Geoff Bagley:
Both Linux and FreeBSD seem to be UNIX clones.
How then do they differ ?
Does FreeBSD have various "distros" like Linux ?
Regards -- Geoff Bagley
My 'executive summary' would be Linux - more powerful FreeBSD - more elegant FreeBSD is one of the Kernels derived from BSD Unix, which was based on the original Unix implementation. Thus it is more of a 'true' decendant. Linux is a new, 'Unix compatible' Kernel, written from a description of how Unix works rather than how it was implemented. The main difference I see (and I have used BSD Unix for since before the source code was free) is that the BSD variants are more conservative. They are managed by a core group who must approve all improvements and changes, and consequently tends to be more consistent. Linux on the other hand is much more bohemian in its attitudes, allowing anyone to have a hack at it, and if others don't like it, make their own distribution. Linux has a 'designed by committee' feel, but the anarchic development model does result in a faster development cycle. Linux also has a much higher public profile, and hence market penetration. This has given it a very big advantage in both developer base, and also in support by commercial software and hardware vendors. In a sense, you could say Linux is the 'Windows' of Unix/Open Source world. Even to the extent of other Unix style systems finding it necessary to include 'Linux compatability modes' along with the various other emulators like WINE. Or alternatively, you could think of Linux as a research oriented system where any new idea can be tried, and BSD concentrates more on being a consistent and reliable workhorse. However the Open Source community being traditionally more technically adventurous seems to mean most people want to use the Research system. And business users, using the same logic that Microsoft have profitted by, do not understand the technology so just follow the majority. End result is, in my opinion: Linux: Pro: is usually ahead of BSD, with more hardware supported and new ideas adopted first. More innovative. Con: is less well organised, and less consistant, with a daunting array of distibutions. The quality of the code varies from great to disgusting. The documentation is also somewhat rambling, with a huge selection of thurd party books to choose from of widely varying merit. BSD: Pro: Well organised and managed. Only one distribution, or at least if a new distribution is started, it will be given a different name. Most of the code is of a consistant quality. A standard concise printed manual comes with the distribution detailing everything that is not adequately covered by 'generic' Unix books. Con: Driver support usually lags behind Linux, as does availability of new kernel features. Less well supported by third party software and hardware vendors. I use both, and once you have them installed and configured, there is very little user visable difference. Regards, DigbyT -- Digby R. S. Tarvin digbyt@acm.org http://www.cthulhu.dircon.co.uk