What about BSD?

[sarah31]

phunni i wouldn't consider linux better than bsd or vice versa. they are different oses designed for different users.

 

personally i don't think there is any one os that claim superiority over another. some may be more stable, some better servers, some better for heavy production of graphics, etc. ALL oses have short comings and will continue to (ie linux is by no means easier to get peripherals running on, bsd is not as good a desktop OS, windows has stability issues, etc).

 

i don't advocate any os over another. i will suggest certain oses for certain people but in the end a user will use what they like. if they like windows so be it (i have to use windows at work and it does not bother me). If they like Mac OS so be it. And so forth.

 

so why don't the bsd's get mentioned here? because this is a linux forum and to that end a specific linux forum and most users here are trying to get used to linux never mind wrapping their heads around bsd.

[Gowator]

Hmmm

"so why don't the bsd's get mentioned here? because this is a linux forum and to that end a specific linux forum and most users here are trying to get used to linux never mind wrapping their heads around bsd."

 

Yes and no...

A lot of linux code is based on bsd code anyway. Some apparent SCO code is based on bsd code, but what the heck :-) understanding the large bsd contribution to linux is important.. between sys V and BSD you can understand most of linux..

 

However, more importantly as you rightly point out all Os's have stengths and weaknesses though for the life of me Im trying to find a strength of XP that doesn't cancel itself out...

 

BSD does a lot of things well and Linux has traditionally copied them.

But ... Windows get's mentioned all the time.

 

Personally (i.e. /ME) would prefer to see linux taking the best from everywhere.... BUT at the moment from a user point of view it seems to be taking thwe windows copying route....

 

That is at a UI level but heck if they wanna copy something copy a OS-X UI.

If you wanna copy the TCP/IP stack then copy BSD....etc...

Every time I see a Windows Linux comparison I wonder why...

these are usually the negative ones...

Like windows won't upgrade without trashing your apps so its OK if linux doesn't.

 

No - It isn't .. This is a bad attitude, like choosing a bad role model....

Just becuase XP requires n'reboots to install shouldn't mean itsOK for linux to install that way....

For years (up to W2K) changing your IP address needed a reboot....

Thank goodness linux didn't copy that!!!

 

I very much get the impression (hence the POLL) that a lot of people have only used Linux and Windows and therefore compare Linux with windows... this isn't good becuase it leads to the attitude that linux is only about being better than windows....

To me this is immaterial.... I don't care.... I want my preferred OS to be the best for ME

 

Comparing a *nix and Windows just isn't valid....

windows is monolithic... I don't want to see Xfree included in the kernel (please)

But its the modular nature of *nix that gives opensource its strength....

People can develop what they do best...

Someone can write a nice front-end to cdrecord ...(apparently some people don't like the cli!!) But they don't rewrite cdrecord, Jorg Schilling does!!!

One person/group might right a MP3 encoder...

Another might right a front end... like say GRIP

But becuase its *nix the user can choose the codec!! when a better faster less lossy codec or encoder comes along you just stick it in the place of the old one...

 

This is why standards are so important.....

 

Windows doesn't use standards... it takes open standards and screws em about until theyre MSified ... That is why I don't like windows (at the moment) Copying the MS standard corruption is BAD!!! This is the base of *nix (a distro has no right to do this... Linus doesn't have a right to do this (and indeed doesn't)) because their work is based on hundreds of thousands of OpenSource programmers work....

 

 

But most of all, if we (as users) don't discuss what is good in other os's then we don't realise what is good and bad in linux...

I think linux is overwhelmingly good but certain parts can be improved.

For evidence look at the changes in 2.6

 

Now tell me that isn't a BSD way....(esp modules)

Thats why it should be discussed,,,,we waste enough words on windows which is irrelevant to linux's development so looking at a few real OS's can only be a good thing....

[Leo]

I do not believe that Windows is irrelevant. Comparisons are both healthy and useful in order to improve Linux (that is not to say that other OS should be ignored, far from it). As you rightly point out, to develop a better OS we should be looking to ALL OS out there and emulating their best features (and adding some of our own too).

 

Windows, for all its faults, creates an interface that the average user finds pleasing to look at and straight forward to use, if any OS is to emulate the success of Windows it cannot afford to ignore the average user (or even the below average user).

 

It is preferable to understand how it works but it is not necessary (the same as with a car, if you can fix it yourself you will save a packet but there are a whole host of people willing to fix it for you (at a price)). Linux allows us to bugger about with the engine (provided we are prepared to accept the consequences) but it should also enable us to merely drive it if that is what we the users want (provided we are prepared to accept the consequences).

[Gowator]

Yeah I agree really Leo,

It's just I find the constant comparision with windows worst features is dominating several topic's.... the constant 'yeah but windows has bug fixes, windows doesn't upgrade reliably etc'

 

I think its irrelevant in this area because we are taking windows worst features as an excuse for linux or mandrake NOT sorting out some remaining issues when we should be looking at commercial unix or BSD or Mac OS-X in these areas.

 

Like you say Windows manages to create an 'easy to use' interface for people who want to use the computer as an appliance. However I think Apple do this better but that isn't the point. Overall the Windows interface is 'better' than KDE or Gnome or .....

So this is an area where comparison is valid.

 

 

However.... my main rant is really as pointed out the trend AWAY from standards. I know I go on BUT the Drak Wizards can really suck sometimes.... Its not the fact they are there, its the fact you have to install linuxconf or webmin specifically whereas the wizards are automatically selected.

 

I think it is in the interests of users that they are pointed towards the limitations of 'windows like wizards' and shown alternatives.

 

i.e. a help button descrbing what diskdrake is doing and the limitations of doing this through the GUI ... (wasted disk space, untuned filesystems etc.) kinda like click theis to get it all working BUT if you want to make it better/more efficient then you should look into x,y,z.

 

I think this is a long way off and in fact the reverse is happening. Mandrake (and they aren't alone) are trying to get people ONLY using the wizards ....

Of course this is clever marketing.... imagine moving to Debian or Gentoo from Mandrake and having never worked out how to add a default gateway from the CLI or with linuxconf/webmin.

 

I'm not against wizards per se... but they should be used in moderation and provide helpful hints to alternative ways. Its arrogant of Mandrake to presume their DrakWizards will be the best at EVERYTHING and to rely on people not being able to use another distro becuase they only know how to use wizards.

[Leo]

I agree whole-heartedly.

 

Offtopic: Although I would like to say a word in defence of marketeers (being one ) we very rarely, if ever, get to decide what goes into a product or how it works, we just have to work out how to sell it and who to sell it to :D .

[Guest vande198]

I've always imagined BSD to be an OS more useful towards running a higher-end server, something requiring extra stability (see OpenBSD), while Linux was more of small server and desktop OS, especially since it more swiftly adopts more radical changes (e.g. multi-threading, which was in Linux since the early 90s, and which only got implimented in the FreeBSD 5.x series a decade later), and thus has a few more applications that can run on it than BSD (e.g. Xine, until the 5.x series). I suspect that Linux might leech more into the BSDs' role w/the new 2.6 kernel. Otherwise, they seem extremely comparable.

[jlc]

while Linux was more of small server

Just to clear things up, see who's number 3

 

http://www.top500.org/

 

Linux is very scalable!

 

B)

[Gowator]

Hmm, a rather sad 66!!!Must see if I can get KDE running on it... should be reasonably fast???

[jlc]

Hmm, a rather sad 66!!!Must see if I can get KDE running on it... should be reasonably fast???

Is that were you work? I know I saw you or someone else posting that Company before.

[SoulSe]

Conceptually, there is not a huge difference between BSD and Linux, I know that that statement will attract some criticism, which is fine. I like the arguments that suggest that we should start comparing Linux to 'real oses,' But what OS that is _still_ WIDELY USED, besides the old Mac OS and maybe OS2, is really that different to Linux? Obviously Windows, and?

 

OSX and BSD are based on Unix, like Linux is. The differences are not huge, although they do have huge consequences. But to the average guy in the street, BSD probably won't seem very different to Linux.

 

The biggest argument for BSD is it's stableness, but since the approach is very similar to Gentoo, I don't understand why it would be MUCH stabler.

 

Anyway, I have never used BSD, so I would not know. I am planning to try it out sometime, but I am still on dialup, so it'll be a while ;)

[Guest LB06]

I have been running FreeBSD for quite a while on my server. I must say I don't see much significant differences compared to let's say Debian Woody. I would mark them both as very reliable and secure. FreeBSD, however, has a slight advantage in terms of performance (my experience).

 

I think FreeBSD can be allocated as a desktop system, although I don't think that's the focus. 5.x-RELEASE offers reasonable up to date packages and features, but definitely does not make it easier to set up a desktop environment with sound, X, etc. Debian (yes, through ncurses based 'wizards') and Mandrake do. Currently I and running Arch Linux as my main OS next to MDK on my laptop. With Arch everything's just so bright I don't need any automagic stuff (Debian, on the contrary, would be a lot more difficult without the semi-automatic package configuration). This transparency and simplicity I'm missing with FreeBSD on a desktop.

 

NB: This is just my experience. Sorry for my terrible English.

Edited November 24, 2003 by LB06

[Windependent]

I very rarely see much discussion on any of the BSDs. Has anyone here tried them? Iam a bit curious about them and may play around with them one of these days, though I doubt I'd get very far with my limited experience, but oh well. 

getting back to Gnubie's original post, yep, I've tried FreeBSD and I've been very happy with the result.

 

I had originally tried setting up Mandrake MNF as a firewall/proxy for my home-based LAN which uses a DSL hookup. After beating my head into the wall for over a solid week and getting nowhere with MNF, I just concluded that it was crippleware and gave up on it. I revisited the problem a few times over the following month and never got MNF to work properly.

 

I ran into a Linux consultant at a local used PC shop and briefly discussed my problem, and that I was thinking about BSD. He recommended trying FreeBSD, as it has a history of being extremely robust while serving up complex applications such as Hotmail. (For those of you who weren't aware of it, the MS Hotmail system orignally ran on BSD -- that should be testament enough to its durability).

 

So I went home and Googled the string "FreeBDS +firewall" and found a couple of sites with tutorials on how to set-up a Firewall/Proxy using FreeBSD. Following those directions, in one evening I had set-up the FreeBSD firewall/proxy and its still running on my LAN to this day.

 

I have to admit that for workstations I still prefer the major Linux distros like Suse and Mandrake, but FreeBSD makes a great firewall/proxy.

 

HTH!

 

bob