so the previous post arch linux vs openbsd is kinda getting long... also, i have successfully installed arch linux. So far i love it. now im curious what so good about both bsd and linux.

now i really curious how BSD vs linux information debate. so can you guys list the pros and cons in short simple posts, so it can be easier for other peeps to read.

plus, i dont care how hard they are to use. i like messing around with different operating systems,.

pros and cons, what features do you guys like/hate about linux and bsd?
i will be using a multi core cpu intel (only thing i have).....
things i like to see in this peoples posts.

features
support
stability
what you hate and like
performance
and more.

Both work for me, although I tend to use almost exclusively Linux because I'm lazy and don't want to work enough hours with OpenBSD to maintain some level of competence (you forget stuff if you don't do it all the time). I use Debian and it's great that I rarely have to compile code because someone else has already done it for me (patch build scripts, compile, resolve dependencies, etc etc).

The only 2 'pros' I can think of for Linux are:
1. supports more devices
2. builds on more target CPUs

Of those, (1) is the most common issue for people, and (2) really only matters if you're doing embedded work. Still, OpenBSD will run on several processors popular in embedded systems: http://www.openbsd.org/plat.html

Of course OpenBSD will say "Only two remote holes in the default install, in more than 10 years!"

Otherwise, treat them as the same. Most software will build without problems on Linux/OpenBSD. The same is true for Open Solaris. So, you have all your favorite free tools on any of these systems. The only times you're really forced to choose one over the other is if you have to support proprietary third-party software - for example OracleDB, or if you really need a feature that others don't have (for example, compiling Linux for the BlackFin processor when building an embedded system).

You opened that can of worms, and now you're abandoning it to open a new one? Did you bother to take 60 seconds to read the comparison I pointed you to on that thread?

Let's see -- the primary thing I hate about both is that people open threads like this over and over, which almost invariably degenerate into flamewars. I find myself defending *BSD on Linux-centric forums, and defending Linux on BSD-centric forums.

Which is to say: I like both very much. They both have made a huge difference in my life and my career ($$), so I'm indebted to their fantastic communities. For that reason, and that reason alone, I'll answer your question (which has been rehashed a thousand times over if you'd search the forums or teh google).

FreeBSD pros (the only BSD I can really speak to):

• Slim, stable, secure base system.
• Source or binary base system updates. (i.e. No need to re-install.)
• FBSD jails. 'Nuff said.
• Choice of two (three actually) packet filtering firewalls that I like a lot.
• Nice software management system (Ports).
• Ports security auditing system.
• Clean, logical startup/initialization sequence.
• Well documented by the FreeBSD project.

FreeBSD cons:

• Sometimes I tire of source-based package management. (Binary packages are not built with much frequency.)
• Smaller desktop user base.

RHEL/CentOS pros (the only GNU/Linux I can really speak to):

• Stable base system.
• OK software management system (yum). Binary packages are less flexible, but a heck of a lot quicker to install.
• Packet filtering firewall that I like.
• Larger desktop user base.

RHEL/CentOS pros:

• Bloated base system (even when "minimal").
• Too many daemons / listening services turned on by default.
• Somewhat sloppy startup/initialization sequence.

My 2 cents. The next guy will disagree. Such is life.

Yep, same here.


@ OP
Search LQ, just one of them: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...-linux-636527/