The only point I would like to argue is that this is not a comparison of
Apples to Apples.
Linux is just a kernel. There are Linux only utilities however
(i.e. util-linux). Each of the BSDs that you mentioned are full operating
systems. The closest comparison you can get is to compare a Linux
Distribution to the BSDs. I will not go there - there is plenty of
information on the web for that.
Tom Veldhouse
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 16 Dec 1999, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
> fyi
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 12:15:48 -0500 (EST)
> From: Paul B. Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Linux vs. OpenBSD vs. FreeBSD vs. NetBSD
> Resent-Date: 16 Dec 1999 17:15:54 -0000
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ;
>
>
> > Is there a handy collection of arguments over which OS is better?
>
> Hummmm . . . . this is a much debated topic. In a nutshell:
>
> Linux:
>
> 1. More prevalent
> 2. More support
> 3. More software ported
> 4. Multi-platform: Intel, Alpha, Sparc, Mac, PowerPC, etc.
> 5. GPLed
>
> Even though I think Linux needs further tweaking to become as high
> stress as FreeBSD, I still believe it is the best bang for the buck.
> There is more interest in this OS than any of the other "free" OSes.
> This is a plus and a minus. The plus is that it will continue to
> advance as an OS and a production platform. The minus is that now
> business needs may begin to drive Linux and that will skew the
> original intent of Linux and it's reason for being as good as it is.
>
> I've been talking to some Systems Operations boys at NASA HQ in
> Washington, DC who have done (and continue to do) testing on the
> "free" OSes as stable platforms for research and production at NASA.
> They found that even now, FreeBSD or OpenBSD are their choice either
> because of stability or speed. I found that interesting given some
> of the claims I've seem on this list, and others, that Linux is now as
> stable and high performance as FreeBSD on Intel. The NASA boys don't
> think so.
>
> FreeBSD:
>
> 1. Higher performance especially in the network stack.
> 2. Can run any Linux application using emulator.
> 3. BSDL
> 4. Intel Only: This means the OS is tweaked for max performance.
>
> This is a very stable, very robust, high stress-capable OS for Intel
> platforms only. If you want to get the max out of your production
> Intel platform, use FreeBSD. Yahoo does. The choice at NASA HQ.
>
> NetBSD:
>
> 1. Runs on a lot of old hardware: PDP, VAX, 3B2, etc.
> 2. Very stable.
> 3. BSDL.
>
> This one is used if you have some old hardware lying around and want
> to get it functional again. This is great for older companies,
> Universities, and research facilities.
>
> OpenBSD:
>
> 1. Runs on a lot of old hardware: PDP, VAX, 3B2, etc.
> 2. More secure out of the box than any other xBSD.
> 3. Offshoot of NetBSD.
> 4. Very stable.
> 5. BSDL.
>
> The same as NetBSD except it's security features are it's main selling
> point.
>
> There is my $0.02 worth. :-)
>
> Paul
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Paul B. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> President
> Brown Technologies Network, Inc. http://www.btechnet.com/
>
> Systems and Applications Design, Development, Deployment, and Maintenance
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> To unsubscribe: send e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> 'unsubscribe' as the subject. Do not send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
