc.d

    Also, I am very new to FreeBSD and I have trouble finding things in the filesystem. Not to say that it's a mess, I'm just not used to it. In Arch, I just know where everything is. The problem is that each distro organises their hierarchy differently.
     
  11. anomie

    anomie New Member

    Messages:
    783
    Thanks Received:
    116
    Apart from the more obvious points -- license, development model, philosophy and implementation -- the end-user community is by far the biggest difference that I've observed between FreeBSD and GNU/Linux communities. (Not quite fair, since all distros are being lumped together, but hear me out.)

    Take this forum, for instance... and a couple FreeBSD forums I belonged to that preceded it. Compare them with some of the more prominent GNU/Linux forums. The signal-to-noise ratio here is much better. I frequently see intelligent questions and technically correct answers here. On certain other (non-FreeBSD) forums, I see a lot of intelligent discussion too, but it's often drowned out by 3,000 questions a day of the calibre:
    • "how to install firefox?"
    • "how to increase logical volume?"
    • "my log has entries like sshd: invalid user andre. what do i do?"

    You get the idea. This place (and this community) is definitely a thing to appreciate.
     
    zeissoctopus and CodeBlock thanked for this.
  12. jb_fvwm2

    jb_fvwm2 Active Member

    Messages:
    1,630
    Thanks Received:
    162
    Code:
    !ncftp...audio[tab] [get port[tab]] {logoff}
    pkg_create -b /var/db/pkg/audio_port && pkg_delete -f /var/db/pkg/audio_port && pkg_add audio_port.tbz && yell
    ..................
    

    Does linux do those one-liners after package "get", say if a
    port wont build?
     
  13. phospher

    phospher New Member

    Messages:
    75
    Thanks Received:
    1

    i'll second that.
     
  14. graudeejs

    graudeejs Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,594
    Thanks Received:
    633
    he he he We got ZFS, linux don't
    mua ha ha ha
     
  15. Eponasoft

    Eponasoft New Member

    Messages:
    218
    Thanks Received:
    10
    FreeBSD is largely POSIX-compliant...Linux distros aren't. That alone can create massive headaches when doing ports, especially things deemed "cross-platform" but are really just entrenched in "Linuxisms". On the surface, Linux and FreeBSD appear similar, and a casual user is unlikely to ever notice the difference. But the two are VERY different "under the hood".
     
    zspider thanks for this.
  16. Alt

    Alt New Member

    Messages:
    726
    Thanks Received:
    79
    fiftyone: I think i know FreeBSD well (especially network part). When i searched for job as network sysadmin, i put into my resume word that says i know Linux too=) I thought its same but when i get a job and look Slackware Linux... Now i tell everyone i dont know Linux)))
    So, if we talk about userland, they are completely different in firewalling(i talk about firewall manipulating and philosophy). There is major differences in network stats commands such as netstat/systat/sockstat etc. Modern linux users set up network using `ip` tool, bsd users make ifconfig.. There is many caveats, so dot just say 'i know linux' or 'i know freebsd' when you know other one =)
     
  17. SirDice

    SirDice Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    17,628
    Thanks Received:
    2,386
    From a user standpoint the different versions of Windows (NT, 2000, XP etc) have bigger differences than the different 'styles' of unix (solaris, bsd, linux etc) :e
     
  18. Henu

    Henu New Member

    Messages:
    31
    Thanks Received:
    0
    As a Linux user who has done work with FreeBSD for two months now, I've found one of the most confusing thing the three "package managers."

    I can install software using distribution sets from sysinstall, I can use pkg_add and I can use Ports but I'm still not sure which is the best alternative or are some of them the same thing.

    Overall, I think FreeBSD is pretty nice. In my opinion fonz had the best point, especially the Windows part of it :D
     
  19. ephemera

    ephemera New Member

    Messages:
    33
    Thanks Received:
    1
    I use Linux as my primary desktop OS (due to non-availability of some apps.). If you are running a desktop env. there is practically no difference b/w Linux & BSD. Most of the apps. are available for both Linux and BSD and they look & work the same way.

    But every time I open a terminal window I am painfully aware of the Linux presence. You can't escape the feeling that Linux is a hackers job. No matter how good Linux gets in performance and scalability or some other metric, IMO it will still kinda suck.

    One thing I really like about fbsd is the dev. team - very professional & pragmatic minus the usual OSS BS and it shows in their work. :)
     
  20. aragon

    aragon New Member

    Messages:
    2,031
    Thanks Received:
    252
    Out of interest, which apps?
     
  21. ephemera

    ephemera New Member

    Messages:
    33
    Thanks Received:
    1
    The most important one for me is Vmware for running Windows XP.
     
  22. vermaden

    vermaden Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,364
    Thanks Received:
    677
    No difference?

    Then start using BSD, you will notice the differences after some time ...
     
  23. Beastie

    Beastie Active Member

    Messages:
    1,929
    Thanks Received:
    339
    ephemera, why don't you just dual-boot? Is Vmware's emulation performance as good as running Windows "natively"?
     
  24. fonz

    fonz Active Member

    Messages:
    2,564
    Thanks Received:
    354
    Yeah, it's a pity that FreeBSD isn't available as a host OS. But rumour has it that this is in the works, so who knows...

    Alphons

    P.S. Would it help if we ask for a native FreeBSD version of Maple? I'm currently running Maple 12 through Linux emulation but it's kinda sluggish.
     
  25. ephemera

    ephemera New Member

    Messages:
    33
    Thanks Received:
    1
    I do have to reboot for playing games :) But for everything else Vmware is perfect for me. I have been dual booting since the time i started using fbsd (4.8 i think) but for me rebooting is not a practical option anymore. Besides, it's not just Windows i also have Solaris installed to try out some things from time to time.
    If Vmware made a fbsd version that would be just fanstastic but i can only wish. I heard VirtualBox is being ported to fbsd, we will have to wait and see how that turns out.