The differences I see between FreeBSD and Linux are:
* Cleaner file structure (meaning files aren't as scattered about the place).
* Easier software installation (the ports collection seems to have EVERYTHING, two commands to install 'make' and then 'make install')
* Stability (I setup a FreeBSD server for a local ISP with about 3,000 clients, that is the primary nameserver as well as running a web-based email client that gets about 1,000 hits/day and it's uptime is now 297 days)
* Compatability (I use FreeBSD as my home destkop system, and the linux emulation is virtually transparent)
Although, this is only from my own experiences,
any Unix-style OS, is better than no Unix-style OS.
I've got FreeBSD onto a 486/33 with 24Mb of RAM and it runs just fine. Even got WindowMaker which runs quite well, even with xearth running in the background.
Slashdot Mirror
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/10/08/023023 8&mode=thread
* Cleaner file structure (meaning files aren't as scattered about the place).
* Easier software installation (the ports collection seems to have EVERYTHING, two commands to install 'make' and then 'make install')
* Stability (I setup a FreeBSD server for a local ISP with about 3,000 clients, that is the primary nameserver as well as running a web-based email client that gets about 1,000 hits/day and it's uptime is now 297 days)
* Compatability (I use FreeBSD as my home destkop system, and the linux emulation is virtually transparent)
Although, this is only from my own experiences, any Unix-style OS, is better than no Unix-style OS.
I've got FreeBSD onto a 486/33 with 24Mb of RAM and it runs just fine. Even got WindowMaker which runs quite well, even with xearth running in the background.
FreeBSD is full-on Operating System. Linux is just a kernel.