# Differences between Linux and BSD.



## CastilleV (Jan 30, 2009)

Hi, 

   I am a newbie to linux, but I want to try our a BSD flavor. 
But before that, I would like to know some key differences between the two, and aside from that, how does programming a *nix (BSD) go? Are there certain things some BSD flavors can do that others can't? And why isn't BSD more well known than linux?

    ~CastilleV


----------



## r-c-e (Jan 30, 2009)

Here's a good start to get you on your way: http://www.freebsdnews.net/2009/01/27/differences-between-bsd-and-linux/


----------



## SirDice (Jan 30, 2009)

Biggest difference in my view is that linux is a kernel, nothing more, nothing less. It's the distros that use that kernel and a collection of other tools that turns it into an OS. BSD is a full OS.


----------



## gilinko (Jan 30, 2009)

I would divide it into 3 main segments:

1. Kernel
The kernel is the main difference, BSD has it's kernel and to be exact Linux is a kernel(not a OS). So the core is the major difference

2. Base system
BSD has it's own base system with the most important binaries as _cp_, _ls_ etc, while a Linux based OS is using external binaries for the same functions(usually it's the GNU versions)

3. Full OS
Absolutly no difference here(with a few exceptions). A browser that works on a Linux based OS works on a *BSD OS. You can run GNOME, KDE, Firefox, Eclipse, NetBeans, Pidgin etc under both with no difference to the user. If you as a user are unaware of the base system, a *BSD based desktop system can and will function exactly like a Linux based desktop.

In short:
A "linux" os is: Linux kernel + GNU utilities
A "bsd" os is: bsd kernel + bsd utilites

Everything else is the same.(with some exceptions for proprietary software like skype and flash).


----------



## artificer (Jan 30, 2009)

This is also an excellent article for those who come from the linux world:

http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php


----------



## CastilleV (Jan 31, 2009)

Alright! 
I've also done some studying and have a few questions to ask, but I will ask them via IRC. 
Other than that, I think i'll switch. 

Looks like you guys don't backport things like GIMP. 
THATS pretty tempting as well!
And why does BSD need a linux compatibility layer? :S


----------



## graudeejs (Jan 31, 2009)

BSD doesn't need it. I don't use it.
But if you want to use some commercial apps like vmware, you need linux compatibility, because most commercial apps ships only linux.

Also using linux compatibility + linux firefox is one of ways to get flash on freebsd.





what does backport means?


----------



## gilinko (Jan 31, 2009)

killasmurf86 said:
			
		

> what does backport means?



Essentially taking bugfixes an such and applying them to an earlier version of the same software(ie put patches for GIMP 2.6 into GIMP 2.4). It's a common way in some of the larger Linux distributions (Debian and Redhat).

Nothing is backported in FreeBSD as the ports tree is an moving target as the installed software from ports is separated into the /usr/local portion and not as most Linux distributions integrated with the base system itself which I find is one of the best features of FreeBSD when compared to any other *nix type of system.


----------



## Oko (Feb 1, 2009)

gilinko said:
			
		

> Essentially taking bugfixes an such and applying them to an earlier version of the same software(ie put patches for GIMP 2.6 into GIMP 2.4). It's a common way in some of the larger Linux distributions (Debian and Redhat).
> 
> Nothing is backported in FreeBSD as the ports tree is an moving target as the installed software from ports is separated into the /usr/local portion and not as most Linux distributions integrated with the base system itself which I find is one of the best features of FreeBSD when compared to any other *nix type of system.


That is not necessary good thing. RedHat is commercial distribution so it must support its customers for certain number of years. The same goes for Debian even though they claim that they are free distribution. 

FreeBSD on the another hand is more of academic project so it can brake backward compatibility easier. That makes it very lean and mean comparing to let say Solaris. 

I personally have strong preference for incremental changes of packages over moving target approach. That is one of the reasons I prefer OpenBSD over FreeBSD. Unfortunately OpenBSD project doesn't have enough human resources now to maintain stable packages so if the problem occurs you will have to patch package
yourself. However RedHat has enough money so they are doing exactly that.


----------



## DavidMorgan (Jun 24, 2010)

gilinko said:
			
		

> Essentially taking bugfixes an such and applying them to an earlier version of the same software(ie put patches for GIMP 2.6 into GIMP 2.4). It's a common way in some of the larger Linux distributions (Debian and Redhat).
> 
> Nothing is backported in FreeBSD as the ports tree is an moving target as the installed software from ports is separated into the /usr/local portion and not as most Linux distributions integrated with the base system itself which I find is one of the best features of FreeBSD when compared to any other *nix type of system.



Why do you find it preferable?


----------



## Alt (Jun 24, 2010)

CastilleV said:
			
		

> I am a newbie to linux, but I want to try our a BSD flavor.
> But before that, I would like to know some key differences between the two


Imagine airplane engine - this should be linux. With wings from 2nd vendor - this should be what they call "linux distro"

Imagine aircraft engine+wings from one vendor - this should be bsd


----------



## sk8harddiefast (Jun 25, 2010)

BSD & Linux seems to be the "same" but in fact they have some differences.
First of all as gilinko said

A "linux" os is: Linux kernel + GNU utilities
A "bsd" os is: bsd kernel + bsd utilites

BSD use oss (like solaris) and not alsa for sound
Have BSD License

As killasmurf86 said, linux compatibility is not something you really need it, except if you want a linux base for some tools that they cannot be found on BSD.
Also there is a little difference when you try to extract tar files from terminal and copy a folder

```
cp -R folder & cp -R folder/
```

They use Different kernel
BSD have BSD kernel and not linux kernel

Use Ufs/Zfs filesystem (witch is also solaris fs)

And haven't 700 distros (thanks god  )

This are some differences i saw the last 5-6 months i use Freebsd but i am too noob to understand all the differences


----------



## fronclynne (Jun 25, 2010)

*A refreshing and wonderful move, I might add*



			
				sk8harddiefast said:
			
		

> A "bsd" os is: bsd kernel + bsd utilites



To be honest, we have a good number of GNU things in base, including gcc, but yes, there is certainly does seem to be a move afoot to push the GPL out to ports.


----------



## SirDice (Jun 25, 2010)

fronclynne said:
			
		

> To be honest, we have a good number of GNU things in base, including gcc, but yes, there is certainly does seem to be a move afoot to push the GPL out to ports.



True, but I believe that even if you would remove all the contributed stuff you'd still be left with a complete and running OS.


----------



## ckester (Jun 25, 2010)

> And why isn't BSD more well known than linux?



- Because most BSDer's don't have the same evangelical zeal as Linux people do?  Most of us just aren't all that interested in getting Windows users to switch.   Some of us even think that it would be a bad thing if the Windows masses switched, since the cost would probably be having to sacrifice many of the things that make Unix unique.   (In fact, some of us see the same danger in an influx from the Linux world.)

- More well known by whom?  It doesn't bother me one whit that some pimply Linux fanboy playing videogames in his mother's basement hasn't heard about BSD.  Dittos for the "journalists" and bloggers who cater to the interests of that fanboy or to those of certain corporations who are using Linux as a pawn in their battle against Microsoft.   BSD is already well known amongst those who matter.

- Popularity and renown are overrated.  90% of the things that are popular or "well known" is crap.  You shouldn't need to have your choices validated by the crowd; instead, learn how to judge things for yourself and have some confidence in your decisions.  (This kind of knowledgeable self-reliance, btw, is one of those things that makes Unix special.)   

/rant


----------



## fairy (Jun 26, 2010)

ckester said:
			
		

> Some of us even think that it would be a bad thing if the Windows masses switched, since the cost would probably be having to sacrifice many of the things that make Unix unique.


In FOSS everyone free to use whatever they want, i.e. you're not forced to use desktop-friendly distro and even there you can turn off all whistles by simply recompiling. Stop spreading BS that's only possible with proprietary software when your choice is restricted.


----------



## fronclynne (Jun 26, 2010)

fairy said:
			
		

> In FOSS everyone free to use whatever they want, i.e. you're not forced to use desktop-friendly distro and even there you can turn off all whistles by simply recompiling. Stop spreading BS that's only possible with proprietary software when your choice is restricted.



Right, but I'm (a) not a terrifically advanced user, (b) I need wireless to work, & (c) for whatever weird political reason I don't want to use ALSA.


----------



## zspider (Jun 26, 2010)

FreeBSD is a complete UNIX operating system. It tends to be better organized and documented and things work when you need them to. 

For instance I have never been able to find very good documentation on the ipchains firewall and thus I had to use firestarter to make rules, whereas today I looked up a couple of documents about IPFW and it worked and loaded the first time out and additionally I learned something about it.

I also tend to agree if *BSD suddenly got popular you would have a bunch of people whining that it was too hard to use and demanding that it be dumbed down for them. :\ .


----------



## kdemidofff (Jun 26, 2010)

the main difference: linux SUX, *BSD Rocks


----------



## fairy (Jun 26, 2010)

fronclynne said:
			
		

> Right, but I'm (a) not a terrifically advanced user, (b) I need wireless to work, & (c) for whatever weird political reason I don't want to use ALSA.


(a) I don't think freebsd will ever be entirely desktop-friendly from the get go but having ifdefs for such features would be useful. Besides, there is always netbsd to run away to.
(b) as long as maintainers interested, otherwise you're free to step up to support obsolete drivers
(c) ALSA compatibility is only going to make audio software easier to port. It'd be even better if it brings long awaited software midi sequencer to OSS.


----------



## carlton_draught (Jun 26, 2010)

CastilleV said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> I am a newbie to linux, but I want to try our a BSD flavor.
> But before that, I would like to know some key differences between the two


Most of it comes down to history of both BSD and linux, which is as easily googled as me doing it for you. Or read here on the site.


> And why isn't BSD more well known than linux?


I suspect that it is because Linux was out there as FOSS first, by two years. That was enough to get a community and momentum behind it, and hence the Linux community grew faster due to network effect.

But popularity and "suitability for purpose" are two different things. There are benefits to popularity, mainly stemming from larger community size. But if popularity was the only thing that mattered I'd use mysql over PostgreSQL. Well, I wouldn't even do that, I'd still be using Windows, and accepting that programming is some mysterious and arcane art best done by someone else.


----------



## hydra (Jun 26, 2010)

I don't like the "bsd r0x, linux sux" (or reverse) attitude. Both systems are fine, I've been using FreeBSD for 4 years, Linux for 5 years and I like both. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses, try them and see yourself. Simply ignore the kiddie "r0x/sux" groups.


----------



## kdemidofff (Jun 27, 2010)

hydra said:
			
		

> I don't like the "bsd r0x, linux sux" (or reverse) attitude. Both systems are fine, I've been using FreeBSD for 4 years, Linux for 5 years and I like both. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses, try them and see yourself. Simply ignore the kiddie "r0x/sux" groups.



  Sometimes there rumors about difference between Russian and Indian programmers..
If u compare high school in russia with indie and how many notable russian scientist around there u can see difference.. The way education done is a day and night. The indians also like writing theirs resumes much more than writing good and understandable programs... That's the point to be in higher social class rather to do work right. The point of linux is provide free for free much more than stability and usability.

The linux community IMHO much like to release new GPL code and omg features (like indians like their fake resumes) rather perform performance and reliability checks on their code (see postgress performance case). 

BSD is a business class by design, linux is economy en masse much more like fragmented breadboard for everything and every device rather than a complete product or solution.

The question is did u like quality and real performance and usability or flaky code. 

Yes u can use both systems but linux don't stop sux if someone pay you for working on it. 

Its no way flame war it's just differentiation in products.. linux - indie OS make like all indie programs done


----------



## hedwards (Jun 27, 2010)

gilinko said:
			
		

> Nothing is backported in FreeBSD as the ports tree is an moving target as the installed software from ports is separated into the /usr/local portion and not as most Linux distributions integrated with the base system itself which I find is one of the best features of FreeBSD when compared to any other *nix type of system.


Ports are never backported in FreeBSD, but I thought that people sometimes refer to MFC (For the OP's benefit Merged From Current) as backporting.


----------



## hydra (Jun 28, 2010)

@kdemidofff
I'm running several Linux boxes in production and haven't noticed any problems with performance or stability - they simply work. While I do prefer FreeBSD on my workstation(s), I wouldn't generally state that "Linux sux".

Your experiences with Linux are so bad that they crash, malfunction, perform bad all the time ? Which distributions if I might ask ?


----------



## CastilleV (Jun 28, 2010)

kdemidofff said:
			
		

> Sometimes there rumors about difference between Russian and Indian programmers..
> If u compare high school in russia with indie and how many notable russian scientist around there u can see difference.. The way education done is a day and night. The indians also like writing theirs resumes much more than writing good and understandable programs... That's the point to be in higher social class rather to do work right. The point of linux is provide free for free much more than stability and usability.
> 
> The linux community IMHO much like to release new GPL code and omg features (like indians like their fake resumes) rather perform performance and reliability checks on their code (see postgress performance case).
> ...


Whoa, what the hell man? That's kinda racist and I am partly indian.

As far as BSD goes, my old laptop broke and I won't have one for a year or so.
I am going to still try BSD with KDE installed on it, seeing as how I think KDE would be better for making KDM themes, and such.


----------



## kdemidofff (Jun 28, 2010)

hydra said:
			
		

> @kdemidofff
> I'm running several Linux boxes in production and haven't noticed any problems with performance or stability - they simply work. While I do prefer FreeBSD on my workstation(s), I wouldn't generally state that "Linux sux".
> 
> Your experiences with Linux are so bad that they crash, malfunction, perform bad all the time ? Which distributions if I might ask ?



see the linux kernel code quality on web


----------



## kdemidofff (Jun 28, 2010)

CastilleV said:
			
		

> Whoa, what the hell man? That's kinda racist and I am partly indian.
> 
> As far as BSD goes, my old laptop broke and I won't have one for a year or so.
> I am going to still try BSD with KDE installed on it, seeing as how I think KDE would be better for making KDM themes, and such.



nah saying that indians like their resumes more than actual work racist?
citing low quality education system racist??

i got source from a born indian man

This is what happens when you blindly outsource to India (keyword: blindly)

nothing against indians.. but the way they (commonly) work, may or may not apply to you..
i like some indian philosophical concepts culture etc.. but it has nothing to do with business and quality of code
sanskrit is a great language etc but business is a business


----------



## fairy (Jun 28, 2010)

kdemidofff said:
			
		

> BSD is a business class by design, linux is economy en masse much more like fragmented breadboard for everything and every device rather than a complete product or solution.


You haven't used FreeBSD long enough. It lacks a few fundamental features on desktop and not, e.g. midi emulation, kernel mode setting, framebuffer drivers except for vesafb, kvm (qemu). X11 drivers are barely kept stable and not really up to date. At least nvidia blobs work reliably.

And Linux is not that fragmented. There is somewhat central (Linus) repo that everyone tries to push to.

I may sound like a devil's advocate but I don't think saying some vague BS about how Linux is bad is going to help any BSD. FreeBSD equally sucks in certain areas even compared to other BSDs. The real fun is in discussing where exactly each system sucks. Someone may feel incentive to fix a flaw or two after reading that.


----------



## fronclynne (Jun 28, 2010)

CastilleV said:
			
		

> That's kinda racist and I am partly indian.



I hate to break it to you, but indian isn't a race, it's a nationality.  Y'all's even speak the same family of languages.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Jun 28, 2010)

Is this thread still about Linux and BSD, or have we moved on to even more boring subject matter?


----------



## hedwards (Jun 28, 2010)

fairy said:
			
		

> I may sound like a devil's advocate but I don't think saying some vague BS about how Linux is bad is going to help any BSD. FreeBSD equally sucks in certain areas even compared to other BSDs. The real fun is in discussing where exactly each system sucks. Someone may feel incentive to fix a flaw or two after reading that.


You must've missed out on your history lessons. One of the reasons why Linux has so many more installs than FreeBSD is that back in the 90s during the lawsuit era, the Linux community was spreading FUD around about how the lawsuit was going to shut the whole project down

I say FUD mainly because they didn't really bother to do any meaningful research and instead used it to try and squash the competition.

But in practice you're correct, it's really not a particularly constructive approach to things. Given how watered down Linux has become in recent years, I shudder to think what it would've done to the various BSDs to target the barely computer literate.


----------



## zspider (Jun 28, 2010)

> dwards
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by fairy View Post
> I may sound like a devil's advocate but I don't think saying some vague BS about how Linux is bad is going to help any BSD. FreeBSD equally sucks in certain areas even compared to other BSDs. The real fun is in discussing where exactly each system sucks. Someone may feel incentive to fix a flaw or two after reading that.
> ...



One of the reasons I got off Linux was seeing how it was becoming the new fad(I hate fads) and if there's one thing I have learned in my short life is that when the masses get their hands on something it usually ends up being ruined in the end. If *BSD stays a minority then that's just fine with me


----------



## kdemidofff (Jun 28, 2010)

fairy said:
			
		

> You haven't used FreeBSD long enough.
> ....
> FreeBSD equally sucks in certain areas even compared to other BSDs. .. to fix a flaw or two after reading that.



Screw x11 its bad idea for desktop solution.. like cheap photocamera xD

GUIs is not needed on FreeBSD and its not critical for its operation or performance. Well i use BSD for server stuff.. long long time ago.. I still have 3.x disks on shelf.

UNIX GUIs recently showed very poor compared with usability of Windows stuff. Yes Windows non free has bugs etc. But then don't use it on unprotected internet or use firewall.
Also DirectX and OpenGL game market.. U wont see any major game first-time release on linux or other unix.

*x11 is just separate port that don't belongs to base system, u can live without it. Use windows or MAC OS for desktop *


----------



## kdemidofff (Jun 28, 2010)

Today almost all open-source software available multi-plaform binary that will run on MAC/Windows/Linux/etc too.
So u get free beer and paid snacks. Windows also good for media industry, design, games etc.

For a server is a BSD system super. For desktop it doesn't matter only usability and software availability is concern. U prooly won't need desktop running 2 years each day 24x365.

From first times i used FreeBSD i see stable solid concrete system, easy configuration, easy maintenance, runs forever, nice performance, easy update. When poor electricians shut off electricity like periodic script it just recovers. Install & forget = profit.


----------



## zspider (Jun 28, 2010)

But you can use it for a desktop it just takes some work to set up. But once it is set up it runs very well(posting from my laptop running FreeBSD 8). Who knows maybe OpenCDE will be the ultimate lightweight desktop


----------



## fwaggle (Jun 28, 2010)

hedwards said:
			
		

> You must've missed out on your history lessons. One of the reasons why Linux has so many more installs than FreeBSD is that back in the 90s during the lawsuit era, the Linux community was spreading FUD around about how the lawsuit was going to shut the whole project down
> 
> I say FUD mainly because they didn't really bother to do any meaningful research and instead used it to try and squash the competition.



I know I could probably find this myself via a Google search, but some citation to these claims would be really interesting to anyone who happens to read an archive of this thread.


----------



## vermaden (Jun 28, 2010)

kdemidofff said:
			
		

> *x11 is just separate port that don't belongs to base system, u can live without it. Use windows or MAC OS for desktop *



First of all, x11 is currently mostly the Linux thingy, with all HALd dependencies, GEM/TTM in Linux kernel, KMS in the Linux kernel and so, its definitely not so 'cross-platform' at all.

As for Windows/Mac OSX GUI, have You ever used it? Especially the Mac OSX?

I have run Windows for very ling time, the only reasonable version is Windows XP Pro which sucks less as it comes to stability/features/speed/reliability, the newer ones like Vista/Seven/7 are just piece of junk, not stable as all, alpha/beta quality, breaking very frequently.

The Mac OSX, I use it at work every day, and its very keyboard unfriendly, I would like to select the buttons with arrows, even with very few buttons and select them with ENTER/RETURN key, not a fscking chance, You gotta use the fscking 'allmighty' mouse ...

For these reasons I definitely would choose x11/openbox/nautilus/opera/conky/urxvt/gimp/inkscape/audacity/... to run the GUI, but I am an admin, what can I know ...


----------



## fairy (Jun 29, 2010)

kdemidofff said:
			
		

> *x11 is just separate port that don't belongs to base system, u can live without it. Use windows or MAC OS for desktop *


While ports may seem like second class citizens FreeBSD system is practically useless without them except for some basic stuff like routing or mail/dns server. And both NetBSD and OpenBSD have X11 in base.

As for Windows/etc, I can't trust my ssh-keys or bank account details to a system that **may** send them to vendor or a third-party without my consent. Such uncertainty is escalated by the number of installed proprietary programs.


----------



## rden (Jun 29, 2010)

DutchDaemon said:
			
		

> Is this thread still about Linux and BSD, or have we moved on to even more boring subject matter?



DD: It's hardly a thread anymore, it's already going in many different directions, given the smokey smell on some of those branches flame wars may not be too far off.

I know it's in the off-topic forum but should have been capped when those referenced articles (that answer the original question) were posted - otherwise even on it's own it's a topic with no possible conclusion.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Jun 29, 2010)

Well, I'm bored by it anyway. Closed. Please discuss topics in the right subforums instead of tacking them on willy-nilly, people.


----------

