Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!plug.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.mathworks.com!uhog.mit.edu!news.mtholyoke.edu!nntp.et.byu.edu!news.caldera.com!park.uvsc.edu!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Date: 5 Apr 1996 05:17:22 GMT
Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <4k2ad2$j8h@park.uvsc.edu>
References: <4issad$h1o@nadine.teleport.com> <Pine.LNX.3.91.960401105810.31921A-100000@gallup.cia-g.com> <4jqpn8$euv@agate.berkeley.edu> <4jsq5i$5ko@main.gbdata.com> <4jvm5n$2v8@agate.berkeley.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
nickkral@america.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Nick Kralevich) wrote:
] My personal belief is that FreeBSD is behind the times, and that
] Linux is the superior choice, for lots of reasons, none of which I
] will go into here (unless someone really wants me to. After all,
] the title of this thread is "FreeBSD vs Linux").
]
] Both operating systems, and both development groups, are excellent.
] I just think the future lies with Linux, and not FreeBSD. Of course,
] you are welcome to disagree with my opinion (and I suspect many people
] will).
I disagree with all these opinions (and more 8-)).
I have, in the past, sent via private email analysis of various
technical aspects of BSD and of Linux. Which is best depends
on which technical aspects you find important to the task at
hand.
I refuce to post such a comparison because the developement rate
in both camps exceeds the flood-fill rate for net-news. Even if
that weren't the case, Deja-news makes posting a bad plan: anyone
who does will inevitibly be taken to task, publically, the moment
a single point against [insert favorite OS] is invalidated.
I will note that ELF, at present, brings absolutely nothing
to the party.
I will further note that your observation that a future switch
in formats will disincent commercial ports is absolutely bogus.
FreeBSD has an enviable track record in maintaining forward
binary compatability for commercial software. As an example,
FreeBSD-current, the basis for the next release, will run
binaries for the recently released BSDI 2.x. It will also
run binaries for BSDI 1.x -- something BSDI 2.x *won't* do.
It runs Linux a.out binaries, and it runs Linux ELF binaries
well enough to run both DOOM and QUAKE.
I run both systems on a daily basis, and have hacked kernel
code on the most recent version of both systems at various
times in the past. Further, there are at least two fixes of
mine, submitted through third parties, in the current Linux
source tree.
I am not simply a religious bigot of the kind threads with
this title attract.
And I say that the technical merits must be judged on a
case-by-case basis, and my personal preference for BSD is
driven solely by licensining issues that contradict my
personal political beliefs, and merits in the areas that
affect my personal research.
Anyone without exactly the same requirements I have could
come to the conclusion the Linux was better, following
exactly the same process I used to arrive at BSD.
Your statement of your opinions amount to little more than
Linux advocacy in an inappropriate venue, and grandstanding,
and I'd appreciate it if you at least had the decency to
take it to an advocacy group.
You'll note that BSD doesn't have an advocacy group.
This is on purpose, and should be taken as a hint.
Regards,
Terry Lambert
terry@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.