Naming conventions for the first part.
Free from AT&T code. Open access to software.

As far as system setup. Each is a completely different kernel and userland. OpenBSD uses a customized X which is available with the base system. FreeBSD is more customizable by the user. Different filesystems.


Because they use the basic UNIX hierarchy that is also common with Linux and other unix-like systems, you should have little to no difficulty in understanding and using them.

That article is four years old. Those issues have been taken care of.
FreeBSD is one of four BSD systems.
Funny, in 2006, I had no problems with SATA. If the hardware was supported, it worked. The same applies to all BSD systems. USB stack support was improved during that time. More is added.
Anyway, the poster must not have been much of a programmer if I could get the system running with no training or experience.
Smeezekitty, when was the last time you used any BSD system?

I've never used UNIX, haven't got round to trying any of the BSDs yet, so I can't comment (but I have).

Linux, because of the GPL.

As you adviced, I just burnt the cdrom freebsd 8.0
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/re...i386-disc1.iso
I gonna install that on a laptop

why FREEBSD is more secured than LINUX?

Are the packages less buggy and better working than Linux?
Are apt-get search and apt-get install still there?

apt-get and aptitude are debian package managers, freebsd uses pkg_add (etc)

Main system here is OpenBSD.
When running linux, I use Slackware and sometimes Debian.

They are both Free Software, as in freedom. The most obvious differences are of focus - OpenBSD is renowned for its security, while I believe FreeBSD is a bit easier to use. (And then there's NetBSD, famed for running on anything.)

+1,000,000,000,000,000

Does anyone actually use Unix these days? Solaris is no more Unix than BSD is, and HP-UX and Irix are no longer marketed.

I tried one of the BSDs once. After installation I found myself in TWM, with a terminal window deeper than the screen that I couldn't resize because I couldn't get to the bottom to pull it up ... When I finally got a workable GUI, I found that something else had got broken in the process, and so on. No doubt it works OK on Yahoo's servers, but if it's so great why are they the only company I can name that uses it?

Irix may have pretty much faded away, but HP-UX is still alive.

Also according to the HP-UX article on Wikipedia:

Latest stable release 11.31.0909 - HP-UX 11i v3 March 2010 update release (update 6) / March 2010

edit

I don't know if anyone mentioned AIX yet.

Depending on what you mean by "BSD" you are either correct or mistaken. If by "BSD" you mean "BSD UNIX", then yes, Solaris is no more UNIX than BSD (but they're both UNIX). Solaris is UNIX (read up on things such as the Single UNIX Specification, etc.)

So what? I tried various flavors of BSDs more than once and that never happened to me. What should be the conclusion?

So an operating system's quality is given by the people/companies that use it? If Linux is such a great operating system how come Windows dominates the market? Sheesh.

OSX is Unix

[ to not to be considered:

what happened to the poor penguin ...
http://www.gotocosmik.com/wp/wp-content/freebsd2.jpg

I saw that funny while googling BSD
]

@frenchn00b

I really didn't need to see that...

I know, I could have just as easily not clicked the link, but nooooo...

Also:

I do believe he (DavidMcCann) is referring to the original Unix™, which I don't think anyone uses anymore these days.

Mac OS X might be Unixey, but it's not the Unix™.