I use linux and I have just ben brouwsing the BSD document project

HAY guys thay look just about the same

tell me how I an wrong

tell me how BSD is better than Linux

tell my why I should remove Linux and install BSD
Posted on 2003-02-26 22:35:04 by rob.rice
Posted on 2003-02-26 22:55:38 by arkane
LOL ok good joke
how about something with some substance
Posted on 2003-02-27 16:02:44 by rob.rice
LOL

I love the guy in the background...

James:alright:
Posted on 2003-02-27 16:09:03 by JamesE

LOL

I love the guy in the background...

James:alright:


The one with the propeller hat? Yeah, he is cool! :)
You also noticed that this is Linus Torvalds in the foreground?
Posted on 2003-02-28 04:29:31 by bazik
nice chick
Posted on 2003-02-28 07:30:59 by x86asm
yeah. Torvalds is a bitch ^_^
Posted on 2003-02-28 07:37:31 by f0dder
rob.rice:

The BSD core has been around longer than Linux, and the licensing is less restrictive than GNU (Apple OS X is based on BSD).

BSD's use a slightly different directory structure than Linux, but that's not big deal. I think Linux is supposed to be better optimized for "home"-type systems, but I haven't used it in a few years, so I could be wrong.

I totally stick to FreeBSD, that's the best, IMHO.

OpenBSD is also cool, super-secure, used for firewalls a lot, but probably not as optimized as FreeBSD.
Posted on 2003-03-13 18:08:39 by MANT
ok but can BSD get small


thanks for the last post this is the kind of input I was looking for
Posted on 2003-03-14 19:02:25 by rob.rice
Get small? Good question! :grin:

Check out PicoBSD
Posted on 2003-03-14 19:16:13 by MANT
dig it !
now I have a way to painlessly check out BSD keeping in mind what a floppy linux vs distro linux is like

can a full blowen BSD distro be squezzed in to 200 M with X ,emacs ,gcc and an assembler


thank you
Posted on 2003-03-16 13:14:55 by rob.rice
Hrmm well MANT summed it up pretty well, but I'm bored so :p

BSD has a long long history, spanning back a few decades to University of California @ Berkley. As far as I can remember it spawned for AT&T System V, but was eventually rewritten from scratch due to licensing concerns.

As for its benefits... well those are soley up to the user. It is certainly a very mature OS, which contributes to the fact that it has rock solid stability (i.e. if Linux is solid as a rock, BSD is the rock of gibraltar). It is also considered to be very well designed (somewhat synonymous with secure), and finds itself deployed in more *critical* situtations, where pretty gui's and fancy features are considered useless. A large percentage of internet and intranet servers run BSD (Microsoft's Hotmail service is?/was using FreeBSD, after many attempts to upgrade the system with Windows 2000 failed... though this was some time ago, so perhaps this transfer was completed sucessfully).

The primary offspring of BSD nowdays is broken up into FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD (there are some others, as well as bastard children). As for there differences, here is an analogy (I don't know by who) that compared them:

FreeBSD is like a Porsche - extremely fast and well tuned. (the end-user's BSD)
NetBSD is like a Hummer - able to go anywhere, just not very quickly. (it will probably be ported to your toaster)
OpenBSD is like a Abrams tank - quiet possibly the safest ride around. (security exploiters worst nightmare)

Alongside my Windows 2000 workstations, I run OpenBSD, because... well it sits there and I never have to worry about it. It is however (although some will debate the fact) not quiet suited for full blown workstation since many of the cushy programs (Mozilla, OpenOffice, etc.) just don't work (yet). FreeBSD wins hands down in this regard, as it runs almost anything you might find in Linux, or any other *nix for that matter, and it runs them well (the ports system is truly killer).

As for a small install, I couldn't quantify the exact amount of space you might need, but the BSD's pretty much install everything you need from a *nix distribution, and nothing else. I would say its a much *cleaner* system than Linux (but I haven't used Linux since Redhat 5). According to the FAQ's available, you should be able to get away with a bare minimum of about 350MB's (base system and X11, plus enough space for general install typically used applications).

Well anyhow, enough of my rambling... however I will warn you before hand, the BSD community prides themselves of extensive documentation. While the FreeBSD folks aren't so fanatical about people asking questions, the OpenBSD folks will most likely flame you into the next century if you ask a question that is covered in either the FAQ's, man pages, or usenet groups... that said, I have yet to encounter a problem that wasn't solved by reading one of the previously mentioned sources.

-----
Domain
Posted on 2003-03-16 14:56:04 by Domain
to Domain
thank you for your post
Posted on 2003-03-17 10:58:36 by rob.rice