[NTLUG:Discuss] Linux vs FreeBSD

[Burton Strauss]

FreeBSD traces itself back to 4.4BSD (AT&T Unix) directly.

In those days AT&T gave Universities the source code for Unix, but wouldn't
allow it to be re-released.

Berkeley was distributing patches/bug fixes/additional features.  There was
a big court case, resolved via a secret settlement.  From that, AT&T went on
with it's proprietary Unixes and Berkeley released a non-infringing version,
which became known as 4.4BSD.

Linux was developed from the SPECIFICATIONS of an 2nd tier Unix clone,
Minix.


Head over to Groklaw - there are postings of a (now) 19 part series on the
history of Unix.

-----Burton




-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at ntlug.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at ntlug.org] On Behalf
Of Leroy Tennison
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 2:31 AM
To: NTLUG Discussion List
Subject: Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] Linux vs FreeBSD

steve wrote:

> Leroy Tennison wrote:
>
>> Heard good things about FreeBSD today, don't know anything about it. 
>> How does it compare/contrast with Linux?  Just looking for a 
>> high-level overview.  Thanks.
>
>
> FreeBSD is a kernel - it's a an OpenSourced UNIX derivitive just like 
> Linux - so it's similar to - and largely compatible with - Linux.
>
> Since a vast percentage of end user applications are identical under 
> the two OS's, and if they aren't identical, they are at least mostly 
> compatible - and because the windowing systems we use under Linux also 
> run under FreeBSD, a typical FreeBSD distro can tend to look and feel 
> very similar to a Linux distro - almost to the point of being 
> indistinguishable to the end user.
>
> However, there are deep issues where Linux and BSD differ - the 
> architecture of the two systems are very different internally. They 
> also differ in areas of security, system admin and setup.
>
> There are other BSD flavors out there too.  NetBSD being another 
> reasonably popular one - aimed more at being lean and slimmed-down, 
> OpenBSD being another whose goals are high security, cryptography, etc 
> for the ultra-paranoid.
>
> Apple's MacOSX uses the FreeBSD kernel - so the Mac is a FreeBSD 
> system.  It appears very different from Linux to the end user because 
> Apple uses their own windowing system and sells their own line of 
> applications software.
>
> The various BSD flavors can trace a direct line of descent from the 
> original UNIX kernel - Linux is a from-the-ground-up rewrite.  Linux 
> development is administered in a very different way to BSD.
>
> One huge difference (for some people) is the licensing. Linux uses GPL 
> and LGPL - BSD has it's own licence that basically allows you utter 
> freedom to do anything with the code - including to redistribute it 
> without offering source code.
>
> Overall though - if you are just an end user, the differences are 
> somewhat invisible.  Picking the more popular of the two (undoubtedly
> Linux) gets you a wider range of support and available, ported, 
> applications.
>
> However, if you were a sysadmin of a major website or something, you 
> might choose BSD for a myriad of other reasons.
>
> If you were someone like Apple - then BSD's simpler licensing might be 
> attractive.
>
> _______________________________________________
> https://ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> However, there are deep issues where Linux and BSD differ - the 
> architecture of the two systems are very different internally. They 
> also differ in areas of security, system admin and setup.

You left me "hungry", how is the architecture very different and security,
system admin and setup different?  Again, all I'm looking for is a high
level.  Thanks.



_______________________________________________
https://ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss