On Tue, Apr 27, 1999 at 02:11:23AM -0000, Nolan Darilek wrote:
| o Most linux users don't have pubes yet and are intolerably lame (3Y3 4m
| 1337 H4x0r d00d [uz 3y3 h4v3 L1Nux!)
|
| Uh, ok . . . Anyone feel like addressing that one?
Nope. It speaks for itself - the author is a bozo.
| o Too many things in the kernel that belong in user space (java)
As others have said, it's not in user space. Bozo again.
| o no consistant pronunciation the os'es name (line-ucks? lynn-ucks?)
Who cares?
| o Lame NFS & dd
Are the two related? And what's wrong with Linux's dd anyways? If
you don't like it, get sdd, or even get FreeBSD's dd!
FreeBSD does have considerably better NFS, however.
| o glibc? libc? libc5? libc6? glibc2?
I guess the bozo author didn't realize that FreeBSD 2.x was a.out and
FreeBSD 3.x is elf ? :)
| Hmm, why bother with the details if you don't have to? Why not let the
| distribution handle that if you're unwilling?
|
| o /bin/sh != sh; /bin/sh == bash. Lame. Nonstandard. Result: broken shell
| scripts and nonportable code.
|
| I'll grant him this point, my /bin/sh does link to bash. I don't think
| I've ever had a shell script fail on me because of this,
| though. Non-issue?
Broken shell scripts and non portable code are the result of lame
programmers, not Linux's use of bash. He must never have seen AIX!
| o /usr/bin/make != make; /usr/bin/make == gmake. Lame. Nonstandard. Same
| result as above: nonportable code.
Linux's make is GNU make. And it's a lot more `standard' than that
wierdness that comes with FreeBSD ...
FreeBSD's make is quite different than anything else out there, and at
the very least /usr/src and much of /usr/ports needs it.
| o ext2fs
| o can't handle partitions > 2GB
He's definately smoking some really good crack here.
% df /y
Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on
/dev/sdc2 16324529 6795654 9361648 42% /y
| o e2fsck deliberatly leaves/creates corrupt files (if there is a block that
| it duplicate between two files, e2fsck will clone the duplicate (while
| fsck will remove both files))
|
| I don't know enough about these areas, would anyone care to comment?
Sounds like a good thing. Gives you more of a chance to recover your
data. But definately a minor point ...
| o only allows 128M of swap at a time; for a 1G of swap, you need 8 swap
| partitions
Older kernels only would allow 128mb of swap per partition/file -
that's true. The limitation has been removed (or greatly increased
anyways) in the 2.2 kernels, however.
| o To install Joe's program, you need Bob's kernel hack, but for Bob's
| kernel hack, you've got to have Suzy's patches, but Suzy's patches only
| work with a year-old kernel, unless you get Mike's patches to Suzy's
| patches, but even then, those conflict with Jeff's drivers, which can be
| resolved only by installing Nancy's patches...
Don't forget that none of these people have their pubes yet :)
| o Can't handle the same IP on more than one interface
|
| Comments, anyone?
Author is a bozo. Statement is completely untrue.
| o Can't handle large files
This one is true. ext2fs (or the kernel, not sure which) can't handle
files over 2gb. Most annoying. I'm not sure if FreeBSD's ufs/ffs is
better, however ...
| o flatfile password files make listing large ftp directories impossible
| due to huge numbers of flatfile searchces.
FreeBSD does have a hashed passwd file - if you enable it. It would
help in this case - but still, this is a pretty minor point.
Ultimately, I use both FreeBSD and Linux. I'm a little more impressed
with FreeBSD, but it's not a surefire thing - Linux has all the `neat'
stuff and FreeBSD is more down to earth. Ultimately I love both.
--
Doug McLaren, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
