On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 09:14:04AM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: Chad,
A good rundown of some of the differences. Maybe you can put this on a web page and get it added to lists of comparrisons. ////jerry > On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 05:14:45AM -0800, Lone Wolf wrote: > > But according to Wikipedia, FreeBSD is able to run Linux compatible > > software without any problems (exception for Linux Kernel 2.6) > > I can't run Linux software on FreeBSD? > > > > "Linux" is technically the name of an OS kernel. FreeBSD has a different > kernel -- the FreeBSD kernel. > > Various Linux distributions include different lineups of default basic > userland software and OS infrastructure, but they tend to have a lot of > the core stuff in common (in particular the GNU toolset). FreeBSD shares > a few tools in common with most Linux systems (GCC, for instance), but > many of the basic userland and other core system tools are developed in > tandem with the FreeBSD kernel, and are specific to FreeBSD. > > Both Linux distributions and FreeBSD aspire (to varying degrees and in > different ways) to a generalized Unix system design. FreeBSD is very > much a descendant of the BSD Unix design (obviously) while Linux > distributions tend more toward the SysV family of Unix. Because there is > sort of a common Platonic ideal of Unix, however, they do tend to share a > lot in common. Also, because Linux systems are not strictly descended > from either the BSD Unix family or the SysV Unix family of operating > systems, it differs from both approaches, and borrows a bit from both. > It borrows a lot of code from the various BSD Unix systems, too, since > three of the four major modern branches of BSD Unix are released under > the BSD license. > > In my experience: > > FreeBSD tends to be more stable than Linux distributions. I'm sure > some of this is attributable to the fact that the core OS is all > developed as part of a greater whole, with exceptions for only a few of > the core tools (like GCC). If those tools could be replaced with > FreeBSD specific equivalents, or at least non-GNU equivalents, this > might even improve further over Linux distributions, which are put > together from collections of available software developed with no > significant cooperation (other than the GNU toolset itself, whose > development isn't even coordinated with Linux kernel development). > > FreeBSD tends to be easier to work with "under the hood" than Linux > distributions. This is in large part due to the more unified design > process of FreeBSD, but also seems to be a result of some other forces > at work, since there are characteristics of FreeBSD system > configuration and design that do not seem related to the fact it's more > of a coordinated effort, but still contribute to greater ease of use. > > Most Linux distributions default to bash as the shell, while FreeBSD's > default is (t)csh. This is a difference that occasionally catches new > immigrants to FreeBSD from the Linux world off-guard. It's not a bad > thing, though. For one thing, as far as I'm aware there are fewer > dependencies for tcsh than for bash, so it's less likely to break if > some underlying piece of software gets a bad update. > > Linux distributions, because they're basically just a kernel and a > bunch of disparate pieces of software collected into a running whole, > tend to include everything outside the kernel in a single software > management system. FreeBSD differentiates between a "core" or "base" > system and the ports system, which is the general software management > system equivalent to the software management systems of Linux > distributions. Because of this, your choice of software management > system isn't so much a part of the identity of the OS you are using > with FreeBSD, whereas with a Linux-based OS (aka "distribution"), your > OS is differentiated from others of the same family by default install > configuration, distribution project management of software archives, > and the software management system. > > The FreeBSD community tends to be more knowledgeable and professional, > and less crazy in its approach to OS advocacy, than the communities for > most Linux distributions. > > FreeBSD documentation is some of the best OS documentation in the > world. One of the reasons I made the switch is that I noticed I was > actually using official FreeBSD documentation for working with my > Linux-based systems as often as I was using the official documentation > that came with, or from, my Linux distribution. The distro-specific > documentation wasn't as good as the FreeBSD-specific documentation, and > the distro-agnostic Linux-based system documentation wasn't as coherent > as similar FreeBSD documentation -- even though the distro-agnostic > documentation and FreeBSD's equivalent OS-nonspecific documentation was > almost identical in terms of the sort of software it covered. Once in > a while I miss the slightly greater manpage coverage of Debian, but for > the most part FreeBSD's documentation wins without breaking a sweat. > > The single most stable software management system in the Linux world > that I've ever used was Debian's APT. It's slightly less stable than > the FreeBSD ports system, and the software tends to be a step behind > FreeBSD's in terms of version numbers available, too. > > Hopefully that helps. It's probably more than you wanted to read. > > -- > CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] > Rudy Giuliani: "You have free speech so I can be heard." > _______________________________________________ > email@example.com mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"