I have googled and searched until I tired. Most of them said *BSD is more secure than Linux. Hey, I don't mention you cann't secure Linux too. They benchmark it and oh yeah, they say *BSD is better than Linux. They said that *BSD can handle more heavy loads than LInux does. So I asked you guy.... if that the case, why do you still stick with Linux????

Here's my reason:
I don't use server so security reason is not my main consideration...
Again, I believer that what's more important....is the man behind the gun......

I love Tux..... never love the *BSD mascot....

I love the history of Linux.... made by a hacker named Linus then developed by all hackers in the world.... the idea sounds cool to me.....

BSD made by geeks in Berkeley....... that does not sound interesting to me......

I use desktop.... Linux rocks here..... never try *BSD..... I guess I stick with Slackware....

Again, Oracle, Intel, Novell only support Linux. They said *BSD is an unsupported platform....

so guys, why do you stil stick with Linux??????? I don't ask you who use *BSD........
This is not LInux vs BSD thread. This thread is only for Linux lover's eyes.

Last questions: What Linux can do that *BSD cann't do? What we can pride of from Linux than BSD except there are more Linux users than *BSD users in this world?

Well this will be fun. I think Linux and BSD are equal. But my i86 box is running Linux cause it was convenient and it is a distro that can run with my 64 megs RAM. But my main box is my Mac, which is a colorful BSD (great CLI in this case) so it's a toss up in my view

BSD users can spell! How about we start with that? (yes i know jakarta) Most linux users dont even know anything about BSD and have never run it, so they cannot give you a valid answer anyways. Most linux users i have talked to seemed to think that BSD did not have a gui etc...

The GPL guarantees that derivative works are GPL'ed as well. The BSD license lets derivative work be locked down. That difference is fairly trivial to users that are not so philosophically driven, but is still more important than the technical difference between linux and BSD, IMO.

There seems to be a larger community of helpful people associated with linux.

BSD uses cleaner init scripts than the sysV style used by most linux distros. Slackware and Gentoo have nice simple scripts so it's a non-issue with those.

Agreed that Tux kicks the crap out of that stupid little devil character.

Hey, I know my English is bad as hell but don't tell anyone in this forum.

I think you have read and understand my first post that *BSD users are not invited in this thread.

But thank you for your opinion. I aggred with you that most Linux users cannot give me a valid answer about *BSD but not Linux users in this forum.

quote:
I think you have read and understand my first post that *BSD users are not invited in this thread.

Well, if you are not going to let bsd users in your thread, then I am going to gather up my toys and go home. boo whoo

Ok....... again who am I??? I am not moderator. I cann't forbid anyone........ Your are totally true... maybe I shouldn't make this thread....

Sorry, guyz........

i run both of them but does your questions really matter.

Why do you use gnome instead of kde?
why don't you use vim instead of emacs?

It could go as far as why do you drink coffee instead of tea?

For this below i think you might be smoking too much, take a rest, and get your mind straight and think about who you are, what you say and think twice before speaking...
I think you have read and understand my first post that *BSD users are not invited in this thread.

For me,desktop user, this question does not really matter.

But I just wonder if I want to setup a server, probably I would choose *BSD because most of articles, threads, news, I read told me that *BSD are more secure than Linux. The only reason..... that logic to me for using Linux as server is about commercial application. If my server would use Oracle applications, I would choose Redhat. No doubt about that. If I want to implement Novell network, I would choose Suse or Redhat. No doubt.

They said if you use *BSD, the security holes are less than Linux so with Linux you would patch more often than with *BSD. This is not good..... Again..... They said they choose *BSD because *BSD can handle more loads than Linux. So why bothering use Linux if you are not going to use commercial application such as Oracle or Novell?????

Why??? Why??? Why???

I think the case is not same like:
Gnome or KDE?
Vim or Emacs?
Coffe or Tea?
Because we are talking about security and productive here. Ok, if we are talking about desktop, the case will be like Gnome or KDE.

I never run *BSD. I would love to try it but I don't have space anymore. The space is consumed by Windows XP ( my brother and sister want to use it ) and game ( I am a normal human ). I never setup server for public. So forgive me if something wrong in this post............ I am still

if you want to run bsd run it. Which difference does it make after all. Personally i prefer bsd but it is just a matter of taste and nothing else. I don't really pay attention to polls, reviews(almost ignorant people doing it), benchmarks stupidities,etc... Lots of people are talking nonsense, and you have to find your reality.

But for a could be answer, I would rather run freebsd instead of linux for a server or a desktop.

I think you guys should give a try to freesbie. It a FreeBSD live CD just as Knoppix. When you boot Freesbie up and type startx, a very good looking, great customized XFCE4 appears... worth the shot before judging BSD without even trying it....

Well, I appreciate your suggestion. However......

For desktop:
Linux or FreeBSD is just a matter of preferences. The case is just like KDE or Gnome, Vim or Emacs. Somebody said that FreeBSD can handle more heavy loads than Linux does but what desktop need handle such services? They said FreeBSD is more secure because the kernel is made/fixed/worked by "selected" people. Not all people qualified to work with BSD kernel. Linux is more liberal. The kernel is made/fixed/worked by more people......... Ok, I think desktop does not need such security. Desktop does not run ftp services, etc. So for desktop, LInux or BSD is just a matter of preferences. I choose Linux because it has greater helping community, commercial support and history reason.

For server:
This is the reason I make this thread. I have read a lot of articles, threads that some people turn around from Linux to *BSD because security reason and performance reason. But I never read articles, threads that some people turn around from *BSD to Linux. So what does it mean? This is what I thinking.

The reason people use Linux than *BSD in server are:
1. They want to use commercial support like Novell, Oracle, Intel, RHES, and bla bla bla.
2. They never use *BSD
3. They are Linux die hard fans
4. The community of Linux is greater than the community of *BSD

mrcheeks suggest me to not believe those craps and try it ( *BSD ). It make sense but not to me. I have spend months in Linux just to play around. But right now I want to do some serious things. That is programming. So my main jobs in Linux are coding, debugging, testing and bla bla bla. Because of that I don't have time anymore. I use Linux as desktop not server. If I want to work as system administrator, no doubt I will try BSD and benchmark it with Linux and see who is the best. Maybe, you wonder why as programmer I cann't / don't want to do it ? Because such testing / experience need time. Not just days but months. It would make no sense if I spend months to do this "testing" just because I want to know "is it true that BSD ( as server ) is better than Linux? "
So the reasons I make this thread are:
1. I just want to know is there anybody in this forum that has try BSD and Linux, and decide that Linux is better ( as server ) ?
2. Is it true that people in this forum use LInux as server because of that 4 reasons that I mention above?