LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   General (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/)
-   -   UNIX vs LINUX vs BSD (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/unix-vs-linux-vs-bsd-811566/)

mattvdh 06-01-2010 04:14 PM

UNIX vs LINUX vs BSD
 
Which do you use, and why do you prefer it over the rest?

Mr-Bisquit 06-01-2010 04:24 PM

I use two of them: Linux and BSD.
Linux is for my laptop- one partition, my girlfriend's laptop, her vnc server, and as an emergency system on my desktop.
BSDs: FreeBSD on a laptop, the G3, the current desktop I am on. OpenBSD currently being used. (NetBSD is an off again off again thing.)

The BSD choices are for stability and security. The Linux choices are for ease of use.

As mentioned before, the Linux choices are Debian and Fedora.

posixculprit 06-01-2010 05:38 PM

FreeBSD because it is open source, active, works ok on my machines (x86) and I have been able to rely on it in order to get the job done for many years. Had I had Sparc machines I'd run Solaris on them. I don't have the hardware for AIX/IRIX/HP-UX/etc. and this is why I do not run UNIX(R). I try to keep away from Linux because many of its most popular distributions cater to people who hate Windows (yet can't stop whining and complaining when their distribution of choice acts differently than Windows). And I very much dislike the whole "let's get the world to switch to Linux" movement. Things used to be different.

MrCode 06-01-2010 06:40 PM

Quote:

I very much dislike the whole "let's get the world to switch to Linux" movement.
Not every Linux user is part of that whole "movement". For instance, I don't actively try to get people to "convert" to Linux. In fact, I'm very shy about talking about Linux with people who don't already use it or at least know about it. I know that Linux isn't for everyone, so I don't push it on people. If they inquire, I'll (try to) tell them what I know in terms that they can understand, but I don't say "Hey, you should try Linux!" just because I feel that Linux should be the most popular computer operating system (and I don't really care whether it is or isn't, to be honest).

cantab 06-01-2010 07:08 PM

Define what you mean by UNIX.

smeezekitty 06-01-2010 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrCode (Post 3989298)
Not every Linux user is part of that whole "movement". For instance, I don't actively try to get people to "convert" to Linux. In fact, I'm very shy about talking about Linux with people who don't already use it or at least know about it. I know that Linux isn't for everyone, so I don't push it on people. If they inquire, I'll (try to) tell them what I know in terms that they can understand, but I don't say "Hey, you should try Linux!" just because I feel that Linux should be the most popular computer operating system (and I don't really care whether it is or isn't, to be honest).

I never try to pushing anyone to switch to linux.
Although, i try hard for people to switch from IE -> Firefox for security purposes -- .. -- And it ain't easy.

Robhogg 06-01-2010 07:22 PM

I work with Solaris (mainly), and use Linux at home.

There are a number of strong points with Solaris, particularly:
  • The ZFS filesystem/volume manager is pretty impressive, and easier to use than LVM2.
  • Live upgrade is also very useful. I've upgraded several remote systems to Solaris 10, without needing console access.
  • Solaris seems to have a stronger set of performance analysis tools.

However, Linux is stronger on many points:
  • Package managers! In Solaris, we have to use a 3rd-party utility (pca) to patch systems. Nothing like the quality of apt.
  • I have never had a Linux PC fail to boot after patching. I have encountered several serious issues with Solaris patches, in just the last 6 months.
  • Some of the GNU coreutils have options missing from their Solaris counterparts (the -o option in grep or -i in sed).
  • Openness. Even in OpenSolaris, the patches are closed.

Overall, I vote Linux. But I pine for ZFS.

rkski 06-01-2010 09:28 PM

Linux all the way. If you want the stability and security of BSD, just choose a linux distro like CentOS and make it as secure as you want.

mattvdh 06-02-2010 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cantab (Post 3989320)
Define what you mean by UNIX.

AIX, SUN/SOLARIS, TRU64, HP-UX 11i, IRIX etc etc

frenchn00b 06-02-2010 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr-Bisquit (Post 3989160)
I use two of them: Linux and BSD.
Linux is for my laptop- one partition, my girlfriend's laptop, her vnc server, and as an emergency system on my desktop.
BSDs: FreeBSD on a laptop, the G3, the current desktop I am on. OpenBSD currently being used. (NetBSD is an off again off again thing.)

The BSD choices are for stability and security. The Linux choices are for ease of use.

As mentioned before, the Linux choices are Debian and Fedora.

what is more stable in general with BSD compared with linux?

Kenny_Strawn 06-02-2010 06:31 PM

Definitely Linux. It's more customizable, has more hardware support, has APT, and, yes, has GNOME Shell and 3D acceleration support.

smeezekitty 06-02-2010 06:45 PM

@Kenny_strawn: APT and Gnome are NOT part of linux, they are part of debian/'buntu.

Mr-Bisquit 06-02-2010 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frenchn00b (Post 3990496)
what is more stable in general with BSD compared with linux?


The kernel and userland are a complete set. Believe me, this was helpful when installing FreeBSD on the G3. This also made the installing of OpenBSD easier.
OpenBSD ports are optimized for $RELEASE.
FreeBSD ports have these asvantages over Linux package management:
a) configuration options are up to the user.
b) packages can be installed directly or with make + $OPTIONS
c) package sources are tar.gz or tgz in many cases.

OpenBSD and NetBSD also have ports and pkg_$OPTIONS.
OpenBSD has pf on at boot.
FreeBSD requires you to manually add a user to any group. You can't su or sudo if you aren't in the proper group.
You can use /etc/ttys or rc.conf to set the window manager.Maybe you want GDM today, XDM tomorrow, KDM on Saturday, etc.
Loader.conf is for adding startup options, or adjusting them.
Want to lock down read and write plus other permissions quickly?
Set run levels.
Sound? Enable it in loader.conf.
Want the kernel to take up less space and have a "linux" feel? gzip 9
Need a complete source to build a system, an embedded system? It can be installed with ftp, svn, or sysinstall.
Need to run fsck? OpenBSD does it by default, FreeBSD has option 4.
Want to run kde3 and kde4? Maybe different versions of afterstep? Sure.


I know it's going to work. The systems are structured as a whole. The mailing lists are every informative and helpful. Documentation is more detailed, although it is "less common" than for Ubuntu or Gentoo.

As a user you need to learn the entire system. There is PCBSD and the now-defunct DesktopBSD for those who don't want to do any "work."

Devices are seen as $ID<value> and not as general devices. This is helpful if you are using multiple NICs.

Basic configuration files are more secure than on a Linux distribution.


You need the desire to learn to use a BSD system. I would say that- from what exposure I have had with Linux distributions- Gentoo and Slackware come close to the "BSD feeling." I.e. satisfaction because you know the system.
BSD snapshots are a lot more stable than a Linux testing release. I ran FreeBSD 6.2 SNAPSHOT for two years before upgrading.

Applications and environments require less memory.


Which BSD? Just pick one. If it won't work with your hardware, then choose another.

Of course, this is my opinion. Other people who use BSD systems will have different answers.

smeezekitty 06-02-2010 06:56 PM

http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/f...er/002961.html

MrCode 06-02-2010 07:11 PM

Just a curious question: What's the difference between FreeBSD and OpenBSD? Are they both free as in speech and beer, or is one libre/gratis whereas the other is only gratis?

:scratch:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:40 AM.