Re: [TCLUG:22179] freeBSD

[Callum Lerwick <lerwick@tcfreenet.org>]

> > I will give one point - all binaries in /bin and /sbin are statically
> > linked, thus the system will always boot - even without the C libraries.  To
> > make such a distribution on Linux is problematic - because it is all based
> > upon GNU source code - and some of the binaries from a single package reside
> > in both /bin and /usr/bin for instance.  So the same package would have to
> > be compiled twice and only the relevent binaries copied.
> i think that's more distro dependant.. but i have had very few library
> booting problems before, and I'd much rather have /bin/bash dynamicaly
> linked to save memory.  I do keep a copy of staticaly linked /bin/ash
> around for emergency fixing.  but i rarely have to use it.

cal@bigtime:~$ ldd /bin/bash
        libtermcap.so.2 => /lib/libtermcap.so.2 (0x4001d000)
        libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x40021000)
        libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x40024000)
        /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)
cal@bigtime:~$ ldd /sbin/init
        libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x4001d000)
        /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)

Why is dynamic stuff in /bin and /sbin a problem? The libraries are in
/lib, which should be on the root partition as well. If / is hosed
you've got bigger problems than worrying about static binaries...

> > Also, the kernel is organized in a much different manner.  I think the Linux
> > kernel source is far easier to read and understand, but it is not as
> > efficient as the BSD kernel.  That is changing every day and the two are
> > getting closer.

Show me the numbers, otherwise its just talk. ;)

> > Linux still supports more hardware - but the gap is nearly closed on that
> > one (and out of the box - before kernel patches - FreeBSD may have Linux
> > beat).

BSD did USB before linux, you can give it that much...

> linux and BSD have been sharing device drivers, and kernel code for a
> while now.  linux took from the BSD networking code, improved on it, now
> linux has a very fast networkign stack.  BSD has taken many device drivers
> from linux, Iomega Zip paralell driver comes to mind.  To me, this is a
> good thing, sharing code is what open souce is about.

Ummm, what about the differing licenses? GPL/LGPL stuff certainly can't
go into BSD, dunno about the other way. I did see the e2fs stuff in BSD
in a clearly seperate source tree though...

> > If you have UltraDMA storage hardware, you can't beat FreeBSD.  Linux does
> > not have the ATA chipset support (with or without hendrick's patches) that
> > FreeBSD has.

> I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about, from my understanding
> FreeBSD has allways had lackluster IDE support.  as far as DMA mode, most
> distros leave DMA mode disabled by default for compatability reasons.  a
> simple /sbin/hdparm -d 1 /dev/hda turns on DMA support, making things MUCH
> faster

Linux kernel 2.2 does have that "Use DMA by default" kernel compile
option...

And Linux claims to be the first OS with UDMA100 support. BSD didn't get
there first did they? ;)

And just to bash Linux a little, the VM in 2.2 really does suck ass. I'm
considering going to 2.4 now that a certain filesystem eating bug has
been fixed and a much improved VM is in and apparently working. ;)