Linked by Gabe Yoder on Tue 11th Nov 2003 21:51 UTC
FreeBSD We've all heard the age old argument second only to the vi vs. emacs religious wars: FreeBSD Vs Linux. As a long time linux user, I decided that is was time I spent some time on the other side of the fence to see if it was any greener. Oh, and by the way, vi rules.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: David (IP: 64.73.77.---) - Posted on 2003-11-12 01:30:01
by Kingston on Wed 12th Nov 2003 02:48 UTC

"My experience is that the FreeBSD kernel is leaner and runs in less RAM than Linux - and that Linux has support for more hardware generally - and more software."

I can't say that I agree with you completely when you say that Linux has support for most software. Most free/open source software should compile on both systems, so long as the package in question doesn't use features specific to any one system.

Alos, the Linux compatibility has never failed me. Any Linux program that I can't recompile on FreeBSD I've had work through the Linux 'emulation'. It likely doesn't work for 100% of all Linux apps, but I'd be willing to bet based on my experience with it that it'll run 99% of them.

"Another BIG difference is that FreeBSD is a distro/kernel combination,"

Nope, no distros here. FreeBSD is a complete system, including userland and kernel. (Don't mind me, I hate the word "distro.")

"Another difference is that there is very LITTLE GNU code included; almost everything comes out of the FreeBSD team - including csh (the standard shell), et al. "

FreeBSD doesn't use csh, they use tcsh. And it's only the standard shell for root. The standard shell for other users is /bin/sh