Silly question of the day.....

[Cadwalader]

I have a friend who is a BSD junkie, and he absolutely hates RedHat. I keep trying to tell him that it's not that bad, but I am new to this whole non-M$ world, and all I know is RedHat. Can any one point out the differences/disadvantages of BSD as far as text based servers go (that's what the both of us have)?

I know BSD is not that popular, but that's about it. Thanks for the info! Hope I was of some help...
--OR--
Thanks for the help...
--Rich

 

[sleipnir214]

Four years ago, he would have had a point about BSD's code in many ways being more solid than Linux's. But now the differences are littler more than preference.

I would take at least one of the following three tacks with him:

1. He's the one with the axe to grind. Make him justify his opionion.

2. Ask him, "So, which BSD distribution do you use, and why is it superior to the others?"

3. Tell him "This is not your computer."
______________________________________________________________________
TANSTAAFL!

 

[Cadwalader]

Hey,
Thanks...

He says it's better because it's "faster". I say it's faster because it's UNIX with no more support than is needed for a web server. At least with Linux, one has options and greater support. About the only place one can obtain support for BSD is in IRC. And at that, on EFNet, there are only like 2 channels for it.

His biggest beef is that he just doesn't like "RedHat". He doesn't mind Linux. "What the heck?!" I say! What's the big difference?

Anyway, thanks for the pointers... Hope I was of some help...
--OR--
Thanks for the help...
--Rich

 

[iSeriesCodePoet]

Big company vs. No company. Mike Wills
IBM iSeries (AS/400) Programmer

http://www.koldark.net

 

[sleipnir214]

Tell him that at no time has Linux ever claimed to be Unix, and that this is a deliberate act. In fact, the technical name for Linux is "GNU/Linux" (though only Richard Stallman seems to really care). And "GNU" is a recursive acrynym which stands for "GNU's Not Unix".

After the fragmentation of Unix in the 70's and 80's, there are huge compatbility issues between the various flavors of unix-like operating systems. Claiming to be Unix is not necessarily a good thing.

Anyway, "Unix" is a trademark of the Open Group. You can only call your OS "Unix" if they say you can. And they have only certified Tru64 Unix, AIX, and Solaris. So BSD can no more lay claim to the name "Unix" than Linux can.

I've also heard the tired old arguments that BSD's memory managment is better and it's networking stack is more robust.

The memory management may be better. But if so, it's only marginally. If Linux hasn't caught up, it certainly will by the 2.6 kernel.

And although Linux's original network stack code came by way of BSD, there is no longer any difference between BSD's and Linux's network stacks. Last time I checked, for example, FreeBSD uses Linux source code for its networking subsystem. In short, for networking, Linux is the standard of the two.

And if he doesn't like RedHat, that's fine. He runs BSD, so he never has to worry about them.

In short, tell him, "This is my computer." And offer no further comment beyond that. ______________________________________________________________________
TANSTAAFL!

 

[Cadwalader]

Thanks for the comments everyone...

and sleipnir214, what the heck does TANSTAAFL mean? ;-) Hope I was of some help...
--OR--
Thanks for the help...
--Rich

 

[sleipnir214]

Cadwalader,

TANSTAAFL => There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch ______________________________________________________________________
TANSTAAFL!

 

[marsd]

Um, sleipner, You are wrong about linux's networking code.
You may be confusing M$ and linux here with borrowing bsd
code..

As far as RH goes....
I don't like RH either...but if they do the right thing
and work towards opening up the market for linux than they
are my heroes and more power to them. All linux vendors,
with a few rare exceptions, used to bundle configs
with their distros that should have been checked and
rechecked for sanity. RH got a black eye with security
fans.

Tell your friend to compare the install of free bsd and
a current RH and or SuSE or Mandrake. Also ask your friend what he's using for packet filtering code for the next release...
He had better hope that the "BRAND NEW" code written by
a relative newbie, cuts the mustard.

 

[sleipnir214]

No, it's not Mi?ro$oft. I've been hearing that old story that their IP stack code was imported from BSD, but no on has ever given me an authoritative source for that datum. Other than the fact that all IP stacks tend to be very similar, I'm discounting it as an urban legend.

I'm talking about one of the BSD variants. I had the page from where I read that bookmarked, but I've had a machine failure since then. Well, I guess I'll just have to claim it's an urban legend until I can find that link again. ______________________________________________________________________
TANSTAAFL!

 

[Cadwalader]

DARPA NET

The TCP/IP stack that was used then is the pretty much the same as what Windows, and everything else has, other wise, I wouldn't be able to post in this forum right now... ;-)


Thanks for the deffinition of TANSTAAFL. That one had me spinning for a few months now... Hope I was of some help...
--OR--
Thanks for the help...
--Rich

 

[marsd]

Sleipner,
Read rebel code.
The stack was developed independently
because of a lawsuit against the bsd
distro from at&t at the time.

This is kind of a serious error, and not one that is particularly flattering to linux. Kempen started and cox took over latter after some politics and snafus.

Cadwalader.
You are dead wrong. Just because the format is laid down doesn't mean that the implementation is the same as anyone elses interpretation. Sounds like misthink to me.

 

[sleipnir214]

I have read Rebel Code. And I am aware of the lawsuit. But I still remember a problem with Linux, BSD, and the network stack. In particular, it dealt with the fact that Linux's code is published under the GNU copyleft, and BSD's under their own, more restrictive, license. Some time in the last year.

Of course, I could be mis-remembering some "what-if?" story. ______________________________________________________________________
TANSTAAFL!

 

[marsd]

Okay, sorry to come off like a jerk.
If you find the info you refer to post an url for
the rest of us please.

 

[sleipnir214]

I would if I could. I spent four hours trying to find that blasted URL again with no luck. So we'll tag my network stack comment as "apocryphal".

______________________________________________________________________
TANSTAAFL!

 

[Cadwalader]

marsd,

I wouldn't exactly say "dead wrong". A little "off the mark" maybe, but certainly not completely wrong. Hope I was of some help...
--OR--
Thanks for the help...
--Rich

 

[marsd]

When it comes to an actual implementation the devil is in
the details. Just because there are rfc's telling me how to
do a thing I can still accomplish this using
'n' languages and 'n' techniques, so no, you're not wrong,
but you're not nearly right either IMHO.

This is the reason why MS has a different set of problems
for their ip stack than bsd, than linux, than solaris, etc...
Teardrop didn't work against most *nix hosts, ping of death
affected different OS's in different ways..etc..
Hope this makes sense.

 

[Cadwalader]

Yeah, I know what your saying. I know a .bat file sending net send messeges to *.*.*.255 with my slow little box on the same network will hang it. It jsut kinda stops. I dont'know if it thought net send was some sorta request and trying to reply, or jsut the simple fact that the PC sending the net send is 5 times faster and it just pegged the CPU...dunno.

Oh, well...;-) Hope I was of some help...
--OR--
Thanks for the help...
--Rich