BSD vs Linux

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 24, 2010.

  1. Came across this apologia by a FreeBSD fan
    <>. The
    key point I get from this is that *BSD follows a centralized development
    model, Linux a distributed one. This difference turns up over and over
    again. For example:

    Linux has never had any sort of separation between what is the "base
    system" and what is "addon utilities". The entire system is "addon
    utilities". MySQL is no different from ls from KDE from whois from dc
    from GnuCash from ... Every bit of the system is just one or another
    add-on package.


    The entire base system is developed together. To be sure, there're parts
    of the base system like sendmail and BIND and tcpdump and ssh and such,
    which are in fact individual packages which are developed elsewhere.
    There are even some GNU packages like groff and gcc and gzip and such,
    which will be immediately recognizable to any Linux user. But these are
    treated specially, in that versions are imported into the tree, then
    molded to fit the rest of the system.

    So BSD takes these add-ons, and adapts them to fit its way of doing things.
    Whereas Linux adapts itself to their way of doing things. Seems to me
    there’s a lot less work involved in doing things the Linux way.

    I guess what's important here is to realize that the difference between
    ports and RPM's isn't just that ports compile and RPM's just install.
    Ports are designed to cover the full range of bits and pieces of
    installing stuff; encoding and tracking and installing dependencies,
    packaging, installing and deinstalling, local changes necessary to build
    on your system, compile-time configuration tweaks... all those things.
    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. And, since it's binary, you have to deal with library
    versioning conflicts, or missing compile options, or any of the other
    limitations you incur by not building it on your own system.

    Which all current major Linux distros I’m aware of are quite capable of
    handling as a matter of course.

    ... you can poke around FreeBSD's entire source tree online at, and see all the history of every file.

    This surprised the hell out of me. Yes, I know the article is a few years
    old now, but they’re still using CVS!?? Yes, that link still works! I see
    alternative links from that page to Subversion and Perforce versions of the
    repository, but judging from the design of those pages, they seem like
    afterthoughts; looks like the CVS version is still the master.

    So, no sign of support for distributed version control—no Git, not even
    Mercurial, nothing.

    In a nutshell, I think Linux is about embracing the future, *BSD is about
    sticking with the past.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 24, 2010
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Baby Peanut
    Baby Peanut
    Sep 11, 2003
  2. Replies:
    Dan Lanciani
    Nov 3, 2005
  3. Michael J. Pelletier

    Securing linux/bsd review

    Michael J. Pelletier, Jun 30, 2005, in forum: Computer Security
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Jul 16, 2005
  4. Evil Bastard

    BSD vs Linux - questions

    Evil Bastard, Aug 9, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Aug 11, 2003
  5. thingy
    May 8, 2006