Linux.com

Why you choose linux, not FreeBSD?

Link to this post 15 May 09

bobmajdakjr wrote:

I choose Linux for my desktops.

I choose FreeBSD for my servers.

I know it is sort of wrong. Please don't flame me lol.

Actually, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Where the BSD's really shine is as servers.

Link to this post 15 May 09

There is exactly one reason why I chose Linux: FreeBSD has no support for re-sizing the non-X terminal. (back then at least)

I suspect if I did chose FBSD, I would have more problems now. Can't be sure though.

I use arch now.

Freebsd was my first 'mature relationship' with unix (first time I actually used terminals or had to manually set up Xorg)

So I'm still friends with FreeBSD, but Linux had more to offer.

Link to this post 15 May 09

I ended up choosing FreeBSD because in my own tests for the application I needed it had better throughput on both the network interfaces and daemon's like mysql that Linux did. (this was a year ago)

Solaris (slowlaris) actually beat FreeBSD on my testing machine in terms of network throughput, but it sucked at doing every day tasks.

And Linux on the desktop, well, it just has better general hardware support. And at the time I made the switch Quake III Arena was the only game I needed anyway.

Anyway... work gave me a Macbook to carry around and I use that more often than not now... (still please don't flame me, lol)

Link to this post 15 May 09

bobmajdakjr wrote:

I ended up choosing FreeBSD because in my own tests for the application I needed it had better throughput on both the network interfaces and daemon's like mysql that Linux did. (this was a year ago)

Solaris (slowlaris) actually beat FreeBSD on my testing machine in terms of network throughput, but it sucked at doing every day tasks.

And Linux on the desktop, well, it just has better general hardware support. And at the time I made the switch Quake III Arena was the only game I needed anyway.

Anyway... work gave me a Macbook to carry around and I use that more often than not now... (still please don't flame me, lol)

Nothing wrong with a mac. In fact if i could afford one I would buy one. I think macs prices are a bit... cocky but still a good machine and OS.

Link to this post 15 May 09

FreeBSD wrote:

So, you can give you decision why you choose linux, not FreeBSD!

I choose Linux because I believe the GPL license is more protective of its community than the BSD license.

Under the BSD license, big corporations like Microsoft and Apple can take the code that was given for free, implement it into their product, charge for it, and not give anything back to the community from which they got the code from.

The GPL license at least makes sure that it is obligatory for companies to release their source when using code that is licensed under GPL.

Ubique wrote:

So, you primary intention to choose linux is better support for third party vendors and religion views on licenses. Is there are some opinions in os related area?

There's nothing religious of not wanting other people becoming rich from your hard work without getting anything back.

Mac OS X is making millions for Apple, and they've given practically nothing back to the BSD community.

Red Hat on the other hand contributes a lot back to Linux, so when Red Hat makes money, the whole Linux community benefits since it means that Red Hat will continue to make Linux better with that money.

Getting corporate support is part of the reason why Linux is so far ahead BSD in terms of usability and hardware support. If Apple would have been fair to the BSD community as Red Hat has been to the Linux community, the Linux/BSD gap should not be as large as it is now.

Therefore, if you put it into this context, my "religious" views about licenses isn't really that religious.

atreyu wrote:

I hear great things about BSD, though (esp. in terms of stability and security), but now i'm too "rooted" in Linux to change.

SELinux patches made by the Nation Security Agency(http://www.nsa.gov/research/selinux/index.shtml) closes the gap in the security department, and Linux can also be very stable if you chose a distribution that uses stable code (RHEL/CentOS, Debian, and SLES). If Linux wasn't a performer in both areas, companies like Google would not consider Linux to power their systems.

This isn't to discredit BSD because I agree that BSD is a great performer in both security and stability, but to suggest (I'm not saying that you are suggesting this) that Linux doesn't perform in these areas is wrong IMO.

Link to this post 15 May 09

dsparil wrote:

If Linux wasn't a performer in both areas, companies like Google would not consider Linux to power their systems.

LOL, vaguely related, I read this while trying to figure out if the problem with Google services yesterday was just me or not:

The mighty Google is falling! That is what you get when you build your infrastructure around linux and have employees who would rather play with office toys than keep services up and running.

Hahah just some retarded user comment on the article. (http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=18064) as if routing issues had anything to do with Google's Linux.

Who we are ?

The Linux Foundation is a non-profit consortium dedicated to the growth of Linux.

More About the foundation...

Frequent Questions

Join / Linux Training / Board