
BSD for Linux Users – A biased comparison - all2
http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/bsd4linux/01
======
cartep
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 do not have the concept of a
base system with additional external software (which is installed under
/usr/local in FreeBSD), but instead have things like systemd which IMHO is the
foundation for a more modern operating system than the venerable post-4.4BSD
base system of BSDs.

FreeBSD lost the train when they became entangled with the infamous M:N
threading effort, and I'm using Linux since then. Linux kernel has improved a
lot, although I admit that in its distributions I miss the ports collection
(and perhaps the /usr/local distinction).

------
all2
I've used Linux as my primary OS for the better part of 5 years now (the Arch
distro), and I thought the discussion the author gives here is at least a
compelling one.

The idea of ports and how they compare to the pacman package manager is quite
interesting to me. I don't know enough to make an informed comparison, but I
do know that if I let my system sit longer than a year I risk having to
reinstall from scratch (whereas the author states a ten year old install can
be brought up to date with relative ease).

The author describes a lot that I find to be convincing; enough so that I may
give a *BSD a shot for a year or two.

I don't have any particular bias for one platform or another as the only
things I want from my OS at this point are a semblance of control and some
privacy.

