Difference between BSD and Linux Kernel?

[Kdar]

What is major differences between those two sets of OS?
I always was wondering what was advantage of one or another.

Somewhere I was reading that the BSD kernel was build is better than Linux, but I don't if it had much truth to it.

What is your opinion about those two? What do you think is better (or have potential to be better)?

[earthpigg]

apples and oranges.

Linux is developed as a kernel.

*BSD is developed as an entire operating system.

both the *BSD kernel and Linux kernel are useless alone.

The difference comes when you add in the other stuff....

the *BSD stuff is developed by the same guys putting the kernel together.

the Linux stuff is developed by anyone that feels like it, and individual distributions mix-and-match [kernel+other stuff] as they see fit. an example is upstart v traditional runlevels.

in *BSD, the entire project is generally committed to a single thing providing that functionality at once... whereas Linux distributions have a choice:

Upstart has replaced sysvinit in Fedora 9. It currently functions in the same manner as it did in Ubuntu, i.e. it replaces sysvinit, while retaining the existing scripts. Debian[4] is considering a switch for the Squeeze release.

Upstart replaces the sysvinit in the Maemo 5 operating system for Nokia Internet tablets.[5]

Upstart is used in Palm's webOS for the Palm Pre smart phone. [6]

the difference between the two isn't as much legal as it is cultural. this is also why the BSD License and GPL are so different: BSD values developer freedom above all else, GPL values end-user freedom above all else.

a Free Software lover is likely to regard Apple's proprietary OS X using stuff that was formerly Free Software as a tragedy, whereas an Open Source lover is likely to regard the same as a great success.

"better"? remains to be seen.

competition is healthy, and benefits all involved parties.

its Intelligent Design and Order (BSD) versus Natural Selection and Chaos (GNU/Linux).

[BuffaloX]

BSD is a true UNIX version, Linux is not.
BSD license is compatible with GNU.
GNU license is NOT compatible with BSD.
Linux supports more hardware.

Some claim BSD is more secure than Linux, and has better stability.
but I don't know if this is actually true.

If you want best security and stability, you might want to consider BSD.
If you want compatibility and flexibility, you should probably choose GNU/Linux.
If you want insecurity and inflexibility I guess you could choose this other OS which name escapes me ATM.

[Sporkman]

BSD is managed by a cult, whereas Linux is managed by a loose association of hippies and commies.

[lykwydchykyn]

BSD is a true UNIX version, Linux is not.

People say this, but I don't know what exactly it means. Neither BSD nor Linux is officially certified as Unix, though both aim for POSIX and SUS compliance.

Can you elaborate, because I'm curious.

[blueshiftoverwatch]

both the *BSD kernel and Linux kernel are useless alone.

Don't some devices only use the Linux kernel, like cellphones or Tivo players?

[chris200x9]

People say this, but I don't know what exactly it means. Neither BSD nor Linux is officially certified as Unix, though both aim for POSIX and SUS compliance.

Can you elaborate, because I'm curious.

I think people say this because BSD was built as an extension to unix where as linux was indipendantly developed as a clone. The point is moot though since as you say neither are certified, and BSD on legal troubles was forced to rewrite the "UNIX" parts. So in reality neither is "more" UNIX than the other. IMO

[phrostbyte]

There is no UNIX code in BSD or Linux. They are both "Unix-like" or mostly POSIX compliant OSes, but neither is derived from AT&T's operating system.

Sometimes people say BSD is more Unix-like because Linux likes to diverge in a lot of places. For instance Linux uses it own sound architecture ALSA, while OSS is considered more "Unix-like" because of it's /dev/dsp interface. Linux also has the /proc directory, which is a feature from Plan 9. It takes ideas from any OS if it's a good idea. Basically Linux is trying to make a kernel which is mostly POSIX compliant, but not necessarily a clone of Unix.

[earthpigg]

Don't some devices only use the Linux kernel, like cellphones or Tivo players?

if they only use the linux kernel, you dont even get the GNU Core Utilities ls or uname or uptime, much less any form of graphical user interface.

you would turn on your TiVo and see... i dont even think you would get a bash screen.

if they use the kernel, and then add their own GUI and other stuff? well, they aren't only using the linux kernel, are they?


with BSD, however, you do get all that (a fully functional command line system with package management and whatnot, but still without any GUI) even if all you use is BSD stuff.

GNU/Linux distributions are different pieces from different places with different designers all thrown together. including stuff from *BSD, such as OpenSSH, and stuff maintained by Apple, such as CUPS. adherence to the Unix Philosophy means they should still work well together, and they usually do.

[SunnyRabbiera]

BSD is a true UNIX version, Linux is not.

Not necessarily true, even though though BSD has a more direct bloodline to the original UNIX I think by now BSD is a much different beast then UNIX

BSD license is compatible with GNU.
GNU license is NOT compatible with BSD.

Err no its compatible with the GPL actually, the old BSD license wasnt but the newer one is as the old one had the UC Berkeley advertising clause.

Linux supports more hardware.

yes it does

Some claim BSD is more secure than Linux, and has better stability.
but I don't know if this is actually true.

Actually I can confirm this one, BSD is very solid and secure.
However there are a few things linux does better, like hardware detection.