I agree that FreeBSD is strong in stability and security, at the expense of having not so many devices supported out of the box: most of the latest hardware is unusable under FreeBSD, and moderately usable under Linux.
However the claim that it runs on nearly every piece of hardware that Linux runs under... Oh, well...
Personally, I've never run across any devices supported in Linux that weren't supported in FreeBSD. Just bought a PC from MicroCenter that came pre-installed w/LinSpire, and included a DVD / CDRW combo. I didn't have any problem wiping-out the drive, installing FreeBSD, and getting everything working. I had no problems w/OpenBSD, either, which shares the hard drive on the same PC. Both run just as easy as a desktop as in Linux. My wife, who knows nothing about the command line, uses FreeBSD as her desktop and loves it.
Yes, Linux at the moment does support more platforms than FreeBSD. However, FreeBSD runs on the most common types for desktop users, which is the current target audience in the Linux campaign. If you need support for a platform that FreeBSD does not offer, it's common knowledge that NetBSD does. In fact, NetBSD is portable to more architectures than any other operating system, including Linux: http://www.netbsd.org
All around, the BSDs offer more support than Linux, and if there is any doubt, you can grab what you need through the Linux compatibility.
Carla Schroder
12-17-2005, 11:05 AM
I assume y'all are responding to http://www.serverwatch.com/sreviews/article.php/3569631
Let's stick to meaningful comparisons, OK? "If you need support for a platform that FreeBSD does not offer, it's common knowledge that NetBSD does." You can't combine them to get broader support, gotta use one at a time, right?
FreeBSD, like all BSDs, is a great OS. It does not support nearly as much hardware and software as Linux does, which can be frustrating for a desktop user. I wouldn't get too excited about the Linux compatibility layer, it's iffy. Sometimes it works without pain, sometimes it is pain itself. And it rather foils the whole idea of choosing FreeBSD because it is a coherent, well-integrated platform. Anyway, why use a BSD if you want Linux features?
Linux gives far more flexibility for both users and developers. You can have tried-n-true, you can have bleeding-edge, and everything in between. Developers are going to find skillions more projects and interesting things happening in the Linux world. For someone who wants vast choices, Linux is a great playground. FreeBSD is always going to lag behind, which isn't a bad thing- refining and improving is something that the FOSS world needs more of.
One thing I always wonder -why is it when someone wants to illustrate how easy their chosen computing platform is, they trot out their wives and grandmothers as examples? I think these wives and grandmothers are fictional. It's like there are all these wives and grandmother sitting around waiting for the Great Geek in the family to rope them into sitting down at the computer. They fight! They resist! "Noooo, computers are scary and evil!" But then they are won over by the operating system du jour, and become instant converts.
I don't think so. :)
horns_to_ya
12-17-2005, 09:34 PM
Between your hyperbole and grossly unsupported arguments, I don't know where to start. I like the added touch of calling me a liar in your closing statements, though. Nice.
1) "FreeBSD, like all BSDs, is a great OS. It does not support nearly as much hardware and software as Linux does, which can be frustrating for a desktop user."
As I stated in my initial post, desktop users will overwhelmingly be using the x86 architecture, which FreeBSD supports. Again, I haven't come across anything that BSD and Linux do not equally support.
As far as software goes, check out the link and name me something that BSD doesn't support for the desktop user:
http://www.freebsd.org/ports/master-index.html
---------------
2) "I wouldn't get too excited about the Linux compatibility layer, it's iffy."
No worry. I don't get that excited by Linux in general. But since you imply that you lead my tracks, maybe you can provide a step-by-step instruction first, and I'll follow with mine. We can compare notes and determine where you got stumped.
---------------
3) "Anyway, why use a BSD if you want Linux features?"
I don't want Linux features, just the compatibility. Why?:
A. No matter how you scream, vendors think along the same lines as you. That is, Linux is for the desktop and BSD is just something you run as a server.
B. My "fictitous" wife insists on web browser plugin support.
C. I do BSD documentation on the web, and a lot of the visitors to my site want to know how get things like flashplayer running on FreeBSD.
Items B and C are the main reasons I use Linux compatibility.
---------------
4) "Linux gives far more flexibility for both users and developers."
Flexibility in what? A desktop runs the same in BSD as in Linux. For developers, one only needs to point to the difference in licensing. Just ask Apple.
---------------
5) "You can have tried-n-true, you can have bleeding-edge, and everything in between."
You have FreeBSD-stable. You have FreeBSD-current. You have no point.
---------------
6) "Developers are going to find skillions more projects and interesting things happening in the Linux world."
Skillions? Really? List them. Otherwise, refrain from the ridiculous exaggeration. Dairy Queen has "scrump-dilly-icious" cones, BTW.
---------------
7) "For someone who wants vast choices, Linux is a great playground."
The key word here is: "Playground". When I became an adult, I put away childish things. My point is, the desktop user looking for a playground isn't even going to make the giant leap away from Windows. For the rest of us, who enjoy tinkering with the tools in the open source world, we can find whatever we need in either BSD or Linux.
---------------
8) "FreeBSD is always going to lag behind, which isn't a bad thing- refining and improving is something that the FOSS world needs more of."
Having things done right the first go around isn't exactly lagging behind. It's nice to be able to spend my time getting work done, rather than wasting it by tracking down the latest bug report, downloading the daily patches, or trying to get inside the mind of some Linux developer to figure out why the numbskull decided to rewrite the rules for no apparent reason. Too many hands in the pot with no clear-cut direction. Call me a dinosaur, but I get from point A to point B with a lot less hassle.
---------------
9) "One thing I always wonder -why is it when someone wants to illustrate how easy their chosen computing platform is, they trot out their wives and grandmothers as examples."
Who mention their grandmothers? But if you must know, one is dead and the other is 95, and currently confined to a rest home, where I seriously doubt she has much use for a computer.
---------------
10) "I think these wives and grandmothers are fictional."
Did I mention that I'm fictional? Gee, what do you want, here ... a marriage certificate? Sorry, I didn't realize that I joined the First Church Of Christian Science by registering to this forum on my fictional PC.
---------------
11) "It's like there are all these wives and grandmother sitting around waiting for the Great Geek in the family to rope them into sitting down at the computer. They fight! They resist! "Noooo, computers are scary and evil!" But then they are won over by the operating system du jour, and become instant converts."
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Yeah, those were the dramatics I was hoping to convey, only I couldn't rhyme the words with "green eggs and ham". Thank God, you're still alive, Dr.Seuss!
---------------
12) I don't think so.
Well, it's good to hear you are thinking.
---------------
13) "Let's stick to meaningful comparisons, OK?"
I agree. Exactly my point. Let's stop comparing hundreds of Linux distros to one BSD. If we must, then compare across the board to be fair.
Okay, time for meaningful comparisons:
A. Linux is just a kernel. FreeBSD is an entire operating system. As such, why not refer to it in proper context, GNU/Linux? Where would its userland be without Richard Stallman? Probably at the losing end of a court battle.
B. Kernel compiling is hideous in Linux. It's a breeze in FreeBSD.
C. Can you burn a CD without SCSI emulation in Linux? No, but you can in FreeBSD. The SCSI emulation is available, also (you can catagorize this under "flexibility").
D. Desktops/ Window managers: Show me a Linux distro that offers 60+ easily-installable graphical environments as FreeBSD. Shoot, just show me one that runs leaner in Linux.
E. Custom installation: Try that in Linux without breaking something.
F. Pick one: IPFW vs. IPTABLES. PF vs. IPTABLES.
There's six to get you started. Beyond that, I'm not your keeper and additional comparisons can be located via some simple google research.
---------------
14) You can't combine them to get broader support, gotta use one at a time, right?"
Wrong. I can run pf on FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD. I can run binary packages from one BSD on another. I run FreeBSD packages on OpenBSD, for instance. Of course, I can run Linux packages, also.
Can you say the same for Linux?
---------------
As an aside, if any of the main three frustrate:
http://www.pcbsd.org/
---------------
Maybe you should take a dip in FreeBSD as the author suggests. It might help you bring something to the table other than that flag-waving crusade of yours. I'd appreciate the courtesy of backing up your comments with links, or something I can research next time, too.
Thanks.
Serverwatch.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc. All Rights Reserved.