Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42
Originally Posted by msg43 It seems like freebsd is kinda similar to gentoo / archlinux. I'm I wrong? No, more like Slackware....
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #21
    Linux Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    542

    Quote Originally Posted by msg43
    It seems like freebsd is kinda similar to gentoo / archlinux. I'm I wrong?
    No, more like Slackware.

  2. #22
    Linux Guru techieMoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,496
    Quote Originally Posted by genesus
    gentoo's portage is inspired by ports...some might quibble but its a pretty apt analogy for some practical purposes
    Haha. If that was unintentional, it was classic.
    Registered Linux user #270181
    TechieMoe's Tech Rants

  3. #23
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    1,366
    I was trying to inclued an irony for the debian lovers out there! Didn't think anyone would catch on, I'm pretty bad at petty witicisms...
    Operating System: GNU Emacs

  4. $spacer_open
    $spacer_close
  5. #24
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by msg43
    So Linux is aimed for the desktop and bsd is more aimed for the server?
    Yeah pretty much, but I've used FreeBSD & NetBSD on the desktop before, and I had a pleasant experience.

  6. #25
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,431
    They work just as good for a desktop IMO. FreeBSD doesn't provide you a X server or a window manager / desktop enviroment unless you install it, but that gives you the choice between different X-servers and windowmanagers. FreeBSD can also install a full KDE or GNOME desktop with X and everything ready for the first boot, since there are lots of packages on the CDs. I would say FreeBSD may be more used on servers than desktops, and linux is probably more used on desktops than on servers, but that doesn't make linux bad for servers or freebsd bad for desktops.

    And yes, I feel too like freebsd, gentoo, slackware and arch are all related in terms of use.

    EDIT: here is a bit old comparison, but some points still apply:
    http://people.freebsd.org/~murray/bsd_flier.html

    Someone said grub/lilo could load freebsd, but these just load the freebsd bootloader, just like the freebsd OS chooser does.

  7. #26
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    1,366
    Quote Originally Posted by jaboua
    EDIT: here is a bit old comparison, but some points still apply:
    http://people.freebsd.org/~murray/bsd_flier.html
    This was a pretty interesting read; however, it does give frowny faces to some aspects of linux that many linux users would argue are strong points for linux and weak for the bsds..
    Operating System: GNU Emacs

  8. #27
    Linux Guru techieMoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,496
    Quote Originally Posted by genesus
    This was a pretty interesting read; however, it does give frowny faces to some aspects of linux that many linux users would argue are strong points for linux and weak for the bsds..
    Agreed. I don't necessarily agree with some of the points he/she considers "bad" or "neutral" regarding the various OSes compared.
    Registered Linux user #270181
    TechieMoe's Tech Rants

  9. #28
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,431
    Quote Originally Posted by techieMoe
    Quote Originally Posted by genesus
    This was a pretty interesting read; however, it does give frowny faces to some aspects of linux that many linux users would argue are strong points for linux and weak for the bsds..
    Agreed. I don't necessarily agree with some of the points he/she considers "bad" or "neutral" regarding the various OSes compared.
    Yeah, I know what your talking about... I ment using it as a technical comparison in some areas, if it's a con or pro is left to yourself to decide...

  10. #29
    Linux Guru anomie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,692
    Haven't seen it in this thread, so I also want to add:


    In addition to the licensing which has been mentioned already, that is a major difference.

    Also, these are opinions (my opinions to be exact):
    • BSD has a far better software management system - the Ports system. This beats the pants off rpm and deb-based systems. (As I said, this is my opinion.)
    • BSD has the default secure install under control much better than Linux does. Out of the box in a sysadmin's hands, unless he is a security expert, BSD is better. (I will say it again: opinion.)


    Both are very nice, fun OSes to play with and are 100% production quality in the right hands. When you put together all the pros and cons for both, they are about equal in my view.

  11. #30
    Linux Guru techieMoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    9,496
    Quote Originally Posted by anomie
    [*] BSD has a far better software management system - the Ports system. This beats the pants off rpm and deb-based systems. (As I said, this is my opinion.)
    Ok, I'm curious. What makes Ports better than apt or portage? I'd say they're all three about even as far as functionality.
    Registered Linux user #270181
    TechieMoe's Tech Rants

Page 3 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
  •