[ale] BSD(s) vs Linux

[Greg]

Smoothwall is not a "distro" per se - it only does firewalling, even stuff
in the kernel to make it possible to do other things has been stripped out.
It came from an old RH version that Dick Morrell and folks hacked to pieces.
It is more like a Cisco box - made to do only one thing.  I know that
NSALinux or securelinux or something like that was in progress, but I think
the NSA closed it down (or once they got the code from the community they
brought it all in house).  I priced the secure Solaris and it was exorbitant
in $$$.

I know in Linux Torvald's book, he didn't like the Apple folks because he
thinks the Mach kernel is crap.  I am not a kernel programmer, but I think
that the Mach kernel is more monolithic in nature as opposed to Linus's way
of ummmmm I guess "modulating" the kernel (for lack of a better word).  If
Apple would get a decent processor (the new IBM PowerPC looks encouraging or
the Opteron) I would go back to Apple in a heartbeat - but Apple's fault is
they are bastards for gouging in price.  They have always gauged their
faithful followers.  Several single processor boxes can beat the Apple dual
processor box - even in graphic intensive tests, which is supposed to be the
Apple's forte.  I forgot who did the tests, but I was impressed on how much
the Apple box is underpowered.  How depressing.

What I really want is a PC's low price, the Apples GUI, OpenBSD's security,
Linux's features for lots of home stuff, NetBSD's networking genius, and
running an a 64 bit Opteron processor and built with the sturdiness and
massive pipelines of a Sun box (and the case/board layout of an Apple).  OK,
maybe even MS's universal works-with-everything peripheral-related with a
single click and has lots of software out there.  That is what I definitely
want.

I have heard both sides on the BSD packages and ports thing.  I try to use
the packages if possible, but have had them go wrong about the same amount
of time percentage wise as an rpm type install.

I don't know about the FreeBSD snobs, but am very familiar with the OpenBSD
ones, however I do like the lack of flaming over what you choose - I have
even seen MS bashers get flamed for being OS militants.  Apparently they
don't care what you run - the culture is that you are a big boy (or girl)
and you can do what you want - just don't cry about it afterwards.  And they
understand that many sysadmins operate in an environment not of their
choosing and have to try to make do with the present conditions.

I would say you are right about the Linux to BSD converts. That is how I did
it.  And I would guess the seemingly increase in attention to servers by
Suse is due to the fact that that is probably where the $$$ are.   It will
be interesting to see if RH's and now Suse's run at the  business desktop
will fare.  If it does well,then  I could see an increase in home users -
especially with the price of Windows XP (which still leaves me in sticker
shock).

Greg


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ale-admin at ale.org [mailto:ale-admin at ale.org]On Behalf Of David S.
> Jackson
> Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 12:20 PM
> To: ale at ale.org
> Subject: Re: [ale] BSD(s) vs Linux
>
>
> 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
>

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale