Performance wise, it doesn't matter! Don't be teased. If you have a not very old computer and it came with Windows pre-installed both Linux and BSD will run without difficulty I have an old computer from with 1GB of RAM that I use to experiment and it runs the most recent versions of both without problems.
With all of the above, both Linux and BSD have many problems driver incompatibility, bugs, etc. Sometimes a simple update can throw the system at you and I don't care what the fans have to say: if you haven't said "This sucks! Now, if you are going to use it to manage a network, then yes, because pf is not iptables, and because it is faster in conjunction with Apache and Mariadb….
Linux: we should start with: which of them? Linux is heterogeneous and outgoing. Linux is the paella. FreeBSD is white rice. But leaving the metaphors because I'm getting hungry and the fridge is empty, the last time I looked at the broccoli it had mutated and was giving the choped pork firewood.
Step with my experiences:. Many problems. A lot of. A headache. But I endured and came But I did not reinstall it. For an average user it's great. Also, you can do a lot of things with it, but then when I went to download For both, the fact that: they can be used as servers, although more imprecise than FreeBSD, you can configure them for hacking, pentesting, graphic design, games, multimedia, programming: NetBeans, QT Creator community , Gambas, etc Highly configurable in every way, not only the appearance that FreeBSD users point out as silly, when what it does is facilitate the use, but everything.
Just reading the title of this summary of the previous entry in techrepublic told me that I shouldn't waste my time. Your trollsensacionalista article has gotten one more entry. Also a domain-wide blacklist, though. I do not agree with most of the things that this article comments.
This is the difference today, that the average "linuxero" just wants to have a chupiguay desktop with many applications, and they are forgetting the origin of why Linux was created, and specifically, why Richard Stallman created GNU. With BSD we keep that spirit. In addition to, of course, having the normal desktops Gnome3, KDE4, xfce, and all the above , programming applications Geany, Emacs, etc. One issue, Joan, in your opinion do you think it is more socially responsible, a Linux-based distro licensed with a very social approach like the GPL but that has actually become this:.
In addition to the blobs, binaries, firmwares, and bots I talked about in response to Anm's comment. Or the BSD operating systems are more socially responsible, with a more careful development, led by hacker communities, without large corporations roaming around at ease, but with a license that, although it does not reduce freedom to users, does not preserve it either. Good comments overall. But I see some a little risque using unfriendly and unnecessary terms.
Let's not forget that we are on the web and everyone reads us. Without going into disqualifications because we are here to discuss amicably, I think you have excelled with the final part of your comment.
Like you, I also use linux. It seems like an OS to me, just magnificent. I humbly believe that your reference to the need for non-free may be due to your specific hardware configuration. In my case, my entire system works wonderfully including the video card, even if I install the proprietary NVIDIA drivers through its control panel. For the rest I use applications of all kinds and I have not had to use any additional non-free repository apart from the ones that Debian provides by default.
A greeting. I have left the University of California. I am not an expert in informatics biology , but I have developed computers all my life to business purposes. I think the author has touched all the areas, but the central thing must have more words: License is everything.
If you are going to need a system that you have full control over, choose BSD. If you are used to paying for Windows and have a little technical ability and want to replace your money with labor and eating your coconut, choose Linux. Choose the distribution that works best on your computer - you have to spend weeks and try. If you are a professional whose purpose is to develop internet programs for companies and maybe you want to match them with the operating system and associated programs , choose FreeBSD.
If you are only going to develop common internet programs CMS, etc. But, in both cases, in the end, you are going to learn all the systems, Java, Apache, Tomcat, Postgres, Whitebeam, node, Clang, etc. Then you can specialize, if it matters. There are also Android emulators on Linux too, right? A great Android tablet perhaps better and you can forget the past, illusions of freedom, your wishes and swallow everything that Google decides, if not GNU, the Windows clan, or international agreements Berne.
Freedom is not a small home. Excuse my Spanglish, please. I am not going to compare with FreeBSD because I did not use it, but it is obvious that in many things Linux will win and in many things Linux will lose, according to the user's need. In terms of performance, all Linux cannot be included as if they were the same. I was testing many distributions until finally I got Debian, which had everything I wanted and needed. Until systemd came along and I tried Slakware and Devuan. Despite having gone through many distros, I was shocked when I tried Slackware, the difference in speed and fluidity compared to Debian was total, it was like making a leap into the future.
Among the other distros that I had never tried the difference had been so remarkable. Linux mint: Possibly the easiest operating system to use for the regular desktop user. Many will say no, but usually they say it because they are already used to Linux and derivatives and they are all equally easy.
I tried it with my old men who are about 70 years old and have no computer skills and adapted faster with windows both xp and 7. I work as a technician so I had clients test it and the result was the same. For those who do not understand anything at all, it is the easiest thing there is. In itself the installation is simpler than setting a clock. Put the live cd and there is a shortcut that says "install linux mint" double click, put the country, the language, wait a few minutes and restart.
Devuan: he did not answer me like Debian, it is in the testing phase and it shows, also as they clarified me, they are focusing first on making it work as a server. For a common user it is not ideal. Debian and free software: I always used all free software except video drivers, no matter how fanatic one is, it ends up falling for private drivers or accepting free ones sacrificing video card performance.
On the licenses: To say that the BSDs are freer because they allow you to close the code and so on, is an individualistic and short-term vision.
GNU ensures freedom of technological development, while BSD ensures freedom of technological use by the individual. Now in practice, as they say it is the same, it is full of linux programs that do not comply with GNU. More importantly complying with GNU you can implement something like systemd, you could also with BSD; My point is that someone mean would always find a way.
In terms of security, linux has specific distributions for this purpose, like FreeBSD and also to break it, like Kali. My conclusion is this: These discussions and comparisons are trivial.
Regarding security, performance, possibility of modifying etc The few people who can feel and be affected by these differences are likely to be those already working in both the Linux and FreeBSD development groups, not writing and testing distributions or working in some small company managing servers. As an additional fact and due to my work, I get tired of seeing people obsessed with performance. They pay a lot for state-of-the-art hardware which they then pack into a poorly balanced pc; They are looking for software that is capable of responding to millions of unforeseen events with thousands of functions that they never use being easier than correcting the error, doing it right again from scratch , using applications so that the pc manages resources better but at the same time consuming them for using so many of those apps.
I also work as an expert and advisor on these issues with a law firm, and ALL that "security" that they so much presume is solved in a simple way, violating people not machines as Kevin Mitnick did at the time. The following paradox arises, all those detailed and specific questions, without awareness and commitment to whatever it does, are of no use and if you have that level of awareness, order and professionalism, they end up being unnecessary.
I'm going to try FreeBSD and possibly after a while I will stop it and it won't work for me, not because it's bad but because from what I see it won't respond to what I need, in the same way as hundreds of Linux distros and all windows. For another FreeBSD it may be just what you need. Someone else can use a particular Linux but you learned to use FreeBSD and you find it comfortable and you know it and it is definitely a working tool: the same can happen to a Linux user.
People who develop BSD or Linux, cannot be at all, they choose one and continue to develop it, in the same way that we choose one and continue to use it to work, with the difference that we can change all the time while they do not and for That is why we end up fanatically discussing these issues, when the only ones who have a true right to speak fanatically are those who every day when they get up go to work to make these systems that we talk about so much possible. PS: Both the note and the comments regardless of putting BSD at a disadvantage further encourage me to use it because I could never find an unbiased analysis on the subject, both done by BDS and Linux people and the only option is to use it myself.
You have criticized my article alleging a series of personal considerations of yours. I could make myself interesting and tell you that you are not right or refute you, but when I wrote this article perhaps I was thinking other things different from what I now believe with a little more experience.
Therefore, I can only honestly say that you are absolutely right. Don't criticize your article. As much the comments but neither. But the fact that you are always "competing" for the performance of a tool instead of thinking about what it is for and who is going to use it. To give an example, surely most of us here hate windows, but for a bank or someone who works in offices in Argentina, my country that is the only system they will use, on top of XP, and the only one that learning is going to help you.
Also, you will not need to learn it in depth, just the very, very basic. With Linux the same thing happens thousands of Linux, all for different things.
Debian served me, partly because of its ease of use and stability, of course I came to it for an ideological issue, I estimate that many other distros would serve me, but I came to Debian and it responded to everything I needed. What I use it for, both are good and what they are different about I don't have as much knowledge as to take advantage of it, which is what happens to most Linux users; that it is difficult to use is a myth; More than a myth, it is a thing of the past, today they are all easy to use for a standard user.
When a problem arises it is something else, in my case for example I systematically run out of server x every time I update and without the network administrator. In terms of performance, if you compile sources regardless of the distro, the speed is noticeable.
My point is this, most are exquisitely picky about a system without being exquisitely wise to get the most out of it. With the arrival of systemd, what we liked so much about Linux is completely lost and everything is unified, like a kind of small variants of windows with their frameworks. Few distros don't use it, some of the ones that don't already said they were going to implement it.
Of FreeBSD it is always criticized that it does not have a great variety of drivers and therefore performs less. Really only in games could this difference in speed be significant, for which directx is always higher on windows anyway. Maybe someone who needs to do big video renders, or big lab calculations, but the latter two are going to have to use what their companies tell them to use, not what performs best. I have as an example my best friend who works in the defense ministry and where one expects sophistication and a meticulous choice of the tools to use, it is solved trivially by questions of contracts with companies, budget etc It is true what you say about the staunch defenders of FreeBSD, I have read them, but it is exactly the same with Linux and Windows Mac does not deserve to be mentioned.
It is almost impossible not to be impartial because there is an important underlying issue that divides, which has to do with the role we give to information, knowledge and technological development.
Ultimately what tends to ignite our passions tends to have more to do with that than with actual performance. I also say it as someone who loves Linux but also games and when it comes to playing opengl and wine they have a totally inferior performance, of course there are games that the PC is so abundant that it does not matter, but for the newer ones it is.
PS: from my point of view systemd is the destruction of Linux as we know it and we would have to focus on learning and especially promoting the distros that do not use it and even support different options such as BSD in order not to appear "new windows with another Name".
Regarding security, it is true that SELinux may seem interesting, but in my vast experience I have not seen anyone who uses it properly, despite the fact that Red Hat installs it by default on their systems and on Fedora. Unfortunately neither Linux nor BSD can claim to be microkernel, their architecture is based on running linked modules and to be honest I have seen linux burst with kernel panics more times than BSDs. The performance? Well, it depends, Linux has many companies behind it and many drivers are very prepared, the case of the ee intel network card comes to mind, it may be that in specific cases of this BSD style it has a disadvantage, But we must not forget that many manufacturers base their network hardware on BSDs switches, routers with specific hardware and that is when the poor Linux are humiliated.
And I am not going to elaborate much more, that comparisons are hateful, everyone looking for info:. And why not go further, the abomination of systemd, the creator of your magnificent bonjour demon, avahi daemon. Heavens, after reading all these comments I realized that there is a controversy between which system is better than another for years The truth is that they are all good as they say it depends on the type of user and to tell the truth each person will say that the OS they use is the best because they are using a single point of comparison or several, the OS comparison is even on cell phones What a controversy, both are good, stable and serious, Long live everything that has heritage from UNIX other than Microsoft ;.
Look, I do not think or refute who wrote this article, or judge him. Linux: use Gentoo. Very good, both graphic and to download and install. A bit fucked up to install with commands, but if you are daring or know some syntax, then it is yours.
Well, I'm still testing it in VirtualBox, so maybe I'll add something else in the future because I don't use it much and would like to "test" it a bit more. Arch… well, as far as I know, it only comes in x Bad point: there was a time when my processor was x32 or x86, I do not remember well.
Kick and renegade so you can even test it in VB; it was all useless. But like Gentoo, a headache if you want to install it with commands. The tweaking to the kernel along with the new applications loaded into it make each distribution different from another. As mentioned earlier, the different distributions of BSD are all operating systems.
And that makes BSD, like Linux, a kernel. Let us explain how exactly. To download additional software packages, BSD users use the ports system, which keeps these packages in source form. The source code is compiled by the system each time the software is launched. While this can prove to be cumbersome, especially when running longer, more intricate codes, BSD systems can skip the compilation step upon each launch entirely if the program is installed in a binary state, thus alleviating the process to a great extent.
One of the fundamental differences between BSD and Linux is that of the Licensing system under which their distributions are released. When you download software from the Ports repository in BSD or install a distribution as a whole, the software or distribution is allocated to you under the BSD license, which is a custom license system employed by the BSD developers.
However, the BSD developers have made it public that they have every intention of keeping it open-source in the future. Under this licensing system, Linux developers are legally compelled to release each and every instance of changes made to the Linux kernel. The licensing system, in essence, makes sure that Linux remains open-source, no matter what changes are made to the kernel itself.
For every software out there is a Linux compatible release. This is not the case for FreeBSD, which remains largely neglected for that reason. The Linux kernel makes writing and distributing software programs simpler as compared to other kernels, so developers are naturally inclined to work towards Linux releases. The distribution, especially, is made even easier by the pre-installed binary package system that it facilitates. Linux allows software packages to be downloaded and installed via package managers such as apt, yum, Pacman, etc.
The capability of an operating system that is compatible with modern-day software can be a make-or-break feature for most people. Where Linux is concerned, it is easier for developers to write code that can be made available to users in pre-compiled binary packages for installation.
The packages can be installed using apt, yum and other similar package managers. The open-source nature of Linux is what makes this possibility easier. For BSD users, the task is not as simple. Users will have to download the source codes for the programs from the thousands of ports available to them. Then, after the source codes have been downloaded, they would have to compile them on their system.
This creates a headache for both BSD users and developers, as the lack of popularity among general users can be attributed to the extra hassle of compiling the source codes. The pre-compiled binary packages can be seen as the only saving grace to eradicate the hassle but still falls short in the availability of applications programs.
Linux is without a doubt the more popular choice among open-source, Unix-based operating systems. It tends to get hardware support much faster than a BSD would and for most general purposes, both systems are too similar to matter. Both systems have their own set of advantages. Taking a look at FreeBSD, the development team maintains its own version of a large number of common tools.
This allows the developers to create their own tool variants for use with their system. Linux systems tools are primarily provided by the GNU suite so variations are less likely. BSD has a serious lack of applications. This has led developers to try and control the situation by creating a Linux compatibility package, allowing Linux applications to run on BSD.
Linux distributions have no real issues with applications as there are plenty available to the public. The Linux GPL license tends to be more strict on the developers, forcing a release of all modified source code. BSD developers on the other hand have no such restrictions. The thing to keep in mind is what the non-developing public gets out of all this.
Manufacturers may opt for BSD as their operating system of choice when creating new devices instead of Linux.
0コメント