which distribution to use?

Is anyone able to compare (say) Slackware Linux with any other UNIX clones such as FreeBSD ?

From a learning point of view, I guess it depends on what it is that you wish to learn.

Best regards.

Geoff Bagley
G3FHL

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

Comparing BSDs with Linux is a little difficult to do objectively. All claim to be powerful, reliable, and secure. And all are, certainly relative to Windows.

The choice of an operating system depends heavily on what you actually plan to do with that operating system. Few operating systems are set up "for learning."

For servers and routers, I choose OpenBSD. For desktop systems, I choose Linux.

I've been told that FreeBSD is a great server system, but not so great for desktop use. This apparently defies the experience of some people I know, one of whom uses FreeBSD on his laptop. And if I were in the position of having to support a large number of desktops, I would take a hard look at FreeBSD simply because I prefer its flavor of package management.

My impression is that of the BSDs, FreeBSD has the most going for it in the way of driver development for odd hardware. I'm guessing that Linux is still ahead here, though, due both to manufacturer support and the sheer number of people working on it.

I'm presently writing this on a laptop which doesn't support Linux well. Am I worried? No. I figure Linux will catch up with it in fairly short order. (Even if it doesn't, it works well enough for my purposes.) Would I be so confident with a BSD? No, even though FreeBSD probably would work as well on it as Linux does now.

Similarly, I suspect that most of the people doing development for desktop applications (and probably a bunch of other software) are using Linux platforms. The stuff should generally still build under the BSDs; sometimes you might have to use gmake (GNU make), and I guess there will be instances where the porting just won't work.

I haven't mentioned NetBSD. I haven't played with it at all, nor do I know anyone who has. Its main claim to fame seems to be in the diversity of platforms it will run on. They really work on this.

So you see, the choice of operating system has little do do with a "learning experience." It has much more to do with how each meshes with your needs (for each given system) and style of operation.

David Benfell, LCP
[email protected]
---
Resume available at http://www.parts-unknown.org/resume.html

Well... keep it simple: BSD is on the traditional side of Unix. Linux... is on the "cool" side.

The kernel, which has nothing to do with the home user and rather with the server admin, is better. But Linux is catching on.

The driver database and the app list, which has everything to do with the end user, as the server admin will probably use a handfull of tools, and some home-made scripts, shows Linux is winning.

So here you have both advantages and disatvantages of the "coolness" of Linux. More apps, easier to use, but louzier code, less optimisation...

In the end, it isn't that important what OS to use. As Unix has won the war by far and any single noticeable OS nowadays has a (more or less) POSIX kernel.

From what I recall the issue here was which Linux distribution to use. Not BSD.. or any Unix flavour. So the originator of this alternative "thread" should have labeled the message differently. So, geoff, remember next time to keep the subject in concordance with the contents. This is no "spanking". But rather a nice way to tell you that your message would have been deleted by default, just in this case I checked the mail. Me, and I'm not the only one, I read or delete the mail based on the subject and don't bother to read more. After all this is WHY the subject line exists.

Back to UNIX, OpenBSD is certainly a NO. I know people who are good on Linux and get lost with some admin tasks on any BSD. OpenBSD has that particular charateristic of being "safe". And safety goes as the main purpose. And real life shows that it's all just a long line with one extreme being labeled as "safe" and the other as "friendly". Now, no OS has even got to extreme. But as Linux lies somewhere in the middle of the line and Win95 somewhere on the "friendly" side... quite on the extreme (although it isn't that friendly either ;-) OpenBSD goes to about the same lenght in the opposite direction. Later on you'll see that newer MDK and RH offer you at install time a "security level" which means how they set up permissions on various files. Lowest level is more or less equal a windoze's usability... and about the same safety. Highest level makes things really hard for the "regular" user. Bottom line - OpenBSD doesn't even bother with the usability.

NetBSD has about the same problem as OpenBSD. Its purpose isn't
friendliness or teaching somebody to do anything. Its purpose is portability. And AFAIK, they are the most portable as working on most architectures.

FreeBSD is the only BSD that comes anywhere closer to Linux. This is
why it is friendlier, and this is why it is the most popular, known and tested BSD flavour to my knowledge (lately I mean).

Now, this is a big problem - making a real comparison. It is like
comparing apples and oranges. Of course, they are fruits... and round. But things end up about here. The originator should ask about Linux vs *BSD. As different Linux distributions are only that - different distributions of the same system. In some cases the differences are even smaller than say Windows with Netscape explorer versus Windows (same kernel) with Outlook and IE.

Back to the main issue - if you are taking into consideration examining
a BSD system... FreeBSD is the only choice. If you need any of the others - you won't have that dillema.

FreeBSD and Linux are coming closer every month. FreeBSD has some
packs to make it able to run Linux binary, and Linux has a fair knowledge about BSD, enough to see it's partitions and things like that. Go for FreeBSD in case you have lots of spare time and - most important - a real computer, no WinAnything. First example that comes into my mind - if you have a hardware modem you will be able to use it with FreeBSD without any problem. If you have a software modem, your only chance is with Linux.

As for Linux... I use MDK and it gives me an WinXP experience ;-) on a
k6-2@300Mhz. Lots of graphics, lot of coolness.

I won't go into any more details as a holy war debate is the last thing
I want.

This, being a Linux list, is a horrible place to get into this discussion...

In what sense are you referring to usability?

Where I've never been able to make sense of Linux's packet filtering, it took me about 15 minutes to configure it on an OpenBSD system. From my perspective, OpenBSD's model of packet filtering is much more in line with how packet filtering is actually used and what it's actually needed for. It seems to me a lot simpler. For me, this is a major win.

I'm no Linux networking guru but I've found OpenBSD's networking configuration relatively easy to sort out. The ifconfig and route commands are different, but similar enough to what you'll find on Linux that I doubt these would be a serious problem. (Look at the man pages and, really, you'll figure it out.)

OpenBSD (and I think the other BSDs) use a different device naming convention so, for example, where Linux calls most high bandwidth interfaces ethn (where n is a unit number), you'll find a variety of names under OpenBSD for the same devices. This is a little harder, but I found it surprisingly straight-forward.

OpenBSD doesn't use the shadow suite for password management; instead, it keeps the real passwords in /etc/master.passwd, along with some other crucial information. That's simply different, not really harder. (FreeBSD, by the way, does something similar.)

One of the first things I have to do to a new OpenBSD system is to install zsh. OpenBSD (and I think all BSDs) come with a real sh, not bash, which is really crude. I'm really gritting my teeth until I manage to get through this, so I'll acknowledge that this is definitely harder. The solution, for me, is to understand that installing a shell that I can live with is a top priority, higher than working on what the system is actually going to be used for.

Another thing I have to do early on is to install vim. That's not because I can't use vi. It's because I'm in the habit of typing vim.

Installing qmail is a bit harder; Dave Sill's Life with Qmail doesn't cover OpenBSD and there are a couple places where you need to figure out the OpenBSD-equivalent procedures for what he's telling you to do. It's not bad enough that I've felt compelled to write Dave offering suggestions on how he could better cover OpenBSD, though I probably should, since he's generally done a fine job trying to take the guesswork out of installing qmail.

I just recently upgraded an OpenBSD 3.0 installation to OpenBSD 3.1. This was truly painless. The only thing I had to fix was the symbolic link for qmail's sendmail wrapper -- which I knew I'd have to do. It was also fast. I was probably through it in about 15 minutes. (Initial installations are also very fast.)

There are a few things like the examples I mention above. Some things are harder. Some things, I think, are easier. But a statement that OpenBSD doesn't even bother with usability really seems to miss the mark.

For me, it still comes back to how I ended my previous posting. The choice of operating system depends on how each meshes with how you're going to use each system and with your own operating style.

David Benfell, LCP
[email protected]
---
Resume available at http://www.parts-unknown.org/resume.html