Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Notices
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.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
speaking in terms of the packaging - linux is ahead of bsd (well, i've tried freebsd and i don't want to call it linux ).
bsd is very different if u are going to compare with Red Hat or Slackware or Mandrake. But it is very challenging to administer/configure.
experience is the best way to see the distinction so try it first. BSD does come with the GUI the you'll find in most distro so i suggest that you compare them in terms of the CLI. :P
As stated previously, BSD is from the original AT&T Unix. There are plenty of differences throughout both projects, but the biggest in my eyes is the philosophy behind them.
FreeBSD is much more rigid. You can't just drop off your source and have it added to the source tree. This rigidity helps keep the OS very stable and goal oriented. Basically, the programmers are very experienced and professional and are not going to drop a trojan into the source trees as a gag. The downside is the release time cycle. FreeBSD is developed as a whole and therefore released as a whole. This can seriously delay any new releases. BSD licenses are truly "free" also. Nobody owns them.
Linux can be developed by anyone and patches for software can be released at anytime whether the dependencies are there or not. This can expose some serious issues at upgrade time for a serious "backoffice". The upside is that bug fixes come almost overnight! Linux licensing is given by Linus himself. While it's "free", all of you programs must be "donated" to Linus first in order to get included on a CD.
Bear in mind that this is just a crude explanation. Sure some of the tools are different, but essentially they are the same to use and administer. BSD gets some bad press because it makes no assumptions as to how you want your box to perform. Linux does which can make initial setup easy to "get it running", but if you really want control of your box, you'd have to setup the exact same stuff in Linux also.
bsd is very different if u are going to compare with Red Hat or Slackware or Mandrake. But it is very challenging to administer/configure.
Depends...FreeBSD is much more tidy and logical than most Linux distros (or so I think, anyway), so once you're happy with using a command line, system configuration is very easy (especially with ports for installing new apps). Also, FreeBSD has a lot good documentation, so although you might need to edit/create the odd config file by hand, there's clear instructions on how to do so.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.