[ale] BSD.v.Linux essay

[runman]

You might want to re-check OpenBSD as they now have RAID support for some HW
as well as more drivers.  Their support of RAID has changed by leaps and
bounds in the past 6 months especially.  This weakness of OpenBSD is the
result of their dedication to certain coding standards as well as their
particular definition of what is "free" and what isn't.  It is neither good
nor bad - just the way they do things.  All OS's have their particular
strengths and weaknesses.

- Greg  

-----Original Message-----
From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of James
To: ale at ale.org
Sumners
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 1:56 PM
To: jloden at toughguy.net; Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
Subject: Re: [ale] BSD.v.Linux essay

The only problem I have had with BSD, specifically OpenBSD, is driver
support. The last time I gave it a shot was about two years ago. I wanted to
load it on an old Dell PowerEdge (a very big and heavy
machine) and use it to run an in-house web server. I eventually got it to
load but it would keep crashing because of the RAID controller.
Evidently, there was some quirk to the hardware that the Linux drivers
either work around or ignore but the BSD drivers crashed upon encountering
it. When the hard drives won't consistently work because the controller
drivers keep crashing the system then the OS is useless.

Admittedly, that is only one machine (well, machine type. I had multiple
machines of the same model to work with), but the experience left me with an
impression that the driver support is lacking even more than Linux's.
However, I use a BSD derivative every day on my PowerBook and am quite happy
with it. The cp command can be a little quirky (
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20051112100007372&lsrc=osx
) but I get by :)

On 11/22/05, Jay Loden <jloden at toughguy.net> wrote:
> I read this article a while back and it actually convinced me to give 
> FreeBSD another try. The author is a pretty fair to both sides (though 
> clearly somewhat biased to his choice, BSD). Mostly he just points out 
> that BSD is all about a controlled development process and structure, 
> whereas Linux grabs anything useful from wherever it can find it. It's 
> not that one is better than the other necessarily, just different.
>
> Both have their merits, but certain people's personalities may fit 
> better with one of the other. In a lot of respects, despite being more 
> familiar with Linux, I'm finding a lot of things on my test FreeBSD 
> install that I like. It took some getting used to before I realized 
> they're not the same thing just because they both have *nix roots, but 
> once I got over that hurdle things were easier.
>
> The best thing about FreeBSD so far has been documentation. Everything 
> from man pages to the FreeBSD handbook has been clear, up to date, and 
> useful. I appreciate that a lot, especially the handbook.
>
> On Monday 21 November 2005 7:31 pm, Cy Kurtz wrote:
> > Here's an essay we might enjoy batting about for a while:
> >
> > http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>


--
James Sumners
http://james.roomfullofmirrors.com/

"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological
personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the
corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a
condition to which they are quickly addicted."

Missionaria Protectiva, Text QIV (decto) CH:D 59
_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale