*BSD versus Linux - Appreciate the Differences
*10 differences between Linux and BSD* How often do you hear people lumping together Linux and any of the BSDs? I've done it on occasion, and I hear it all the time. Of course, there are plenty of similarities between Linux and BSD: They are both based on UNIX. For the most part, both systems are developed by noncommercial organizations. And I must say that both the Linux and BSD variants have one common goal -- to create the most useful, reliable operating system available. Still, there are significant differences as well. And when people overlook them, the whole BSD community shivers with anger. So I thought I would do my best to help my BSD brethren out and explain some of the ways Linux differs from BSD. *1: Licenses* As we all know, the Linux operating system is licensed under the GPL. This license is used to help prevent the inclusion of closed source software and to ensure the availability of the source code. The GPL attempts to prevent the distribution of binary-only source. The BSD License is much less restrictive and even allows for the distribution of binary-only source. The core difference, however, can be looked at like this: The GPL gives you the right to use the software any way you want, but you MUST ensure the source code is available to the next person who uses it (or your variation of it). The BSD license does not require that you make sure the next person who uses (or modifies your code) makes that code available. *2: Control* The BSD code is not "controlled" by any one user, which many people see as a big bonus. Whereas the Linux kernel is mostly controlled by Linus Torvalds (the creator of Linux), BSD does not have a single person dictating what can and can't go into the code. Instead, BSD uses a "core team" to manage the project. This core team has more say in the direction of the project than all non-core members of the BSD community. *3: Kernel vs. operating system* The BSD project maintains the entire operating system, whereas the Linux project focuses primarily on the kernel alone. This really isn't quite as encompassing as it seems because many of the applications that are used are used on both operating systems. *4: UNIX-like* There is an old saying about BSD vs. Linux: "BSD is what you get when a bunch of UNIX hackers sit down to try to port a UNIX system to the PC. Linux is what you get when a bunch of PC hackers sit down and try to write a UNIX system for the PC." That expression says a lot. What you will find is that the BSDs are much more similar to UNIX because they are, in fact, direct derivatives of traditional UNIX. Linux, on the other hand, was a newly created OS loosely based on a UNIX derivative (Minix, to be exact). *5: Base systems* This one is crucial to understanding the differences between BSD and Linux. The "base system" for Linux doesn't really exist, as Linux is a conglomeration of smaller systems that come together to make a whole. Many will say that the Linux base system is the kernel. The problem is a kernel is pretty worthless without any usable applications. BSD, on the other hand, has a base system that encompasses numerous tools -- even libc is a part of the base system. Because these pieces are all treated as a base system, they are all developed and packaged together. Many argue that this creates a more cohesive whole. *6: More from source* Because of the way BSD is developed (using the Ports system), more users tend to be installing from source rather than prepackaged binary packages. Is this an advantage or a disadvantage? That depends on the individual. If you're a fan of user-friendly simplicity, you will surely look at this and immediately turn away. This is especially true for new users. Few new users want to have to compile from source. This can make for a cumbersome distribution. But installing from source has its advantages as well (library versioning, building system specific packages, etc.). *7: Upgrades* **Because of the way BSD is developed (see item #5), you can upgrade your entire base system to the most recent release by issuing a single command. Or you can download the sources to whatever build you want, unpack them, and build them as you would any application. With Linux, you can also upgrade a system by using the built-in package management system. The former updates only the base system; the latter will upgrade the entire installation. Remember, though, upgrading to the newest base system does not mean that all of your additional packages will be updated. With the Linux upgrade, all your packages will benefit from the upgrade process. Does that mean the Linux process is better? Not necessarily. I have been a first-hand witness to a Linux upgrade that went horribly wrong, requiring the entire system to be reinstalled. This is much less likely to happen with a BSD upgrade. *8: Bleeding edge* It's unlikely that you'll see a BSD running a bleeding edge version of anything. Linux, on the other hand, has plenty of distributions that offer bleeding edge packages. If you're a fan of "If it isn't broken, don't fix it," you will be a big fan of BSD. But if you're of the ilk that requires the most recent of everything, you better migrate over to Linux ASAP or you'll be behind the curve in the time it takes you to reinstall your OS. *9: Hardware support * **You will find, in general, that Linux supports hardware much sooner than BSD does. This doesn't mean that BSD doesn't support as much hardware as Linux. It just means that Linux will support it before BSD (in some cases, LONG before BSD). So if you want the latest, greatest graphics, don't even think about BSD. If you're looking at a shiny new laptop with a newer wireless chipset, you might have better luck with Linux. *10: User base* I'm going to go out on a limb here and generalize about computer users. I will preface this by saying there are exceptions to EVERY rule (or generalization, in this case). But I present to you my generalization of the cross-section of user-to-distribution. From the left to the right we go from the least PC-savvy users to the most PC-savvy users. As you can see, Linux falls in the middle, where BSD leans closer to the right. Many will argue this; some will be offended by it. But this is a fairly accurate generalization of which users use which operating systems. Mac -----> Windows -----> Linux -----> BSD -----> UNIX NB: This document was done by Jack Wallen for Tech Republic. I will use it as a precursor to the *BSD articles I'll write, which will mostly cover general system administration. -- Best regards, Odhiambo WASHINGTON, Nairobi,KE +254733744121/+254722743223 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "If you have nothing good to say about someone, just shut up!." -- Lucky Dube
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Odhiambo Washington <odhiambo@gmail.com>wrote:
*10 differences between Linux and BSD*
How often do you hear people lumping together Linux and any of the BSDs? I've done it on occasion, and I hear it all the time. Of course, there are plenty of similarities between Linux and BSD: They are both based on UNIX. For the most part, both systems are developed by noncommercial organizations. And I must say that both the Linux and BSD variants have one common goal -- to create the most useful, reliable operating system available.
Still, there are significant differences as well. And when people overlook them, the whole BSD community shivers with anger. So I thought I would do my best to help my BSD brethren out and explain some of the ways Linux differs from BSD. **
Are you comparing the Linux *kernel* project to those (kernels) from any of the xBSD projects? Or are you comparing complete GNU/Linux *systems* to xBSD systems? Or are you comparing the GNU/Linux *way of doing things* to the xBSD way of doing things? Note that in the GNU/Linux world, there's the GNU *philosophy*, and there's the "Linux" philosophy. Also note that GNU/Linux *distributions* are independent projects, and do things very differently from each other. Also, distributions include packages from not only the GNU project [1] and the Linux kernel project. And there is some interesting cross polination in the works, from projects such as Debian GNU/kFreeBSD: <http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/>, and Nexenta: <http://nexenta.org/>. [1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GNU_packages> Joseph.
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Joseph Wayodi <jwayodi@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Odhiambo Washington <odhiambo@gmail.com>wrote:
*10 differences between Linux and BSD*
How often do you hear people lumping together Linux and any of the BSDs? I've done it on occasion, and I hear it all the time. Of course, there are plenty of similarities between Linux and BSD: They are both based on UNIX. For the most part, both systems are developed by noncommercial organizations. And I must say that both the Linux and BSD variants have one common goal -- to create the most useful, reliable operating system available.
Still, there are significant differences as well. And when people overlook them, the whole BSD community shivers with anger. So I thought I would do my best to help my BSD brethren out and explain some of the ways Linux differs from BSD. **
Are you comparing the Linux *kernel* project to those (kernels) from any of the xBSD projects? Or are you comparing complete GNU/Linux *systems* to xBSD systems? Or are you comparing the GNU/Linux *way of doing things* to the xBSD way of doing things?
Note that in the GNU/Linux world, there's the GNU *philosophy*, and there's the "Linux" philosophy. Also note that GNU/Linux *distributions* are independent projects, and do things very differently from each other. Also, distributions include packages from not only the GNU project [1] and the Linux kernel project.
And there is some interesting cross polination in the works, from projects such as Debian GNU/kFreeBSD: <http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/>, and Nexenta: <http://nexenta.org/>.
Hello Joseph, The answer to all those questions you have raised - it's why I never use Linux :-) This was a general comparison, not biased towards any single Linux or any single *BSD. Honestly speaking, I don't understand the Linux development system. With FreeBSD, you have a group of people who are responsible for the Operating System, the utilities and the additional software (wether ports or packages). With Linux, you have a group of people who are responsible for the Operating System and utilities. And a group of people who are responsible for the additional software.... And a group of people who are distributing it..... And they all are different people..... And last but not least... which distribution should I take? If I choose Red Hat or Debian or Suse, what are the consequences for later? Can I run the program compiled with Debian Linux under Red Hat or Suse. Can I even get it compiled? I'm not saying that Linux is bad, evil or something. There are just a lot of things I don't understand or agree with regarding it. Well, the same thing applies to other operating systems. Closed and Open. -- Best regards, Odhiambo WASHINGTON, Nairobi,KE +254733744121/+254722743223 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "If you have nothing good to say about someone, just shut up!." -- Lucky Dube
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Odhiambo Washington <odhiambo@gmail.com>wrote:
Hello Joseph,
The answer to all those questions you have raised - it's why I never use Linux :-) This was a general comparison, not biased towards any single Linux or any single *BSD.
Honestly speaking, I don't understand the Linux development system. With FreeBSD, you have a group of people who are responsible for the Operating System, the utilities and the additional software (wether ports or packages). With Linux, you have a group of people who are responsible for the Operating System and utilities. And a group of people who are responsible for the additional software.... And a group of people who are distributing it..... And they all are different people..... And last but not least... which distribution should I take? If I choose Red Hat or Debian or Suse, what are the consequences for later? Can I run the program compiled with Debian Linux under Red Hat or Suse. Can I even get it compiled?
I'm not saying that Linux is bad, evil or something. There are just a lot of things I don't understand or agree with regarding it. Well, the same thing applies to other operating systems. Closed and Open.
Lol! I understand what you mean. But those are the exact reasons I go with GNU/Linux, and the Debian distribution for now :) The thing I like about GNU/Linux is that there are so many options available. It's almost like there's a distribution targeted at each and every "kind" of use. There are binary-based distributions (what most of us are used to), and there are source-based ones like Gentoo Linux (much like FreeBSD Ports). There are language-specific ones, LiveCD ones, ones targeted at all sorts of uses [1]. In GNU/Linux, the guys you deal directly with are the "distributions". They make sure that everything works together coherently, and take care of things like software bugs, security, feature updates, and such. They deal directly with the software developers, on your behalf. I don't think it's so much different from the way the xBSDs do it. Only that the whole "organisation" is distributed on a huge scale. I don't know if this makes them worse, in terms of quality. As for your question about running a binary from a different distribution - many of these distributions "package" (almost) the same software, so it's simply a matter of looking for it in the package collection and installing it. If you want to build your packages locally, there are distributions (such as Gentoo Linux) that are geared towards that sort of thing. And for packages not in the distribution's collection, you can always build and install it manually, as long as you can get the source code. I guess they're just different way of doing things. [1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions> Joseph.
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Joseph Wayodi <jwayodi@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Odhiambo Washington <odhiambo@gmail.com>wrote:
Hello Joseph,
The answer to all those questions you have raised - it's why I never use Linux :-) This was a general comparison, not biased towards any single Linux or any single *BSD.
Honestly speaking, I don't understand the Linux development system. With FreeBSD, you have a group of people who are responsible for the Operating System, the utilities and the additional software (wether ports or packages). With Linux, you have a group of people who are responsible for the Operating System and utilities. And a group of people who are responsible for the additional software.... And a group of people who are distributing it..... And they all are different people..... And last but not least... which distribution should I take? If I choose Red Hat or Debian or Suse, what are the consequences for later? Can I run the program compiled with Debian Linux under Red Hat or Suse. Can I even get it compiled?
I'm not saying that Linux is bad, evil or something. There are just a lot of things I don't understand or agree with regarding it. Well, the same thing applies to other operating systems. Closed and Open.
Lol!
I understand what you mean. But those are the exact reasons I go with GNU/Linux, and the Debian distribution for now :)
The thing I like about GNU/Linux is that there are so many options available. It's almost like there's a distribution targeted at each and every "kind" of use. There are binary-based distributions (what most of us are used to), and there are source-based ones like Gentoo Linux (much like FreeBSD Ports). There are language-specific ones, LiveCD ones, ones targeted at all sorts of uses [1].
In GNU/Linux, the guys you deal directly with are the "distributions". They make sure that everything works together coherently, and take care of things like software bugs, security, feature updates, and such. They deal directly with the software developers, on your behalf. I don't think it's so much different from the way the xBSDs do it. Only that the whole "organisation" is distributed on a huge scale. I don't know if this makes them worse, in terms of quality.
In the *BSD world, you can deal directly with the Core Team, the commiters, the ports maintainers, and they are all known. As a matter of fact, you can easily dig their names and contacts from the pieces that they maintain. It's like everyone knows everyone.
As for your question about running a binary from a different distribution - many of these distributions "package" (almost) the same software, so it's simply a matter of looking for it in the package collection and installing it.
I meant to ask if you can compile a binary on one Linux and then move it to a different flavor of Linux and run it without hassles:) We definately can't do this on the *BSDs. Linux looks so homogeneous I thought it could pull that off.. -- Best regards, Odhiambo WASHINGTON, Nairobi,KE +254733744121/+254722743223 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "If you have nothing good to say about someone, just shut up!." -- Lucky Dube
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Odhiambo Washington <odhiambo@gmail.com>wrote:
In the *BSD world, you can deal directly with the Core Team, the commiters, the ports maintainers, and they are all known. As a matter of fact, you can easily dig their names and contacts from the pieces that they maintain. It's like everyone knows everyone.
In the GNU/Linux world, you can also deal directly with both the package maintainers, and the (upstream) developers/maintainers of the software. For example, look at the Debian page for the GNU C Library package: < http://packages.debian.org/lenny/libc6>. On the right-hand side, you'll see a list of the maintainers and their contacts (if you really want to know). To file bugs, you should of course use more streamlined procedures: < http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting>. And if you're sure that your issue isn't a packaging issue, you can follow it up directly with the developer, by going to their website for example: < http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/bugs.html>. Some give names and direct contacts, and some require you to use more streamlined procedures. Or your distribution's package maintainers can follow it up on your behalf. Which is usually easier because they probably understand the software better, and interract more with the developers.
I meant to ask if you can compile a binary on one Linux and then move it to a different flavor of Linux and run it without hassles:) We definately can't do this on the *BSDs. Linux looks so homogeneous I thought it could pull that off..
Most people use pre-compiled packages directly from the distributions' collections. And this (together with the tools used for this) has its benefits, such as automated installation, dependency resolution, and so on. Moving the software would be tricky, as different distributions install software to different places, and so on. If you're talking about doing it on source-based distributions, even that is tricky, as "packages" are very differently on different distributions. But if you're talking about using manually compiled software, then this is probably possible, in theory. As long as the required libraries are available (and can be found) on the new system, and the hardware architecture is the same. Joseph.
Hi all, On the technical side, any software that does not rely on kernel specific system calls and sticks to gcc and libc, in the case of an all C package, or one that checks the kernel and includes the appropriate header files depending, should compile fine on either. Which leaves us with how well the kernel manages the hardware. Here are four comparisons: http://www.spinellis.gr/pubs/conf/2008-ICSE-4kernel/html/Spi08b.html http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability/ http://people.freebsd.org/~murray/bsd_flier.html http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/comparison-linux-vs-freebsd-bsd-oses.html though not severely recent, the science is sound, especially in the first two articles. There seems to be a distro for every occasion on both sides of the river (more so on the Linux side, IMHO), so i reckon it comes down to choosing what suits the task at hand best, and what experience has shown you to work in such situations. My two cents. regards, Tim.
Honestly speaking, I don't understand the Linux development system. With FreeBSD, you have a group of people who are responsible for the Operating System, the utilities and the additional software (wether ports or packages). With Linux, you have a group of people who are responsible for the Operating System and utilities. And a group of people who are responsible for the additional software.... And a group of people who are distributing it..... And they all are different people..... And last but not least... which distribution should I take? If I choose Red Hat or Debian or Suse, what are the consequences for later? Can I run the program compiled with Debian Linux under Red Hat or Suse. Can I even get it compiled?
I'm not saying that Linux is bad, evil or something. There are just a lot of things I don't understand or agree with regarding it. Well, the same thing applies to other operating systems. Closed and Open.
Hi Washington, I see how religious you are about xBSD :) , all in all the Linux development system isn't as complex just like Joseph pointed out in his answer to your post. I use both Linux and xBSD in my everyday sysadmin work. Over time in my opinion I have preferred using the xBSD for enterprise server tasks, the Linux equivalent for such that I use and would recommend is RedHat Enterprise(which comes at a cost), I use most of the other Linux distros for Desktop because of the regular distribution cycles (The like of Ubuntu and Fedora which are released every six months) and the updated hardware support. Frankly BSD has not impressed me on the Desktop front, I have tried PCBSD and DesktopBSD and they did not do it for me. The fact that different people work on different aspects of a Linux system like you mentioned makes it possible for an application to develop even more, this is the whole open source model although there has been lots of arguments for and against it. -- ˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ 'spɹɐƃǝɹ ıʞnɾu pıʌɐp
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 4:02 PM, David Njuki <njukey@gmail.com> wrote:
Honestly speaking, I don't understand the Linux development system. With
FreeBSD, you have a group of people who are responsible for the Operating System, the utilities and the additional software (wether ports or packages). With Linux, you have a group of people who are responsible for the Operating System and utilities. And a group of people who are responsible for the additional software.... And a group of people who are distributing it..... And they all are different people..... And last but not least... which distribution should I take? If I choose Red Hat or Debian or Suse, what are the consequences for later? Can I run the program compiled with Debian Linux under Red Hat or Suse. Can I even get it compiled?
I'm not saying that Linux is bad, evil or something. There are just a lot of things I don't understand or agree with regarding it. Well, the same thing applies to other operating systems. Closed and Open.
Hi Washington,
I see how religious you are about xBSD :) , all in all the Linux development system isn't as complex just like Joseph pointed out in his answer to your post. I use both Linux and xBSD in my everyday sysadmin work. Over time in my opinion I have preferred using the xBSD for enterprise server tasks, the Linux equivalent for such that I use and would recommend is RedHat Enterprise(which comes at a cost), I use most of the other Linux distros for Desktop because of the regular distribution cycles (The like of Ubuntu and Fedora which are released every six months) and the updated hardware support.
Frankly BSD has not impressed me on the Desktop front, I have tried PCBSD and DesktopBSD and they did not do it for me.
David,
I agree entirely with your observation on the Desktop front. Linux (almost all of them that are not commercial) seem to come with support for almost every hardware, much like Windows does:) I believe that is why most new users to the Unix world will be found to run some Linux distro (and they believe that is the only Unix until they hear of the likes of *BSD, Solaris, HP-UX). BTW, and this is OT - aren't there HP-UX Administrators lurking around somewhere? There is money to be made if one is! -- Best regards, Odhiambo WASHINGTON, Nairobi,KE +254733744121/+254722743223 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "If you have nothing good to say about someone, just shut up!." -- Lucky Dube
Hello, I won't argue for / against Linux / BSDs but there is a reason why Linux Powers 95% of the World's fastest Supercomputers [ http://www.top500.org/stats/list/34/osfam ] even though its arguably the youngest entrant into the *NIX family. It is also steadily finding its way into the smart-phone arena (android /meego / Maemo / WebOs / etc; I understand there is some vanilla BSD on the iPhone) — not to mention everything in between. I admire both set of systems and would use the most appropriate one to get the job done. Someone posted an in-depth article about the variances of FreeBSD to Linux users [ http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php ] Another guy also tried to put FreeBSD in Perspective and this is what he had to say: " Everyone will have a different opinion, and they are all right. I'm going to offer my FreeBSD-slanted opinion as one view. NetBSD Coke, original formula. Hard to argue with that. NetBSD has a long and noble history. The NetBSD team does a great job of covering the hardware world. No, not the WinTel hardware world, that's Linux. They cover platforms. By running on so many platforms it is a great platform if you have a lot of different (and/or old :-) sorts of hardware. Unfortunately, it is this platform compatability that slows their progress. I have nothing bad to say about NetBSD. unfortunately, I have nothing good (feature wise) to say about it when it comes to getting real work done. Anything you buy these days has "better" choices that run on it. I will continue to be a big NetBSD supporter though, as it's the only choices for some of my older machines that still deserve a real operating system. OpenBSD I'd tell you about it, but then I would have to kill you. :-) Actually, it's not that bad. OpenBSD is security focused, and so they do go a few extra steps in that direction. About 60% of what they do can be done on NetBSD simply by intelligently securing the box. The other 40% is good security add on work. Most of the good stuff the OpenBSD folks come up with make it into the other BSD's and Linux shortly afterwards, although not all. I'm not sure on security alone OpenBSD is "better", assuming you have a clueful admin who understands the issues.IMHO the best thing for the BSD community is if the OpenBSD guys and the NetBSD guys could get together. Unfortunately, the inability to do that is the very reason they are apart. FreeBSD The FreeBSD folks want to get real work done. Early on, that resulted in an Intel focus, as that was the only affordable platform available. Now the Alpha is included, and hopefully more soon. When they day is done though they are interested in bang-for-the buck, not on RC5 or quake, but applications like web, ftp, and news. Bread and butter network stuff, rooted deep in the Unix world. This shows in several places. The VM subsystem they implemented several years back was one of the first of it's kind in the free OS world. The port subsystem is an efficient way to distribute and build tools that may still have compile-time dependancies and configuration without creating a packaging nightmare. The installer is simple, clean, fast, and good for the novice and the expert. Put simply, FreeBSD makes the admin and the machine the most productive when trying to do Internet application "stuff". Linux I'll offer my Linux opinion, to complete my perspective. Linux wants to be everything to everybody. As such, it supports more "options" to everything. There are more device drivers, more supported file systems, and more "applications" than any other free unix. In many cases, this is good, but when it comes to getting real work done, it is questionable at best. The quality of both some of the "supported" hardware and the drivers are to be questioned, but how are you to know what is good, and what is bad? The releases are more frequent, both to fix bugs, and introduce features. There are often all sorts of new things added you don't need that may affect what you're trying to do. Summary Any of them will probably do what you want. All of the BSD's have a very different structure than Linux, not only in code, but in how they are designed, built, and released. They all have core teams, rigid code review and testing procedures, and an emphasis on being correct rather than being first, best, or fastest. For the most part, if there is a feature in a released version, it works, reliably. Linux emulation on FreeBSD works like a dream. If RealPlayer G2 and acroread will run fine under it, anything will. The penality for this stability and reliability is that you're doing to have to pick from the "approved" hardware list, and do without some of the wizbang stuff. Finally, I have one recommendation. Learn the way each OS wants you to do things. Unix is Unix, unless you're an admin or a programmer. The worst thing anyone switching OS's can do is try to impose one OS's / designers view on another. It's usually a poor fit. Just because one OS does something completely different than another does not automatically make it better or worse, what matters is what you are able to do with it at the end of the day. " Good luck with whatever you choose (to the guy who was asking which *BSD flavour to choose in another Skunkworks thread). Regards, Martin.
BEEEP!!! "Linux equivalent" - there's no such thing!! haven't you read what Washington has posted? On 8/10/10, David Njuki <njukey@gmail.com> wrote:
Honestly speaking, I don't understand the Linux development system. With FreeBSD, you have a group of people who are responsible for the Operating System, the utilities and the additional software (wether ports or packages). With Linux, you have a group of people who are responsible for the Operating System and utilities. And a group of people who are responsible for the additional software.... And a group of people who are distributing it..... And they all are different people..... And last but not least... which distribution should I take? If I choose Red Hat or Debian or Suse, what are the consequences for later? Can I run the program compiled with Debian Linux under Red Hat or Suse. Can I even get it compiled?
I'm not saying that Linux is bad, evil or something. There are just a lot of things I don't understand or agree with regarding it. Well, the same thing applies to other operating systems. Closed and Open.
Hi Washington,
I see how religious you are about xBSD :) , all in all the Linux development system isn't as complex just like Joseph pointed out in his answer to your post. I use both Linux and xBSD in my everyday sysadmin work. Over time in my opinion I have preferred using the xBSD for enterprise server tasks, the Linux equivalent for such that I use and would recommend is RedHat Enterprise(which comes at a cost), I use most of the other Linux distros for Desktop because of the regular distribution cycles (The like of Ubuntu and Fedora which are released every six months) and the updated hardware support.
Frankly BSD has not impressed me on the Desktop front, I have tried PCBSD and DesktopBSD and they did not do it for me.
The fact that different people work on different aspects of a Linux system like you mentioned makes it possible for an application to develop even more, this is the whole open source model although there has been lots of arguments for and against it.
-- ˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙˙ 'spɹɐƃǝɹ ıʞnɾu pıʌɐp
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Odhiambo Washington <odhiambo@gmail.com> wrote:
1: Licenses As we all know, the Linux operating system is licensed under the GPL. This license is used to help prevent the inclusion of closed source software and to ensure the availability of the source code. The GPL attempts to prevent the distribution of binary-only source. The BSD License is much less restrictive and even allows for the distribution of binary-only source. The core difference, however, can be looked at like this: The GPL gives you the right to use the software any way you want, but you MUST ensure the source code is available to the next person who uses it (or your variation of it). The BSD license does not require that you make sure the next person who uses (or modifies your code) makes that code available.
Note : the Linux Kernel is GPL -- not the "linux operating system" ... since the "linux operating system" is made up of different distributions and packages each having their own licensing models ..
participants (8)
-
ashok+skunkworks＠parliaments.info -
David Njuki -
Dennis Kioko -
Joseph Wayodi -
Martin Chiteri -
Odhiambo Washington -
Patrick Kariuki -
Timothy Makobu