Linked by Nathan Mace on Thu 31st Jan 2002 18:45 UTC
FreeBSD By now, anyone who is even remotely related to an IT-type position has heard about Linux, and has most likely used it, if only to see what all the hype is about. However, GNU/Linux is not the only "free" Unix type OS available. FreeBSD and its cousins, NetBSD and OpenBSD are all offshoots of BSD UNIX, a commercial UNIX also known as Berkeley Software Distribution. This article will help you learn more about FreeBSD, its differences from Linux, and it will ease a potential migration process.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I have an opinion too!
by Bob the Monkey on Fri 1st Feb 2002 04:15 UTC

Linux > FreeBSD > Macos X > Windows.

Whoopie. I have an opinion.

The article is titled "Migrating from Linux to FreeBSD", it should be titled "I like FreeBSD more than Linux, so there."

It lacks any technical discussion of the differences in the kernels.
When you're comparing FreeBSD to "Linux", the kernel is the only thing you can compare.

You know why that is? Because Linux is a kernel.
Maybe you should have titled your article "I like FreeBSD better than Redhat."

You may even title your article "I like FreeBSD because the ports system is better than RPM! And FreeBSD lacks drivers for new things, so it must be more stable/better/etc."

You present no real reasons to switch to FreeBSD.

Wanking on about the differences in distributions making it hard to maintain a network of Linux PCs/Servers/Etc is pretty stupid. You know, if you have Redhat installed on every system, it's no more difficult to maintain than FreeBSD.

Who the hell installs SuSE RPMs on a Redhat box and expects it to work?!

Oh, and I thought the point of the article was to discuss the merits of FreeBSD as a desktop OS. What about X? Desktop environments? Anything else? How is it any different to a Linux distribution?

I have used both.
I maintain 40 Linux servers 30 Linux workstations and 3 Beowulf clusters.
I've tried FreeBSD.

Looking at it from a server point of view:
It's the same as a good Linux installation.
It feels awkward to me. But someone else may say the same thing about Linux, WHO CARES. It's up to the individual.

Looking at it from a desktop point of view:
It's worse because it doesn't have the drivers that Linux has.
It doesn't have the desktop user community that Linux has.

Talking about default installations as a major reason to use FreeBSD is beyond stupid.

Looking at it from a server point of view:
Who the fuck clicks 'I want a server install' and doesn't specify individual packages?

Looking at it from a desktop point of view:
Who cares wether XMMS is installed right now, or if you have to cd /usr/ports/x11/xmms ; make ; make install. Whoopie.

or even easier.
rpm -ivh /mnt/cdrom/Redhat/RPMS/xmms-*

Irk, default installs.

Lets look at it from a new user desktop OS point of view.
Ok, so maybe Aunt Telie is installing FreeBSD.
The installation process is already not suited for her.
But she gets daughter, who has a CS degree to install it with the default installation.

But what's a default FreeBSD installation anyway?
WHICH default?
Base, System, X?

So it's installed.
She has a nice KDE desktop running.
Suddenly, she wants to play some MP3s, so she wants to install XMMS.
Uhhh ... yeah ok.

Under redhat:
It's either already installed, or,
She pops in the Redhat CD.
GNORPM launches.

Whoopie do.

Now lets look at it from the server point of view again:

Both systems will achive enormous uptimes.
Both systems have great network stacks, with very good performance.
Both systems are much more reliable than a Windows server installation.
Both systems, when administered by a competent systems admin, will function flawlessly.

Linux 2.2 kernels are extremely stable.
Linux 2.4 kernels are still stabilising, but that doesn't mean that you can't have a reliable system with one.
I have a 2.4 system with a 200 day uptime.
It hasn't missed a beat.
I'm sure a FreeBSD kernel wouldn't either.

At the end of the day, it comes down to personal preference.
To me, FreeBSD feels awkward, while a Linux system has a nice feel. I don't really know how to describe that, but there's something there.

Anyway, the best way to figure out if it's worth "switching" to FreeBSD, is to try it.

You can even have FreeBSD and Linux living side by side. It's not hard.

If you shuffle the paragraphs around a bit, this post may make more sense. :-)