Linux vs. BSD = No real difference?

fonz said:
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...
Click to expand...
I heard a rumor too but a long time back, I hope it's for real this time.
 
ephemera said:
I heard VirtualBox is being ported to fbsd, we will have to wait and see how that turns out.
Click to expand...

VirtualBox is in the ports. I have it running XP, but I haven't had success running solaris or anything else.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ephemera View Post
I heard VirtualBox is being ported to fbsd, we will have to wait and see how that turns out.
VirtualBox is in the ports. I have it running XP, but I haven't had success running solaris or anything else.
Click to expand...


It comes pre-installed with PCBSD. So I would assume it's in the ports. I haven't tried it but I can confirm that it's there.
 
CodeBlock said:
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.
Click to expand...

This article was the main reason I actually decided to try BSD and it made me actually fall in love with the OS. I actually even wrote the guy a thank you letter for writing such an awesome article... but no response :*(
 
Linux vs FreeBSD ?.?

Freebsd is the shiznit. Never again will i ever install windows although linux is still up in the air. Could someone explain the difference for me between linux and UXIX like operating such as FreeBSD, other than just the kernel is different, other than that whats the real difference? And if the kernel if different, what are the significant differences that warrant the two classes of operating systems being classified seperately?
 
sand_man said:
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.
Click to expand...

Guess what, it's documented and largely enforced as per /etc/mtree/* and mtree.
 
mickeyharvey70 said:
Freebsd is the shiznit. Never again will i ever install windows although linux is still up in the air. Could someone explain the difference for me between linux and UXIX like operating such as FreeBSD, other than just the kernel is different, other than that whats the real difference? And if the kernel if different, what are the significant differences that warrant the two classes of operating systems being classified seperately?
Click to expand...

Welcome to this thread (so no need to open another one), where this information has already been made available:

http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php
 
If you take a brief look, Linux and BSD share many similarities, but they are different are their cores. The entire structure is fundamentally different. Of course, Linux and BSD have more in common than BSD and Windows or Linux and Windows.

The kernel and system are prominent differences. Linux distros all use the same kernel, but different programs while the FreeBSD kernel and programs are all maintained by the same developers. Ports also work when an upgrade is done while Linux has to upgrade its packages as well.

The community and documentation also vary a lot. FreeBSD has the best documentation ever (in my opinion, but I believe many users also feel this way).
 
A beginner would say "I see no difference. The black boxes are same to me!". Frankly, this is not true. Use it and feel the difference.

It must be noted that the perception of differences depends on the usage.
 
dennylin93 said:
Quite true. "Using" is how you'll see the differences. Go down deep into the OS and the differences will be quite obvious (I go crazy every time I try to use Linux).
Click to expand...

While I come from a linux background (used it for ~5 years before switching to BSD), so I'm familiar with Linux, I do agree that the majority of differences will be found by actually using the OS and trying to accomplish different things (such as device drivers).

Though as discussed before, one of my issues with linux is the difference in file tree - how some steal our rc.d/, some use rc.<integer>/, and some use init.d/, etc...
 
fiftyone said:
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?
Click to expand...

-well 99% of all the commands aren't the same, maybe it's your impression
-documentation, there isn't much if any in "Linux-country"
-you cannot even jump from Debian to Slack or vice versa; or maybe try Gentoo then Debian or Arch and Fedora.
-honestly I think you're referring to desktops (KDE, Gnome) and on this level you won't see much difference
-furthermore quality, well that's a broad term but a valid point. Try some rolling release like ArchLinux or Gentoo and hope you're surviving the next kernel update (it's most of the time okay, but it can be a severe pain in the backside). Look at the plethora of security fixes you'll get with every minor kernel update. FreeBSD won't update your system but you're to some degree bleeding edge with ports. That's a huge difference in terms of quality.And look at the frequency of security fixes for FreeBSD release ... a couple of fixes maybe. Now compare it to the tons of updates e.g. Ubuntu sees week by week or the Linux kernel itself.

There are lots of differences, some small, some huge. But the main difference is software engineering. Linux doesn't care about a design, if it fits then it's okay. If there is some problem maybe we can exchange it, but we will not fix it.
 
dennylin93 said:
FreeBSD has the best documentation ever (in my opinion, but I believe many users also feel this way).
Click to expand...
The OpenBSD folks also claim to have the best documentation... Personally I think FreeBSD's is better though.

Alphons (not to mention the community)
 
sand_man said:
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.
Click to expand...

The thing is, on FreeBSD once you understand one simple thing, it's much easier to find stuff, relative to linux

That one thing is the separation of the base system with the ports.

base system config files = /etc
ports config files = /usr/local/etc

base system stuff is in /usr/bin /usr/sbin /bin and /sbin

ports stuff is in /usr/local/bin /usr/local/sbin

it's much easier to find stuff once you understand that...and it's also much easier to REMOVE probelm files.

most of the linux distros i've use throw everything in /usr/bin or /usr/sbin
it's really annoying.

I think FreeBSD has just the right amount of filesystem separation...check out opensolaris sometime, heh
 
Henu said:
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
Click to expand...

I would only use sysinstall for the base system stuff, and even then i typically only do minimal installs.

pkg_add is like apt-get, binary installs. When you know you only need default settings it's ok.. even then i typically only use it to install 2 or 3 things when i first install a system. sudo nano, and maybe bash depending on who the system is for


the beauty of ports is that it downloads the source files, and you pick your options on an easy to use menu. When you install most things, like apache, php...even stuff like rtorrent, theres several ways to compile it. With ports you can compile only what you need. You also have a file called /etc/make.conf which lets you set system wide configs for the compiler, where you can set stuff like processor type and other optimizations. On top of all of this, it handles dependiencies. So a typical ports system will have much less "fluff" if the users is even halfway knowledgeable.

It makes for a much more speciallized setup. the ONLY downside i see to ports AT ALL is that each system is different...if the ports system wasn't so good and FreeBSD didn't have SUCH good documentation and forums, then it might be a bigger issue.

I am by no means an expert in FreeBSD yet, but i will say this, using FreeBSD, i learned more in 2 weeks than i did in 2 years of Linux. Ports is one of the best features.
 
ephemera said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is Virtualbox for FreeBSD. But personally, i would rather just use a native ap. For MOST stuff you can find better aps.
 
it kind of depends on the distribution. The differences between FreeBSD and any Debian flavor (sidux, mepis, ubuntu) are pretty major:
source installations vs binary installation
OSS vs ALSA/PulseAudio
UFS2/ZFS vs ext4/XFS
tcsh vs dash
install to /usr/local/bin vs install to /usr/bin
clang vs gcc (coming soon!)
FreeBSD's /dev is somewhat nicer
bsd libc vs eglibc
disklabel vs fdisk -l
freebsd-update vs apt-get upgrade
rc.d vs init.d
 
hell yeah "rc.d vs init.d" its loong difference xD

Ill try to continue =)
(ifconfig/route) vs ip
(ipfw/natd/pf) vs iptables
(sockstat&netstat) vs netstat
(systat&vmstat) vs vmstat
jails vs (bsdjail/vserver/freevps)
netgraph vs -
 
wonslung said:
I am by no means an expert in FreeBSD yet, but i will say this, using FreeBSD, i learned more in 2 weeks than i did in 2 years of Linux. Ports is one of the best features.
Click to expand...

I second this. I've been using Windows for around 7~8 years now and FreeBSD for just one year. However, I've learned loads more using FreeBSD.
 
I think FreeBSD sort of forces you to learn new things. Virtually anyone can use Windows, and most people with a little Windows knowledge can use most modern Linux distros. But FreeBSD requires a functioning brain. :)
 
killasmurf86 said:
Won't this thread die, for once?
All points have been said over and over and over....
Click to expand...

May be someone can create a "FreeBSD vs MyOS" thread in FAQ/Howto section linking to all diffs. This topic is going to repeat again and again for sure...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top