Re: I hate to say this....

[Steve Borho <sborho ststech com>]

On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 12:21:03PM -0400, Soffen, Matthew wrote:
> Some of the differences (as far as I know from my use of FreeBSD and
> Linux):
> 
> 1) FreeBSD allows you to make changes to the code and sell it (as long
> as you keep their info in the headers).  Linux does not.  If you make
> changes to the kernel you are "supposed to" send the changes to the
> kernel group.

FreeBSD kernel has the BSD license, Linux is under GPL.  You can sell
either, you just can't keep modifications to GPL'd code proprietary.

Other than the kernel, both FreeBSD and Linux OS's use a lot of the
same software.  Both kernels have extremely bright developers working
on them. 

It's a true demonstration of the differences between the cathedral
(FreeBSD) and the bazaar (Linux).  FreeBSD advocates claim more
stability and fewer compatibility problems and Linux advocates point
to the plethura of device drivers and supported filesystems (and
users).

> 2) FreeBSD is "real unix" (It's kernel contains actual AT&T UNIX code)
> and is BSD (Berkley) based.  Linux is a posix like kernel that is  SYS5
> like (it has NO code from any of the "real" UNIX's).

The Linux kernel is a mix of SYS5 and BSD design.  They like to say
that they picked the best features of each.

> 3) FreeBSD does not have the NATIVE device support that linux has
> (however it does run Linux binaries).  Linux has a large native device
> support base.

Yet FreeBSD has a working USB driver and Linux doesn't... so it's not
necessarily a subset of Linux's drivers.  There is also a lot of
driver sharing that goes on... FreeBSD drivers are ported to Linux and
vice versa.

> 4) FreeBSD does not have the same FS support (No SambaFS).  Linux can
> handle some of the other FS's better (SambaFS, NTFS).
> 
> 5) FreeBSD uses multiple partitions (/, /usr, /var, /tmp, etc) , Linux
> tends to want a single partition (or 2 - / and /home).

This is an administration issue and doesn't have much to do with
kernel or OS design.  Both systems try to adhere to FHS.
http://www.pathname.com/fhs

> 6) FreeBSD has a single point for starting all local files
> (/etc/rc.local) on reboot.  It doesn't have "run levels".  Linux has
> different configs for each run level.

Slackware also uses the BSD style init scripts.  I think it supports
run-levels, just not as well as the SYS5 model (which Red Hat uses).
This is also just an administration decision... by default, all the
*BSD's use the BSD style init scripts (*duh*) and Red Hat uses the
SYS5 model, but they are easily interchangeable.

> 7) FreeBSD doesn't have RPM's (it has ports for installing software).
> Linux uses packages (RPMs) for installing software.

Same as 5 and 6.  RPM is (in theory anyway) operating system agnostic.

> 8) FreeBSD has a single distribution.  Anyone can make/sell a Linux
> distribution.

With it's associated good and bad points.

> Now for "subjective" parts
> 
> 1) FreeBSD is harder to install than Linux.  FreeBSD uses 2 floppies for
> booting.  You also have a config screen to "turn off" devices you don't
> have.  You don't have as simple a screen as the "select rpm'" screen of
> RH Linux.

Probably because there's no competition between FreeBSD
"distributions", and also because FreeBSD is not trying to pretend to
be an end-user operating system.

> 2) Building a Kernel in FreeBSD is lots easier than in Linux.  In
> FreeBSD you modify a config file, config it, build dependencies, build
> the kernel and install it.

Never tried it, so I can't comment.

-- 
Steve Borho <sborho ststech com>