Question about BSD.

[Noxn]

I searched for information about Freebsd, to see what it can do better (or not) than GNU/Linux. Many things i found are from the Freebsd site.

Can someone here Really tell me what is better/badder (is that a real word?). I ask because they said something about Linux being programed by inexperienced programmers and stuff and is therefore more insecure.
That sounds a bit like FUD.


Just wanted to hear it from someone that doesn't favor any of the 2 (Freebsd or Linux).


PS:
Sorry if i explained it bad/Wrong forum/anything.

[handy]

The Other OS Talk link in my signature will take you to our new forum, which has a good deal of the old crew from the now defunct UF's sub-forum of the same name.

There are some very knowledgeable & enthusiastic BSD users there in the BSD sub-forum.

Please come over, register & ask your questions, as you are most welcome?

[Noxn]

okay

Edit:
done: here
(http://grubbn.org/otheros/showthread.php?tid=49)

[jimi_hendrix]

well...bsd is unix while linux isnt...

the bsd license is slightly more free than gpl

[az]

I searched for information about Freebsd, to see what it can do better (or not) than GNU/Linux. Many things i found are from the Freebsd site.

Can someone here Really tell me what is better/badder (is that a real word?). I ask because they said something about Linux being programed by inexperienced programmers and stuff and is therefore more insecure.
That sounds a bit like FUD.

Just like Ubuntu is a Gnu system that runs a Linux kernel, BSD is a unix system that runs a BSD kernel. You can run a Gnu system with a BSD kernel. In that case, the differences would be minimal. I suspect that BSD doesn't handle as many different types of desktop hardware than Linux since it has a smaller developer base.

I doubt that any one system can claim to be more secure than another. It all depends on how you use it.



the bsd license is slightly more free than gpl

The difference is that you are free to make BSD code non-free by taking it away without giving back. So the code is less free in that respect. But it depends on your point of view.

[aaaantoine]

Can someone here Really tell me what is better/badder (is that a real word?). I ask because they said something about Linux being programed by inexperienced programmers and stuff and is therefore more insecure.
That sounds a bit like FUD.

You must mean better/worse.

I know that a lot of the BSD developers are huge on security, so you definitely have that to count as a BSD advantage.

The disadvantage? While Linux and BSD are source compatible (last I checked), they are not binary compatible. In other words, no native Adobe Flash, Skype, Java, or proprietary graphics drivers unless the developers of these bits of software choose to make them. And considering that BSD desktop market share is to Linux what Linux is to Mac OSX (and what Mac OSX is to Windows), there will generally be less proprietary software available. EDIT: I stand corrected.

And speaking of Mac OS X, all that development work they put into making OS X shiny? The BSD camp gets to see none of that, thanks to the already mentioned licensing issue.

[Bachstelze]

While Linux and BSD are source compatible (last I checked), they are not binary compatible.

Wrong. FreeBSD and OpenBSD can both run Linux binaries natively. Just a few minutes ago, I was playing Quake 4 on FreeBSD using the Linux binary.

And yes, Linux binaries run just as well as they do on Linux, maybe even better sometimes. Of course, graphic drivers are a totally different question since they depend on a kernel module.