Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42
Something that occured to me - now I know there are tonnes of differences that need never be pointed out to a user but this one stands out - Booting. ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #11
    Linux Guru bigtomrodney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    6,133

    Something that occured to me - now I know there are tonnes of differences that need never be pointed out to a user but this one stands out - Booting. BSD afaik does not use an initial ramdisk like linux. Whereas Lilo would boot a particular initrd.gz to boot a particular kernelm BSD just boots the partition similar to what Windows does. What this means for everyday users is that the bootloaders are completely different, though you can get lilo/grub to boot BSD. Never really tried to do it the other way, looked like a lot of work for no extra gain.

  2. #12
    Linux Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Luton, England, UK, Earth
    Posts
    639
    The difference between BSD and linux is the kernel, and the userland and commands, most of the time though you will not notice the difference between the two systems.

  3. #13
    Linux Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    542
    The biggest difference though, as said before, is the server orientation. BSD makes a very good server. There are projects to bring it to the desktop... but by nature the BSD system doesn't do a very good job of it. There's not much support for BSD apps, and the Linux apps it can run don't run too well. That said, there's not much support for BSD at all. You need to figure out how to fix stuff yourself.

  4. #14
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    1,366
    Quote Originally Posted by chopin1810
    The biggest difference though, as said before, is the server orientation. BSD makes a very good server. There are projects to bring it to the desktop... but by nature the BSD system doesn't do a very good job of it. There's not much support for BSD apps, and the Linux apps it can run don't run too well. That said, there's not much support for BSD at all. You need to figure out how to fix stuff yourself.
    I've found hardware support to be quite amazing, and unless you absolutely have to be bleeding edge nothing is really bad out of date in the ports tree...So far for me, BSD has made a great desktop, much better than many linux distros that I've used in the past...
    Operating System: GNU Emacs

  5. #15
    Linux Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    542
    The only reason I don't use FreeBSD for every day use is because it's almost too security minded. It absolutely cannot let you add new users after the install process is over, even for the super user. There are a lot of questions about security setup in the install. There are many other things like this that FreeBSD implements. This is an absolutely wonderful setup for a network, but for average home use, a lot of these features can just be annoying. Also, you can tell that the BSD developers almost assume that you are running a server. This is somewhat safe to assume because, as it turns out, most hardcore BSD users are running a server. It's obvious: they don't spend a lot of time on graphical configuration, the X Windowing System is not installed by default (and installing it manually is a pain in the ass), and there are no window managers installed by default (and installing those is a pain in the ass too). Therefore I don't recommend BSD to people who just want to "try it out", there are some pre-requisites. Yes, the stability is wonderful, but for a first *NIX OS it will likely leave you frustrated. It's going to be almost too rock solid for some.

  6. #16
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Linux Drive
    Posts
    43

    So your saying

    Quote Originally Posted by chopin1810
    The only reason I don't use FreeBSD for every day use is because it's almost too security minded. It absolutely cannot let you add new users after the install process is over, even for the super user. There are a lot of questions about security setup in the install. There are many other things like this that FreeBSD implements. This is an absolutely wonderful setup for a network, but for average home use, a lot of these features can just be annoying. Also, you can tell that the BSD developers almost assume that you are running a server. This is somewhat safe to assume because, as it turns out, most hardcore BSD users are running a server. It's obvious: they don't spend a lot of time on graphical configuration, the X Windowing System is not installed by default (and installing it manually is a pain in the ass), and there are no window managers installed by default (and installing those is a pain in the ass too). Therefore I don't recommend BSD to people who just want to "try it out", there are some pre-requisites. Yes, the stability is wonderful, but for a first *NIX OS it will likely leave you frustrated. It's going to be almost too rock solid for some.
    So your saying that once freebsd is installed a new user can't be added? Cause I do have s server but which I might want to try bsd out later but if you can add users I won't even attempt to install bsd.

  7. #17
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by chopin1810
    The only reason I don't use FreeBSD for every day use is because it's almost too security minded. It absolutely cannot let you add new users after the install process is over, even for the super user. There are a lot of questions about security setup in the install. There are many other things like this that FreeBSD implements. This is an absolutely wonderful setup for a network, but for average home use, a lot of these features can just be annoying. Also, you can tell that the BSD developers almost assume that you are running a server. This is somewhat safe to assume because, as it turns out, most hardcore BSD users are running a server. It's obvious: they don't spend a lot of time on graphical configuration, the X Windowing System is not installed by default (and installing it manually is a pain in the ass), and there are no window managers installed by default (and installing those is a pain in the ass too). Therefore I don't recommend BSD to people who just want to "try it out", there are some pre-requisites. Yes, the stability is wonderful, but for a first *NIX OS it will likely leave you frustrated. It's going to be almost too rock solid for some.
    Wait a second here, while FreeBSD is a great server OS, it also can make perfectly fine desktop. Yes there is extra security, the wheel group controls who can su, the base system starts very few services by default, etc.

    You can add users after install the same way you do in Linux: with the adduser command. Installing X is as easy as cd'ing into the /usr/ports/x11-servers/xorg-server/ directory and issuing 'make && make install'. Configuring X is the same as it is in Linux. Installing a window manager/desktop is just as easy.

    FreeBSD may not cater to a user who want to have a *nix desktop as some Linux distributions do, but by no means is it as inferior a desktop OS as you seem to think it is.

  8. #18
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    1,366
    Of course a new user can be added after the install...very easly

    Code:
    useradd -m -G groups -s shell username
    
    an example of this would be
    
    useradd -m -G users,wheel,games -s /bin/csh john
    adding users is no problem at all in the bsds
    Operating System: GNU Emacs

  9. #19
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Linux Drive
    Posts
    43
    It seems like freebsd is kinda similar to gentoo / archlinux. I'm I wrong?

  10. #20
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    1,366
    gentoo's portage is inspired by ports...some might quibble but its a pretty apt analogy for some practical purposes
    Operating System: GNU Emacs

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •