LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   *BSD (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/%2Absd-17/)
-   -   BSD is stable or Linux? (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/%2Absd-17/bsd-is-stable-or-linux-4175431641/)

jokar.mohsen 10-11-2012 05:12 AM

BSD is stable or Linux?
 
Hello All.
BSD is More Stable or Linux?

thanks.

PrinceCruise 10-11-2012 05:26 AM

Forewarning : This has been beaten to death before and is an utter futile point of discussion.

Regards.

Knightron 10-11-2012 08:07 AM

Well for starters, BSD was discontinued back in 1995. You perhaps mean FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, or one of the others. Gnu/Linux on the other hand has way to damn many distributions to make this comparison, especially when each distribution has varying levels of stability to each other.

sycamorex 10-11-2012 08:11 AM

On top of that, any system's stability can be greatly affected by its user's bad/good habits and skills.

ottavio 10-11-2012 11:43 AM

I thought that <insert latest version of> Windows was more stable.

Knightron 10-11-2012 07:35 PM

To be honest, i have never successfully used any of the BSDs. I've tried FreeBSD a few times, but it doesn't detect my hardware on install and i need the dd image. I rely on mobile broadband and under Gnu/Linux i connect through networkmanager. The BSDs don't have networkmanager, so that's out of the question for me. I have tried connecting to the internet with wvdial under Gnu/Linux before; followed several guides but can't connect for the life of me. Once i have learned to get Gnu/Linux to connect under wvdial, i'll perhaps give FreeBSD another go.

@ottavio, is that an assumption? or an opinion based on experience?

To give the OP an idea. I see FreeBSD like Debian.
Debian has the three branches, stable, testing, and unstable. FreeBSD is very similar, it also has three branches.
FreeBSD's branches are called; release, stable, and current.

jokar.mohsen 10-13-2012 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knightron (Post 4803469)
To be honest, i have never successfully used any of the BSDs. I've tried FreeBSD a few times, but it doesn't detect my hardware on install and i need the dd image. I rely on mobile broadband and under Gnu/Linux i connect through networkmanager. The BSDs don't have networkmanager, so that's out of the question for me. I have tried connecting to the internet with wvdial under Gnu/Linux before; followed several guides but can't connect for the life of me. Once i have learned to get Gnu/Linux to connect under wvdial, i'll perhaps give FreeBSD another go.

@ottavio, is that an assumption? or an opinion based on experience?

To give the OP an idea. I see FreeBSD like Debian.
Debian has the three branches, stable, testing, and unstable. FreeBSD is very similar, it also has three branches.
FreeBSD's branches are called; release, stable, and current.


I agree with your Idea,i can't use BSD too but i think PCBSD is user friendly but Linux have many APP and many freebsd app is for Linux like Gnome or KDE.

Knightron 10-13-2012 09:08 AM

I have tried PcBSD, and it did detect my hardware, but i had to use a beta image, which isn't my ideal setup, i like stable unchanging software. I can't say i messed with PcBSD a lot though. being based off FreeBSD I still suffer the same issue. If i have no internet, i can't progress much further.
Quote:

but Linux have many APP and many freebsd app is for Linux like Gnome or KDE.
Sorry, your english isn't the best, can you please explain what you mean.

(It's defiantly not the worst i've seen though.)

ottavio 10-14-2012 11:15 AM

The only BSD I've ever installed was Netbsd and I had no trouble installing it. I happily ignored the Netbsd manual and accepted defaults.

jefro 10-14-2012 12:32 PM

The BSD distro's tend to have settings and are configured for stability.

I worked at (big computer company) and we would have all sorts of issues going from one os to another. No one knows the complexity of using millions of parts that change from day to day and it's effects on various OS's. Simple timings are off and pals are wrong and such. Remember that linux does not use the computer as a version or service level of windows would. Even from service pack to another one could find board failures. Some many people use linux on very untested devices, there is no way to tell what might happen.

Servers are more tested and some are sold as fully supported by some OS and version level.

jokar.mohsen 10-15-2012 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jefro (Post 4805496)
The BSD distro's tend to have settings and are configured for stability.

I worked at (big computer company) and we would have all sorts of issues going from one os to another. No one knows the complexity of using millions of parts that change from day to day and it's effects on various OS's. Simple timings are off and pals are wrong and such. Remember that linux does not use the computer as a version or service level of windows would. Even from service pack to another one could find board failures. Some many people use linux on very untested devices, there is no way to tell what might happen.

Servers are more tested and some are sold as fully supported by some OS and version level.

Hello,Thank you for reply.
Excuse me,can i contact you via email?

rocket357 10-15-2012 01:46 PM

I can say without a shadow of a doubt that ${FAVORITE_OS} is incredibly more stable than ${NOT_FAVORITE_OS}. I mean, I've had issues installing ${NOT_FAVORITE_OS}, so ${FAVORITE_OS} is obviously better. Forget ${MY_HARDWARE}, though, we're speaking in ${TRUTH}s here. Go for ${FAVORITE_OS}, you won't regret it, even if you have ${YOUR_HARDWARE} and not ${MY_HARDWARE}.

NyteOwl 10-15-2012 06:56 PM

Lol 5^

ReaperX7 10-15-2012 08:55 PM

PC-BSD has been a good distribution as has FreeBSD. The only thing is with any BSD based system you might not have the same hardware support levels you will with Linux. Also, Intel, Nvidia, and AMD currently are the only few known vendors to have some level of 3D acceleration of graphics on these systems, whereas with Linux this is a bit broader spectrum.

However, I've had some very good results with PC-BSD and PC-BSD does have a nice UI installers and supports usage of ZFS at installation time.

If with any system, give it a tryout for a month and see how well it works for you. You might be pleased.

gezley 10-17-2012 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jokar.mohsen (Post 4802839)
Hello All.
BSD is More Stable or Linux?

thanks.

Hi!

Among the *BSDs I have found NetBSD (usage: 2+ years) and OpenBSD (usage: 7+ years) very stable. I have been using NetBSD 5 and 6 (beta and now stable) as a Xen virtual host running multiple virtual machines (including NetBSD virtual machines) day and night for two years without any major problems.

Among the Linux distributions I have found Slackware (usage: 3 years) and Debian (usage: 11+ years) very stable.

To my ears the quality of OSS audio in NetBSD surpasses the quality of Alsa in Linux. I also prefer the PF and IPF firewall solutions in the *BSDs. And, finally, I think networking is more stable in OpenBSD and NetBSD.

Slackware is the most BSD-like of the Linux distributions, and it is rock-solid. It is the only Linux distribution I am perfectly happy to use.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:01 AM.