I enjoy the usability of linux as you all do. Im going to partition one of my comp's to run either Free Bsd or Open Bsd to see comparisons in the Unix batttlefield. Has anyone here ventured there? Looking for done that or doing that thought's between the Linux & Bsd flavors

Heres some Bsd jargon I came across while reading up on this educational quest for a lightbulb.

1. BSD developers tend to be more experienced than Linux developers, and have less interest in making the system easy to use. Newcomers tend to feel more comfortable with Linux.

2. In general, BSD systems have a better reputation for reliability, mainly as a result of the more mature code base.

3. BSD can execute Linux code, while Linux can't execute BSD code. As a result, more software is available for BSD than for Linux.

4. An open-source operating system like Linux, BSD was developed in the 1970s at the University of California-Berkeley, well before Linus Torvalds ever took a computer course.

5. The list of big-name companies and Web sites that use BSD is impressive. Yahoo, UUNet, Mindspring and Compuserve are on the list - in fact, perhaps 70 percent of all Internet service providers use BSD.

Let us know what you find out I am going to try it as server software when I get around to it.

I really think that one main reason that linux seems like it has more problems is because so many people are trying to turn it into windows.

If everybody was flocking to BSD the way they are Linux, you would probably see more problem posts for BSD.

I agree with what you said! And Ill fill ya in when Im in the know.

I've played with BSD twice now... and honestly, there isn't enough of a difference to care about a debate. Aside from a completely different kernel; the file structure is nearly identical, the commands are almost all the same, the thing still runs sendmail, apache, ssh (heck, that was developed FOR OpenBSD), X-windows, Gnome, just like a linux box.

Not every program compiled for linux can run on BSD, but nearly all of them, and what allows BSD to do this is more or less emulation.

Serious shortcoming... hardware support. They have a smaller coder base, and regardless of skills, it takes an army to write device drivers for every new pci card twinkee that [insert company-X here] puts out each hour. Linux has this Army.

Honestly most of that list is pure propaganda. The poor bsd'ers got kicked off the desktop Unix by a Finnish upstart and are constantly listed next to RedHat and Caldera as just another "distro" by pseudo-tech magazines. These guys are the underdog's underdog.

OpenBSD claims no remote root in a default installation in 4 years. They audit everything before they ship it, went nuts with cryptography because they could (being in the US has its restraints), but then again, by default: https and ssh, that's it.

Honestly, try it out. I recommend Open if you're hardcore about it. You can't get an .iso as that's the only closed licensed item. The .iso itself is a reserved copyright, not anything on it. Its only $30, or 1/75 an MS Exchange server license.

-Luck, and if you need the Lilo.conf entry to boot it right... er, I've got it scribbled on a napkin somewhere.

Finegan

As long as I'm over here reading this, can these OSs use each other's
(programs,etc.), or do you have to have a partition for each one?
I'm running SuSE 7.3 beside (Windoze, Winblows, whatever), but
would like to try Slackware (7.1) & FreeBSD. Anyone out there doing
this? I'd like to hear from you.
Thanks!

You'd be better off using slackware 8.0.

Yep..I just installed FreeBSD on a new box...and i dont like it very much. Slackware is alot better IMHO. Switching over soon..

(Aussie):

Why would I be better off using Slackware 8.0 ?



(BrianG)

Why don't you like BSD very much?


I just need to know. Thanks!

Because slack 8 is fresher than 7.1.

hm... i just installed FreeBSD... and honestly i don't see much diff between Slack and FReeBSD. i mean, it's not as if u maintain the code yourself right? both are really good. FreeBSD feels really quick and light. so does slack (though i'm still trying to figure out the X config for this one). even at the console, rh gives me the ugly feeling that behind all that is lotsa stuff i don't need and don't even know about when i look around.

well i'm no linux guru, but personally i don't like bloat and i'd like more control over what i install onto my box. rh and mandrake give the functionality of almost everything right out of the box but these default installs are becoming too big for my liking. that's why i'm looking to a more 'difficult' distro... i want more control over what goes in.

again it's not that i don't appreciate rh or md. it's just the different stages each person goes through. for eg. i started out with rh and deb... with rh i could at least do the same things i did in windows. with deb... it was weird staring at the console after the installation was successful not knowing what else to do.

now, due to the slackies' influence in this forum i am trying out my slacks.

and this final salvo i have here is for the newbies who are trying hard and getting frustrated, just like me:
i'm still stuck at the console for slackware. but it's gonna work somehow. i just know it.

Try "XFree86 -configure" as root. And tell us what video hardware you have if that dosn't work.

Just my initial opinion. I'm sure if I sat down and took time (which i dont have now ) to learn it properly, I'd like it. And I didnt see anything on it that Slack couldn't do.

Thanks for your inputs. The reason I say Slackware
7.1 is because I purchased it at Bestbuy some time ago
before I got Partition Magic. Same with BSD (4.0).
I guess I got ahead of myself


I suppose I could Install/try both & upgrade whichever I
want over the Internet. It's kind of frustrating when you
have only one good working computer! That's one reason
I'm tinkering with the older computers.

Thanks!

read up and there are subtle differences to both...

here are some i can understand... i'll fill in on the rest after i look into it.

freebsd has only one partition but it is split into disk labels that can serve as the more important mount points lilke /usr and /home etc
linux uses partitions outright.
i'm not sure how this affects how well the hard drive is preserved in the event of a power outage...

freebsd is maintained by a core group - whether the code is more stable/mature than linux or any of that, i'm not anyone great enough to make a judgement. but i do see the point that it is an advantage somewhat in the sense that if you're looking for something coherent and a more concerted, having only one 'distro' does have its advantages. it's slightly easier to learn. linux has over 30 distros and it can be confusing for the new and brash like me.

some linux distros indulge in more recent cutting edge stuff (except maybe slack and deb... again the pattern may be shifting)... the bsd family in general (openbsd, freebsd, netbsd) tend to fall a little behind, picking mainly what has been proven to work and work well. and here are some bsd goals i know of:
openbsd - security (as finegan pointed out)
netbsd - portability (u can find a version of netbsd for almost any machine platform u have come across)
freebsd - i don't really know... perhaps someone can fill in here

this is what i read and can understand. just sharing with u. these were plucked off "FreeBSD Unleashed".

my own opinion? - freebsd is very nice! well but so is slack. i mean after all, it's linux and bsd... and u're on this forum! what's there not to like?

just out of interest, what are the main differences between FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD?