GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
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?
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?
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.)
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?
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.)
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.
So what? I tried various flavors of BSDs more than once and that never happened to me. What should be the conclusion?
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?
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.