# How FreeBSD is different from Linux and Mac OS



## asifnaz (Dec 13, 2010)

I know they all come from Unix background .How freeBSD is different . Does it use Linux kernel ..?


----------



## graudeejs (Dec 13, 2010)

asifnaz said:
			
		

> I know they all come from Unix background .How freeBSD is different . [red]Does it use Linux kernel[/red] ..?



Man, I'm getting mad when I read questions like this!

Do your homework, read Wikipedia about Linux, FreeBSD and MacOsX!!!


----------



## olav (Dec 13, 2010)

The biggest difference is that Linux lacks good documentation.
I also find administration of a FreeBSD server easier than a Linux server. For example creating a mirror of the OS disk is by far easier to do with FreeBSD. But Linux is still great, I prefer it as desktop and when it comes to running java applications.


----------



## asifnaz (Dec 13, 2010)

killasmurf86 said:
			
		

> Man, I'm getting mad when I read questions like this!
> 
> Do your homework, read Wikipedia about Linux, FreeBSD and MacOsX!!!



Instead you could answer me in one line . I will do some research of-course


----------



## graudeejs (Dec 13, 2010)

No spoon-feeding here 
Also search forum for Linux vs FreeBSD (something like that), it's been discussed many, many times


----------



## ckester (Dec 13, 2010)

OK asifnaz, here's your one-line answer:

Read the FAQ and the Handbook first.  It's a prerequisite for anyone asking questions in these forums.

Olav is correct, FreeBSD has excellent documentation.  Use it.


----------



## UNIXgod (Dec 13, 2010)

asifnaz said:
			
		

> Instead you could answer me in one line . I will do some research of-course



I'll give you several.

UNIX was created at AT&T Bell labs in effort to create a multi-user operating system then known as a time sharing system after the failed project known as MULTICS. AFAIK this would historically be our first multi-user OS.

After the first couple of years in it's inception it was obvious that they needed a language to make it portable so they created a so-called portable assembly language based on the language B( which was created using BCPL). The language to replace B was ... you guessed it C.

AT&T due to it monopoly licensed copies of the system to Berkeley University for $600 a set of tapes where other corporations had to pay around $30,000(in 1970's money that's like one million dollars). Students and graduates endowed the system with utilities. DARPA gets involved and gets some of the BSD guys to write a networking protocol which would later be known as TCP/IP or as your lack of research will tell you "The Internet".

In the 80's they charted out most of what needed to be done to remove any legacy AT&T code. They did and put it on the network for free while at the same time selling tapes for $1000 bucks.

Both netbsd and freebsd came out of that history. AT&T sued of course. Mainly getting nothing more than the removal of the term UNIX from the documentation and forcing the alternate usage of UNIX-Like or UNIX-derived.

As for linux history or even macos you should really hit your search button and stop being a l4m3r about reading.

In the future refer to this: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html


----------



## SirDice (Dec 13, 2010)

asifnaz said:
			
		

> Instead you could answer me in one line . I will do some research of-course



One line will be difficult but let me once and for all try to explain it in simple terms. Linux is a kernel written by Linus Torvalds. He made it so it works similar to existing (commercial) unix systems but wrote it completely from scratch. A kernel is the 'heart' of an operating system but you need tools to make it into something usable. Most Linux distributions use the GNU tools plus a few other bits and pieces to accomplish that.

The various *BSD systems all have a common ancestor. The original UNIX. This was a complete operating system, it had a kernel and all the tools needed. All the proprietary (IP protected) code was replaced by newly written code with a permissive license. And from this base source code all the others more or less evolved: bsd-family-tree

OS-X is a bit of a bastard child actually. It has a microkernel as it's base with a few bits and pieces from FreeBSD attached to it. Apple also uses some userland tools from FreeBSD but most of it is created by Apple itself. Certainly everything that involves graphics and the GUI. Apple did open source the base for OS-X as Darwin but without the GUI.


----------



## wblock@ (Dec 13, 2010)

FreeBSD uses the letters B, D, E, F, R, and S, with a Scrabble score of 13, while Linux uses I, L, N, U, and X and only scores 12.  OS X is very different, using only the letters O and S, with the deceptiver letter X being a roman numeral for ten.

What this all means is that FreeBSD is one better than Linux (with no overlap), OS X can't really be categorized, and that I've apparently got way too much time on my hands.


----------



## fronclynne (Dec 13, 2010)

Macs* and FreeBSD use tcsh(1).  Linux uses bash or dash (or in odd cases busybox).
Macs require that you enjoy the delicate flavour of Steve Jobs's [synonym for male chicken].
Linux requires that you have similar feelings about RMS.
FreeBSD senses your distrust of those nasty men and will give you a ride in its candy van to a safe, warm place with lots of pictures of mommies and daddies hugging.



*this is probably not true of macs any more


----------



## ckester (Dec 13, 2010)

On second thought, here's another one-line answer, the one we probably should have given to begin with:

_
Q: Does FreeBSD use Linux kernel?

A: No.
_


----------



## ckester (Dec 13, 2010)

fronclynne said:
			
		

> Macs* and FreeBSD use tcsh(1).
> *this is probably not true of macs any more



I just checked on my Mac Mini, which is running OS X Leopard.


```
$ sh --version
GNU bash, version 3.2.17(1)-release (powerpc-apple-darwin9.0)
Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
```

Perhaps I changed the default shell long ago, but I don't recall doing so.
In any case, notice that I'm asking for the version of /bin/sh, not /bin/bash.
And /bin/sh is not a hard or soft link to bash.


----------



## fronclynne (Dec 13, 2010)

*I love to bash bash, though.  Try me some time.*



			
				ckester said:
			
		

> I just checked on my Mac Mini, which is running OS X Leopard.
> 
> 
> ```
> ...



No, I'm just remembering a roommate's mac (I don't recall which model or version of os-10 it was running) which had a default user shell of tcsh.  Charmed the socks off of me.  Somehow it doesn't shock me that they'd move to bash.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Dec 14, 2010)

Oh look, one of those Sticky posts nobody reads.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Dec 14, 2010)

And ... scene.


----------

