[ale] BSD(s) vs Linux

[David S. Jackson]

On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 11:18:20PM -0400 Greg <runman at speedfactory.net> wrote:
> I would say you are correct.  I see Linux as several things:
> 	* most user friendly user desktop for home users

Although you can run KDE or Gnome2 or whatever.  It just may not
have the "coolest" icons; it will just have whatever came from
KDE or Gnome or whatever.  

> 	* can also do server or "special one purpose box" functions, but with 2
> caveats:
> 		+ not as good as OpenBSD in security

I think some Linux distros get audited pretty closely, like
Smoothwall or SELinux or something.

> 		+ not as good as NetBSD in networking or in
> 		ability to install on many systems

NetBSD probably makes it to more platforms sooner, but Linux
still runs on lots of different embedded and large-scale
platforms.  I'm not sure the differences would apply to a home
user, unless it came down to Arm or Palm or something...  But
then the Zaurus runs Linux...

> 	* best chances to challenge MS in desktop wars

Yes, I think BSD can take longer to bring so-called simple
technologies to bear.  FreeBSD Atapicam has only been around
since 4.5 I think, although Atapi emulation has been around
longer on the other BSDs, right?  

[... snip of very good points about desktop BSD ...]

Just one note about commercial BSD: the licensing is perhaps more
commercially "friendly" than the GNU License (no flamewars,
please) because it lets businesses roll it up however they want,
pretty much.  For example, Mac OSX is pretty much FreeBSD, and
they employ several of the original FreeBSD developers, such as
Jordan Hubbard, for example.  I think they use a Mach
microkernel, though.

> 	etc... and I know that a stripped down and properly
> 	secured Linux box is better than an OpenBSD box without
> 	the latest security updates.

One note about tricky updates with the BSDs (FreeBSD anyway,
since that is what I primarily use).  The packages and ports
system is a work in progress.  For those of us who have been
using it longer than since "portupgrade" was around, it's
possible to munge your package database.  Over the course of
years of an installations, the "ports or packages" upgrade choice
can cause some problems.  You might have to reinstall from
scratch more often than, say, a Debian distribution.

[ ...snip of wise conclusions... ] 

All these pros and cons can be weighed as you see fit, resulting
in a completely personal decision.  The conclusions shared in
this thread have been quite good.  But no one will fault whatever
decision you make, if they're worth listening to in the first
place.  It's up to you, obviously.

Oh, one note about the FreeBSD vs Linux user communities.  I
would say that BSD user communities tend to be older and more
experienced, with a larger percentage of technical professionals
using one or more of the BSDs.  There are a lot of newer people
coming to Linux, and the BSDs get a lot of their converts from
the Linux communities.  There are more snobs in FreeBSD (others
too?) who look down their noses at Linux, because of whatever
their personal biases are.  But after several years on the
FreeBSD-questions list, I haven't heard a decisively cogent
argument why FreeBSD is completely better than Linux.
Personally, I like 'em both a lot, but I use Linux for more
bleeding edge home-user type stuff (games, cool audio/video apps,
and so forth) and BSD for server boxes mainly, although my backup
desktop box is FreeBSD.

-- 
David S. Jackson                        dsj at dsj.net
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
In like a dimwit, out like a light.
		-- Pogo
_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale