BSD for Linux Users – A biased comparison
over-yonder.net
BSD for Linux Users – A biased comparison
1–3 of 3 posts
Re: BSD for Linux Users – A biased comparison
#2I've used Linux as my primary OS for the better part of 5 years now (the Arch distro), and I thought the discussion the author gives here is at least a compelling one.
The idea of ports and how they compare to the pacman package manager is quite interesting to me. I don't know enough to make an informed comparison, but I do know that if I let my system sit longer than a year I risk having to reinstall from scratch (whereas the author states a ten year old install can be brought up to date with relative ease).
The author describes a lot that I find to be convincing; enough so that I may give a *BSD a shot for a year or two.
I don't have any particular bias for one platform or another as the only things I want from my OS at this point are a semblance of control and some privacy.
Re: BSD for Linux Users – A biased comparison
#3The comparison is biased in that the author overemphasizes the differences between Linux distributions and FreeBSD. For example,
> An RPM is just a binary package. If you want to auto-install dependencies, you have to have a higher-level tool like urpmi or apt-get to do it.
To auto-install dependencies to a port you also need a 'higher-level tool': make. And RPMs do have meta-information. The text is full of this kind of statements.
Linux distributions use binary packages, and they do not have the concept of a base system with additional external software (which is installed under /usr/local in FreeBSD), but instead have things like systemd which IMHO is the foundation for a more modern operating system than the venerable post-4.4BSD base system of BSDs.
FreeBSD lost the train when they became entangled with the infamous M:N threading effort, and I'm using Linux since then. Linux kernel has improved a lot, although I admit that in its distributions I miss the ports collection (and perhaps the /usr/local distinction).