BSD vs. Linux (2005)

I like FreeBSD, and I use it as a server OS and on a NAS box but you only need look at https://wiki.freebsd.org/Graphics to understand that if the "Linux Desktop" is a joke compared to MacOS and Windows then the "FreeBSD Desktop" is even more so. From my experience of "old" computers, workstations, and then "PCs as Workstations", Windows won the desktop because the UNIX camp could never check their egos at the door and get their act together on…

The article is an "ok" intro to the differences between Linux and BSD, but it stays at a pretty high level (and makes it clear that it wasn't intending to go into anything more detailed than "principles/design/philosophy" The article is dated though - it predates GIT, and still refers to the odd/even devel/production numbering in linux, which went out of vogue a couple years ago (at least) It is, of course, not entirely accurate when discussing BSD as consisting of…

This page appears to be positively ancient, referencing FreeBSD 5 and Red Hat 8, and a bunch of the technical differences are incorrect now; the Linux kernel hasn't used stable/unstable versioning in forever and is entirely on git, every GNU/Linux distribution has easy binary package dependency resolution and retrieval, etc.

The 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…