nslay

[Invert]

Hey nslay, does this picture imply that FreeBSD and Linux are gay?

[Meh]

LOL.

[Adron]

Well, FreeBSD seems gay, but I dunno about Linux... Looking at that, it might just have gotten dragged into it

[Akamas]

I think linux paid FreeBSD.

[QwertyMonster]

Lmao!

He got that pic from somebody on Stealthbot forums 

[nslay]

Hey nslay, does this picture imply that FreeBSD and Linux are gay?

No, I don't think either are gay ... but I do think FreeBSD is better than Linux.  Here are the reasons I think BSD (OpenBSD, NetBSD etc...) flavors are better than Linux flavors.  Correct me if I made a mistake.
1)  Everything that runs on Linux flavors will run on BSD flavors, however, I don't think its the other way around.
2)  Anyone! Anyone! can contribute to the Linux source and I'm not sure there is any auditing.  Specifically FreeBSD audits their code and all their "large team of individuals" are guaranteed very experienced.  I read somewhere that there are 200+ senior software developers that work on it.  Furthermore OpenBSD proactively audits their code, meaning, they look for vulnerabilities in their code before someone takes advantage of them.
3)  Security ... visit cert.org.  There are few security advisories on  BSD flavors but very commonly for Windows and Linux.  FreeBSD and OpenBSD claim that their default installs have had no remote holes in over 8 and 12 years respectively.
4)  As regards to development, a compiled binary from one BSD flavor probably will run on other BSD flavors.  Since Linux is very scattered, I'm not sure the same could be said for Linux.
5)  Historically BSD Flavors have been more reliable as servers because of their superior network stack (well at least FreeBSD has a very attractive network stack) and security.  Because of their ability to deliver performance under extremely high loads many ISPs and large websites use them (ie.  Hotmail's backend servers still use FreeBSD)
6) There aren't a terrible amount of device drivers for either Linux or BSD flavors.  However, from what I understand, while BSD offers the ability to easily load binary drivers, Linux makes it very difficult to load binary drivers since they wish to force manufacturers to go open source.
7) The File system is extremely rugged and does not fragment much.  Unlike Linux, UFS2 natively supports ACLs.  Because it uses ordered writes on softupdates it does not need journaling, thus, if it crashes in a write, the file system remains consistent and intact.

That's why I like FreeBSD better than Linux.  I tried to be more general and support all BSD flavors.  Again correct me if I'm wrong.

[Blaze]

He got that pic from somebody on Stealthbot forums

Yes, all pictures that have been on the wacky 12-year old infested stealthbot forums originate their.

[nslay]

He got that pic from somebody on Stealthbot forums

Yes, all pictures that have been on the wacky 12-year old infested stealthbot forums originate their.

I found it somewhere else and forgot where to find it.  Then I found it here
http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/04980e0b/2e2f732a
I think its funny so I saved it

[iago]

Hey nslay, does this picture imply that FreeBSD and Linux are gay?

1)  Everything that runs on Linux flavors will run on BSD flavors, however, I don't think its the other way around.

I don't believe Java does

2)  Anyone! Anyone! can contribute to the Linux source and I'm not sure there is any auditing.

Are you insane? Torvalds has been called the "source nazi", he is very VERY strict about auditing!

4)  As regards to development, a compiled binary from one BSD flavor probably will run on other BSD flavors.  Since Linux is very scattered, I'm not sure the same could be said for Linux.

Somewhat true, but it really depends on the installed libraries.  I'd rather have the freedom of different installed libraries than the guarentee that all software works.

5)  Historically BSD Flavors have been more reliable as servers because of their superior network stack (well at least FreeBSD has a very attractive network stack) and security.

Windows stole their network stack code ("strings" some of Microsoft's network code (.dll/.sys) and you'll sometimes see the FreeBSD license.

6) There aren't a terrible amount of device drivers for either Linux or BSD flavors.  However, from what I understand, while BSD offers the ability to easily load binary drivers, Linux makes it very difficult to load binary drivers since they wish to force manufacturers to go open source.

Not true, just because Linux users like opensource doesn't make it a requirement.

I can't say much about *BSD, because I've never used them.  But you seem to make a lot of incorrect assumptions about Linux.

[nslay]

Hey nslay, does this picture imply that FreeBSD and Linux are gay?

1)  Everything that runs on Linux flavors will run on BSD flavors, however, I don't think its the other way around.

I don't believe Java does

2)  Anyone! Anyone! can contribute to the Linux source and I'm not sure there is any auditing.

Are you insane? Torvalds has been called the "source nazi", he is very VERY strict about auditing!

4)  As regards to development, a compiled binary from one BSD flavor probably will run on other BSD flavors.  Since Linux is very scattered, I'm not sure the same could be said for Linux.

Somewhat true, but it really depends on the installed libraries.  I'd rather have the freedom of different installed libraries than the guarentee that all software works.

5)  Historically BSD Flavors have been more reliable as servers because of their superior network stack (well at least FreeBSD has a very attractive network stack) and security.

Windows stole their network stack code ("strings" some of Microsoft's network code (.dll/.sys) and you'll sometimes see the FreeBSD license.

6) There aren't a terrible amount of device drivers for either Linux or BSD flavors.  However, from what I understand, while BSD offers the ability to easily load binary drivers, Linux makes it very difficult to load binary drivers since they wish to force manufacturers to go open source.

Not true, just because Linux users like opensource doesn't make it a requirement.

I can't say much about *BSD, because I've never used them.  But you seem to make a lot of incorrect assumptions about Linux.

We all know Java is multiplatform ... thats besides the point

Neat, so 1 person audits Linux?  I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole.

Windows really stole their network stack thats funny!

Yeah, well just because Linux makes it difficult to use binary drivers doesn't mean you can't

Yeah, I haven't used Linux much ... I read lots of negative things here and there, that's why I asked for correction.  I am thankful I started with FreeBSD.  You should try freebsd, make a small partition and install it ... it's not difficult.  I must warn you, it's not as friendly to begin with.  You have to configure things yourself, but that's no problem if you can work with the Posix prompts.  I am pretty sure you'll be happy with it.  Maybe you can try OpenBSD and let us know how it works out!
Anyways, FreeBSD as a desktop is like any other Linux/Unix with a desktop.
Oh! and you'll love the ports system!

[iago]

We all know Java is multiplatform ... thats besides the point

The code runs on any platform that the JVM runs on.

Neat, so 1 person audits Linux?  I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole.

No, he doesn't do it alone, but all final decisions are up to him. I'm sure you could find official information if you looked.

Windows really stole their network stack thats funny!

Just one of many:
iago@Slayer:/mnt/windows/windows/system32$ strings ftp.exe | grep University
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.

Yeah, well just because Linux makes it difficult to use binary drivers doesn't mean you can't

Download it, then "modprobe drivername". I don't see where it gets difficult?

Yeah, I haven't used Linux much ... I read lots of negative things here and there, that's why I asked for correction.  I am thankful I started with FreeBSD.  You should try freebsd, make a small partition and install it ... it's not difficult.  I must warn you, it's not as friendly to begin with.  You have to configure things yourself, but that's no problem if you can work with the Posix prompts.  I am pretty sure you'll be happy with it.  Maybe you can try OpenBSD and let us know how it works out!
Anyways, FreeBSD as a desktop is like any other Linux/Unix with a desktop.
Oh! and you'll love the ports system!

I have absolutely nothing against BSD; I've always wanted to try it, but I've never gotten around to it.  At work this summer, I'll probably put it on a test machine to play with.

Also, I'm used to configuring stuff by hand.  I use Slackware and a very basic window manager.  If I need to configure something I grealy prefer doing it via commandline.  And I'm told that Slackware is the most BSD-Like Linux variation, so that's another plus.

[quasi-modo]

ROFL @ THE PIC.

I printed that bad boy out and showed it my friend and then was given a lecture about using school printers to print offensive stuff (our professor caught me printing it).

[Mangix]

Lmao!

He got that pic from somebody on Stealthbot forums

Distant.Echo the asshole .

[Intangir]

pic is funny
the debate about linux and bsd seems very uneducated, both of you are making points that are irrelivant, misinformed or prove the wrong point

i would post some meaningful info but this thread is long enough

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

Want to know why BSD owns all else as a network server? Plz see:

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html