Author Topic: Linux versus BSD  (Read 8584 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Rule

  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1588
    • View Profile
Linux versus BSD
« on: July 13, 2006, 10:54:25 pm »
I've often heard that, even when considering any Linux distribution, the only advantage to using Linux over BSD is a superior filesystem.   While, on the other hand, for nearly anything else, BSD has the edge on Linux.

I feel I don't know enough about Linux, and especially not enough about BSD, to make a good comparison.  If anyone can think of advantages and drawbacks to using Linux (choose your favourite distribution) over (Free)BSD, please post them here.  Thanks :).

Offline Newby

  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10877
  • Thrash!
    • View Profile
Re: Linux versus BSD
« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2006, 11:08:55 pm »
I like BSD's filesystem. UFS2 is really nice and I haven't had a problem with it.

I personally like how the BSD's are meant to be distributed as an OS, whereas Linux is just the kernel and the distributions of them are focued on programs and the like.

It depends on what you want. I use both Linux and FreeBSD and must say my experience in BSD has been a much more professional, clean feel, but Linux for me seems much more comfortable for some odd reason.

Elaborate on what you want to do.
- Newby
http://www.x86labs.org

Quote
[17:32:45] * xar sets mode: -oooooooooo algorithm ban chris cipher newby stdio TehUser tnarongi|away vursed warz
[17:32:54] * xar sets mode: +o newby
[17:32:58] <xar> new rule
[17:33:02] <xar> me and newby rule all

I'd bet that you're currently bloated like a water ballon on a hot summer's day.

That analogy doesn't even make sense.  Why would a water balloon be especially bloated on a hot summer's day? For your sake, I hope there wasn't too much logic testing on your LSAT. 

Offline mynameistmp

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Hi! I'm new here!
    • View Profile
Re: Linux versus BSD
« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2006, 03:30:12 am »
I personally like how the BSD's are meant to be distributed as an OS, whereas Linux is just the kernel and the distributions of them are focued on programs and the like.

That's my least favourite part about BSD. What's the point ? I find it just creates more confusion. tcpdump, ssh, BIND are all parts of the BSD base system. But they're not real copies of tcpdump, ssh, or BIND. They're actually BSD tcpdump, BSD ssh, and BSD BIND all of which were modified (by Makefiles, probably) to operate on BSD, whereas on Linux you're using the real tcpdump, real ssh, real BIND, etc as distributed by the vendor.

Also, to make matters worse, BSD base systems vary from distribution to distribution. OBSD and NBSD include X in their base system (because of console driver integration), whereas FBSD does _not_. That's just bloody confusing. What's BSD base system now ? KDE ? xterm ? Mozilla ? Any of them ? If one is, is it on both distributions ?? But none of them are base on FBSD...

Compare that with Linux... X, KDE, xterm, Mozilla, none of them are base system/need to be cross-compiled for your system. You could go on any Linux verison and know wether or not xterm is part of your base system (it's obviously not, as there is no Linux 'base system') and compile it right out of the box. That being said, having a 'base system' just doesn't seem to simplify matters at all.

« Last Edit: July 14, 2006, 03:33:17 am by mynameistmp »

Offline iago

  • Leader
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17914
  • Fnord.
    • View Profile
    • SkullSecurity
Re: Linux versus BSD
« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2006, 08:13:06 am »
Disclaimer: I'm speaking purely as a desktop OS.  This does NOT apply to servers. 

I like Linux better because of compatibility.  I could not get video card drivers for BSD.  I had issues getting wireless drivers for BSD.  And I could never get my desktop to feel just right.  Of course, if compatibility was the only key, I'd be using Windows. 

I ran BSD on my laptop for a couple months.  I got used to it, and it's pretty good, but I'm still more comfortable in Linux. 

Realistically, if given a choice, I wouldn't care. 

Offline Joe

  • B&
  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10319
  • In Soviet Russia, text read you!
    • View Profile
    • Github
Re: Linux versus BSD
« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2006, 10:34:40 am »
It seems Linux has a userbase several times as big, giving it a program base several times as big. Plus APT, but according to iago "APT is lazy". :)
I'd personally do as Joe suggests

You might be right about that, Joe.


Offline iago

  • Leader
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17914
  • Fnord.
    • View Profile
    • SkullSecurity
Re: Linux versus BSD
« Reply #5 on: July 14, 2006, 10:45:04 am »
It seems Linux has a userbase several times as big, giving it a program base several times as big. Plus APT, but according to iago "APT is lazy". :)
Linux doesn't have APT, but some distros do. 

BSD has something similar, Ports, but Ports are all built from source (similar to Gentoo). 

Offline MyndFyre

  • Boticulator Extraordinaire
  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4540
  • The wait is over.
    • View Profile
    • JinxBot :: the evolution in boticulation
Re: Linux versus BSD
« Reply #6 on: July 14, 2006, 12:52:48 pm »
I like Linux better because of compatibility.

:o

From what I've heard from BSD advocates there's a jillion drivers for BSD.
I have a programming folder, and I have nothing of value there

Running with Code has a new home!

Our species really annoys me.

Offline iago

  • Leader
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17914
  • Fnord.
    • View Profile
    • SkullSecurity
Re: Linux versus BSD
« Reply #7 on: July 14, 2006, 02:14:14 pm »
I like Linux better because of compatibility.

:o

From what I've heard from BSD advocates there's a jillion drivers for BSD.
This goes back to a problem we recently discussed -- they only have drivers for which the specs have been given or have been reverse engineered.  In the cases where the specs are unavailable (like many video cards), you don't get support.  Same as Linux, but at least companies like ATI release drivers for Linux. 

Offline chuck

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 335
  • Canadian Biathlete
    • View Profile
    • Chucks Blog
Re: Linux versus BSD
« Reply #8 on: July 15, 2006, 09:39:43 am »
I prefere linux, but for low resources, BSD works better. Linux is just so darn *shiny* for some reason.
Chucks Blog
JavaOp2 Plugins

Quote
Error, keyboard not connected. Press F1 to continue.

Offline Newby

  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10877
  • Thrash!
    • View Profile
Re: Linux versus BSD
« Reply #9 on: July 15, 2006, 04:02:33 pm »
Lately, I've been toying around with LFS and building my own base system, and I must say I've learned a lot in what goes into a base system. I also feel more comfortable compiling a kernel and feel I have more control over what goes into my system.

It also takes ~10-15 seconds to boot once grub boots the kernel. Whereas on any Slackware/ FreeBSD installations I've done, it'll take easily longer than Windows to get to a login prompt.

Sure, a Slackware installation takes ~30 minutes compared to an LFS installation which took me 8 hours to get the base system up and running (800 mhz, 256mb ram laptop, testing and compiling/recompiling/recompiling binutils/glibc/gcc easily took half of that 8 hours by itself) but it feels so much cleaner in the end.

Honestly, BSD seems to be more centralized to their webpage/ports/etc, whereas Linux your distribution is either centralized to the vendor or you're on your own. That's the one thing I like about Linux: freedom of choice. Don't like the current vendors? Build your own system. Odds are you'll find a distribution of Linux that suits you, but if you don't, it's not hard to build your own.

Sure, you could do that with a BSD, but in the end your system will be modeled off one of the BSD's, since the central systems are unique (read what tmp said) and not the same.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2006, 04:14:08 pm by Newby »
- Newby
http://www.x86labs.org

Quote
[17:32:45] * xar sets mode: -oooooooooo algorithm ban chris cipher newby stdio TehUser tnarongi|away vursed warz
[17:32:54] * xar sets mode: +o newby
[17:32:58] <xar> new rule
[17:33:02] <xar> me and newby rule all

I'd bet that you're currently bloated like a water ballon on a hot summer's day.

That analogy doesn't even make sense.  Why would a water balloon be especially bloated on a hot summer's day? For your sake, I hope there wasn't too much logic testing on your LSAT. 

Offline iago

  • Leader
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17914
  • Fnord.
    • View Profile
    • SkullSecurity
Re: Linux versus BSD
« Reply #10 on: July 15, 2006, 06:09:35 pm »
My Slackware installs typically boot in less than 15 seconds.  It really depends on what you install. 

Offline Ergot

  • 吴立峰 ^_^ !
  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3724
  • I steal bandwidth. p_o
    • View Profile
Re: Linux versus BSD
« Reply #11 on: July 15, 2006, 06:40:22 pm »
My Slackware installs typically boot in less than 15 seconds.  It really depends on what you install. 
And what you decide you want to start up... hotplug takes the longest on mine.
Who gives a damn? I fuck sheep all the time.
And yes, male both ends.  There are a couple lesbians that need a two-ended dildo...My router just refuses to wear a strap-on.
(05:55:03) JoE ThE oDD: omfg good job i got a boner thinkin bout them chinese bitches
(17:54:15) Sidoh: I love cosmetology

Offline Rule

  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1588
    • View Profile
Re: Linux versus BSD
« Reply #12 on: August 04, 2006, 12:33:49 pm »
I like BSD's filesystem. UFS2 is really nice and I haven't had a problem with it.

Old, but still revelant so long as BSD uses UFS.

Quote from: nslay
Some points against UFS:
- Using write caching with softupdates can be dangerous.  This may have made sense two decades ago, but now with 40MB+ caches, the harddrive tends to write things out of order.
- On BSD, write caching can be turned off by adding hw.ata.wc=0 to /boot/loader.conf, but this seems to greatly reduce performance. 
- Even with write caching off, the FS is not as reliable because there is no meta data journal.  Since UFS relies on meta data order writes (for consistency), upon crashing the system must do fsck (instead of unwinding meta data transactions in the journal).  With a large HD size, fsck takes quite awhile to complete.

« Last Edit: August 04, 2006, 08:37:00 pm by Rule »

Offline MyndFyre

  • Boticulator Extraordinaire
  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4540
  • The wait is over.
    • View Profile
    • JinxBot :: the evolution in boticulation
Re: Linux versus BSD
« Reply #13 on: August 04, 2006, 01:44:04 pm »
Quote from: nslay
Some points against UFS:
- Softupdates use write caching which may have made sense two decades ago, but now with 40MB+ caches, the harddrive tends to write things out of order.
I've never seen a consumer hard drive with a 40mb+ cache.  The largest I've ever seen on any hard drive I've considered buying is 16mb.  So, unless you're talking about a sizeable investment, this is fairly irrelevant.

Quote
- On BSD, write caching can be turned off by adding hw.ata.wc=0 to /boot/loader.conf, but this seems to greatly reduce performance. 
Right, write caching is generally a good thing.  If you're not using that 40mb+ cache hard drive, though, is it really so important?

Quote
- Even with write caching off, the FS is not as reliable because there is no meta data journal.  Since UFS relies on meta data order writes (for consistency), upon crashing the system must do fsck (instead of unwinding meta data transactions in the journal).  With a large HD size, fsck takes quite awhile to complete.
That *is* the nice thing about journaling file systems, isn't it?  :)  That's probably the only thing valid to a typical home or small business user from your list.  It's like running Autochk on a FAT drive vs. an NTFS drive.  Validating an NTFS drive, unless you're doing the super-long-verify-indices process, is super-fast compared to FAT.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2006, 02:56:22 pm by MyndFyre[x86] »
I have a programming folder, and I have nothing of value there

Running with Code has a new home!

Our species really annoys me.

Offline Newby

  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10877
  • Thrash!
    • View Profile
Re: Linux versus BSD
« Reply #14 on: August 04, 2006, 02:14:49 pm »
About the only thing I agree with on that list is a lack of journaling. I powered off my laptop hard once, and it fsck'd for over half an hour. Worst part was it did it in the background, so I killed it twice shutting down. Finally I ps'd and found out it was fscking my drive.

I don't have a 40mb cache. Hell, I'd be surprised if this thing had an 8mb cache.
- Newby
http://www.x86labs.org

Quote
[17:32:45] * xar sets mode: -oooooooooo algorithm ban chris cipher newby stdio TehUser tnarongi|away vursed warz
[17:32:54] * xar sets mode: +o newby
[17:32:58] <xar> new rule
[17:33:02] <xar> me and newby rule all

I'd bet that you're currently bloated like a water ballon on a hot summer's day.

That analogy doesn't even make sense.  Why would a water balloon be especially bloated on a hot summer's day? For your sake, I hope there wasn't too much logic testing on your LSAT.