Linux vs. BSD = No real difference?

irkkaaja said:
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
Click to expand...

One point in Linux's favor:

16-color, text-only console vs. framebuffer

I would really like to go xorg-less, but lack of anything like Linux's framebuffer means I have to use X if I want to do anything with graphics or video.
 
That all depends on what you want to do. To do graphics in FBSD without X, you can always just use svgalib or grx; neither require X and both have been around for ages and ages...
 
Alt said:
I saw linux distro where /bin/sh is symlinked to /bin/bash ...
Click to expand...

That's true for all Linux distros I've worked with. This is from the bash(1) manpages on my Fedora box:
Code: 
If  bash  is  invoked  with  the name sh, it tries to mimic the startup
behavior of historical versions of sh as  closely  as  possible,  while
conforming  to the POSIX standard as well.

Nevertheless, it does not behave quite like the Bourne shell. (i.e. It supports features that Bourne does not, which is fun if you're trying to write a portable script.)
 
I would really like to go xorg-less, but lack of anything like Linux's framebuffer means I have to use X if I want to do anything with graphics or video.
Click to expand...

vidcontrol?
 
Alt said:
hell yeah "rc.d vs init.d" its loong difference xD
Click to expand...

The big difference is BSD init vs SysV init, where BSD init is now using RCng-style rc.d script and rcorder to determine dependencies and start order compared to SysV init uses that horrible mess of symlinks in up to 12 different run-level directories.

VERY BIG DIFFERENCE!! ;)
 
phoenix said:
The big difference is BSD init vs SysV init, where BSD init is now using RCng-style rc.d script and rcorder to determine dependencies and start order compared to SysV init uses that horrible mess of symlinks in up to 12 different run-level directories.

VERY BIG DIFFERENCE!! ;)
Click to expand...
Dont know how they do right now, but when i tried redhat many years ago, there was run-levels and a crap when you call init scripts like "S00_blahblah.sh" so it run first cus of "S00". That was hell.
 
your best opinion

Hi,

i am completely new to unix/linux based systems. i asked my mentor what platform he can suggest, he said FreeBSD. now, let me ask

1. What makes FreeBSD different from other unix/linux based systems?

2. Is it great for web or database servers?

3. I have a problem downloading freebsd through ftp. Seems like our system admin did not implement it. Torrent sites also blocked. i can only download through http. Any other sites where I can download FreeBSD? I'm afraid to download from other sites maybe because it has been modified or altered.
 
kurukukok, we're not starting yet another "what's the difference" thread. Read this one from top to bottom. And don't combine questions. Post them in the right forum.
 
kurukukok said:
1. What makes FreeBSD different from other unix/linux based systems?
Click to expand...
As DD said, read the rest of this thread.

2. Is it great for web or database servers?
Click to expand...
Yes.

3. I have a problem downloading freebsd through ftp. Seems like our system admin did not implement it. Torrent sites also blocked. i can only download through http. Any other sites where I can download FreeBSD? I'm afraid to download from other sites maybe because it has been modified or altered.
Click to expand...
Substitute the ftp:// for http://

http://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/
 
Perhaps we should make FAQ about the differences between FreeBSD and other OSes ;). There certainly is enough information because of all the replies.
 
dennylin93 said:
Perhaps we should make FAQ about the differences between FreeBSD and other OSes ;). There certainly is enough information because of all the replies.
Click to expand...

Another FAQ "where did my (xp_Vista_etc) go?" "install-alongside
information)"
maybe should be even on the main .ORG page, noticeable with
any other links... That question at least comes up too often
on the freebsd-questions list and answering before the problem
would make the BSD's more user-friendly...
 
Comparing operating systems is similar to the following:
You have a Brazilian with a passion-fruit, an American with an apple, and an Ethiopian with a date. To each, the fruit that they have is the best. If this is the fruit they know, it will be the standard for the flavor of other fruits.

People will make their decisions based upon usage and exposure- add willingness to learn in there.

I'll hit a few points.

Windows has an NT kernel that was used and another kernel. It makes it similar to linux in this aspect.
Debian is changing to dash- following Ubuntu :pP . This is done to move away from bash.

Linux-kernel systems are made for specialists: the tools are there, the audience is waiting, and it will use what you make.
BSD systems are known for stability.


When it comes to file hierarchy and basic function, BSD and Linux are very similar- let's not split hairs here because of command line options and orders, ok?

I'm making a Debian live cd for my girlfriend.
I'll be putting the BSDs on a few boxes soon.
The former is for her to have a portable environment for what she likes. The latter is for me to learn more security and migrate to BSD- all flavors- even more.



What it comes down to is preference and perception.
 
sossego said:
What it comes down to is preference and perception.
Click to expand...

Not at all. There are objective metrics, like:
- support for laptops: FreeBSD loses here (this is a deal-breaker for me), and that means you'll have to run something else on your laptop, thus increasing your learning curve;
- up-to-date documentation: FreeBSD wins here, whilst with Linux, unless you choose a distribution backed by a company (like Red Hat), you'll have to rely on old documentation, which could be no longer relevant;
- desktop environments: FreeBSD loses here, because the most comprehensive desktop environments are Linux-centric, and that means their ports to FreeBSD are less functional (I tried out the PC-BSD 9 Live DVD and found both Gnome and KDE to be less functional and/or buggy);
- international support: FreeBSD loses here, because it is USA-centric (the USA keyboard layout is baked into the kernel [1]), and a functional desktop install requires you to download a huge ISO, which will be difficult if you lack access to a reliable connection and large bandwidth, as it is the case for less developed countries; on the other hand, a complete Debian desktop install fits on a CD [2].

[1] I've said "USA-centric" instead of "USA-only" on purpose: I know that you can localize FreeBSD afterwards, but the USA keyboard will always be the default, for instance when you set up encrypted partitions
[2] Actually, the PC-BSD project provides functional desktop installations that fit on CDs.
 
I tend to agree with what the original poster is saying. I've used FreeBSD and GNU/Linux distributions for years and I find it's their designs and philosophies which are different. The end result, the functionality the user actually sees, is pretty much the same. So much so that there have been times when I have logged into a server and, after working on it for a while (editing files, compiling software, etc) I haven't been aware of whether I was on FreeBSD or GNU/Linux.

As the second poster pointed out, there are lots of differences (full OS vs kernel, documentation styles, license, minor file system differences), but these are design differences most people won't notice rather than practical differences. If you take a user out of the Windows world and plop them down in front of Kubuntu and PC-BSD they're not going to be aware anything is different besides the wallpaper. Both systems use virtual the same file systems and run the same software. They are much more alike than different.
 
lele said:
- international support: FreeBSD loses here, because it is USA-centric (the USA keyboard layout is baked into the kernel)
Click to expand...

Excuse me? Would you be kind enough to back up that statement with some proof, please?
For many years now, we even had the possibility to change keyboard layout in the install program.
Get your facts straight, please.
 
lele said:
Read posts #2 and #4 here: http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?p=119565#post119565
Click to expand...

Well, that really doesn't say what you think it does. It says that the default keymap in the kernel is US, and to change that you can compile a new kernel with another default keymap. It doesn't say that FreeBSD is lacking in international support.

(I agree that it is very inconvenient that your preferred keymap is loaded after you have input a passphrase for an encrypted rootfs, but that is a separate issue. I just hope someone who uses encrypted rootfs has filed a PR for that bug - it needs to be fixed somehow)
 
tingo said:
Well, that really doesn't say what you think it does. It says that the default keymap in the kernel is US, and to change that you can compile a new kernel with another default keymap. It doesn't say that FreeBSD is lacking in international support.
Click to expand...

Well, then I wasn't clear enough. I said "USA-centric" instead of "USA-only" on purpose, meaning that you can customize it afterwards, but it defaults to the USA. I know that FreeBSD has international support.
 
lele said:
I said "USA-centric" instead of "USA-only" on purpose, meaning that you can customize it afterwards, but it defaults to the USA. I know that FreeBSD has international support.
Click to expand...
That can be said for pretty much every OS I ever installed. They all had the default USA settings. Why is this a problem with FreeBSD?
 
The BAD thing about Free- and Open- BSD`s is that their Unicode support isn't that great...

For example, there is Koi8 for cyrillic, but it's very painful to get cyrillic with UTF-8 in console (and in some default shell like /bin/sh - even in X, bash/zsh do the job however).
 
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...

The big differences are with package management (base+packages, Linux mixes the two concepts - there is no real "core" distribution), initialization scripts and the lack of GNU tools (this is a good thing) installed in the base system.

If you used FreeBSD you can figure out Linux. If you're used to Linux it is a bit of a learning curve coming the other way, but insurmountable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top