On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Stefan Nantz wrote:

Hello all,

I wonder what Unix system is better.

Talk about a loaded question! Better for what? :-) ...or, which is better? A 767 or a C-130? Both FreeBSD and Linux are useful in apps ranging from standalone machines to very powerful network servers. For example,I believe dejanews uses Linux while Yahoo uses FBSD. The FreeBSD group says Linux is: **just a UNIX clone. **out of control because of no central control **unstable under network load **using a dangerous filesystem **using a kernel that is not UNIX **confusing because of so many distributions **not a real OS because bundled apps are not adequately tested **supported by more commercial software **supported by more drivers **more popular by far **populated by "clueless newbies" **populated by those who will flame anyone bashing Linux. **populated by those whose true purpose is bashing Redmond. It is very entertaining, and eye opening to hear how many FBSD'ers bash Linux users, like we do of MS users.

FreeBSD is supposed to be a "real" Unix while Linux is just considered an Unix clone.

Well, that whole concept of "true UNIX" vs. "clone", IMHO, hinges upon the assumption that you are getting something out of "true UNIX" you are not getting out of Linux. For most people, the distinction may be null.

I mean where is the difference or dose it make a difference?

For me, the most noticable diffs between FBSD and SuSE were: **devices are named much differently. **SYS V init vs. Berkeley. **Linux partitioning vs. FBSD slices. **commands like ifconfig and route work differently. **Installing new software in FBSD is more sophisticated and possibly easier. Like I said, this is my read after only a few months of play, and I don't hold myself out to be an expert (of any kind!). If you're the kind of person who has installed and used multiple Linux distros, then you owe it to yourself to try FBSD.

Stefan -

Steve. - To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e

Stefan Nantz wrote:

Hello all,

I wonder what Unix system is better.

FreeBSD is supposed to be a "real" Unix while Linux is just considered an Unix clone.

I mean where is the difference or dose it make a difference?

I considered FreeBSD when I was switching to Linux. The best advice I read (from a FreeBSD standpoint) was there is a lot more user support for Linux than FreeBSD. Use Linux to learn, use FreeBSD for stability. (Paraphrased) Personally, I've had one OS crash with SuSE running X in a six month period; I had dozens with Red Hat running X (isolated to the video card) over a five month period; and thousands of Win95 Blue Screens over a ten month period (averaged one per hour). I think Linux is pretty stable. George - To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo@suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e Check out the SuSE-FAQ at <A HREF="http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/"><A HREF="http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/</A">http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/</A</A>> and the archiv at <A HREF="http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html"><A HREF="http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html</A">http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html</A</A>>