Re: [tlug] FreeBSD.....Linux what's the difference

[Jonathan Q <jq@example.com>]

Gavin (gauin_36@example.com) wrote:

> Need your help, I'm running Mandrake Linux 8.0

Got any hair left? :-)  I tried Mandrake (8.2) but found it so aggravating
for its blackbox-isms and poor firewalling (oh yes, and installer quirks) 
that after a couple days' test run, I replaced it with Red Hat 7.3
beta 2.

> BSD.  First, is there a difference between Free BSD, OpenBSD and NETBSD?

Yes, but they are all much more like each other than they are like
Linux (I believe both Net and Open were forked from Free), where:

> two. What is the difference between Linux and BSD?  

Umm, everything :-)  Both are in the Unix family (*BSD moreso than
Linux, because FreeBSD and its cousins are actually derived from 
BSD Unix, whereas Linux is a from-sratch implementation of
Unix, properly called a Unix-like operating system).  You 
probably saw the discussion between Chris and Steve about
Linux Vs. BSD; it covers it pretty well. 

If you're familiar with Linux, it's not hard to use BSD. Some things
are in different places, and BSD uses (quite naturally) BSD-style
init scripts rather than the SYS V style followed by Linux.  
For software packaging, BSD uses the ports system (read about it
at freebsd.org), which is quite nice.  Want to install some
program? If it's in ports, just cd to its directory and type make.
The source tarball will be downloaded, it will be configured, and 
compiled.  Then do make install.  You're done.

Each of the BSD cousins has a point of emphasis. For FreeBSD,
it's stability.  For OpenBSD, it's security. For NetBSD, it's
being able to run on everything from standard Intel gear to your
office water cooler.

Two of those approaches are covered in the philosophy of one
Linux distro as well, Debian. Debian places great emphasis on
stability (Debian Stable is indeed that) and also runs on a 
variety of hardware (11 platforms, I've read, but don't ask me
to name them).  Debian is also pretty secure.

So why, you might wonder, do I run Red Hat? :-)  Two reasons.
One is that I've been using Red Hat and clones thereof (TurboLinux)
for a long time and it's easy to do on autopilot (we could
call this laziness and inertia, but we won't :-) and Debian Stable
is so stable that it seems kind of old to run on a workstation,
where you often want to try latest-greatest stuff.  Debian stable
is great on a server, however.  In fact, a certain very solid mail 
system that I know runs on Debian.  For workstation use, I'd
want to run Debian Test (currently codenamed Woody, and approaching
promotion to Stable status, probably in May), or Debian Unstable,
which is aptly named (no pun intended), since this is where they 
can and do test/break stuff at a moment's notice.

I am putting together a Frankenputer out of dead parts right
now, so I probably actually will install Woody on it because I've
always wanted to learn Debian.  The package manager is a bit, well,
challenging, but once learned, I think everyone would agree that
it's just plain better than RPM [1]. 

If you want the ultimate in stability for mission-critical server use,
you can't go wrong with BSD.  If you want the latest bleeding
edge stuff, staying current on Red Hat will do.  If it's a Red Hat
.0 release, there will probably be quite a bit of bleeding indeed.
They tend to suck.  Debian Test is a reasonable middle ground.
Mandrake?  Unless you really, really need a locale that isn't in
one of the other distros (VNese, for example), Just Say No.  SuSE
is reputed to be pretty good, I hope to test out 8.0 if it shows up on
an FTP mirror someday  :-p

If you want to get into Linux up to your elbows, get Gentoo.  

Jonathan

[1] urpmi is said to do a reasonable job of implementing APT functionality
for RPM, but I haven't tried it yet.  If it's true, RH would do well
to incorporate its features into the RPM core.