On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Dan Rue wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 10:56:35AM -0600, Mike Miller wrote: >> Even if I were to use FreeBSD, I doubt that differences in the kernels >> would mean much to me as a user. > > I shouldn't, but I just can't resist responding to this.. > > FreeBSD isn't just a different kernel. It's like this: > > Linux is kernel + apps (mostly GNU). Right, but the article was about the code base for the kernels. > FreeBSD has a concept of a base system - so the OS itself isn't just a > kernel, but a kernel, plus the bare bones of a working OS (and very > little if any GNU in base). In other words, they distinguish between a > base system, and 3rd party applications. Some things like sendmail and > bind are included in base, but for most applications you install from > the package/ports system (i hear gentoo's package system is quite > similar). This lends to a very consistent and reliable core OS. It is possible to install GNU on FreeBSD kernel and drop all the FreeBSD utilities. http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/ > As well, freebsd is very strict about the filesystem hierarchy. 3rd > party applications *never* install their configs to /etc. They belong > in /usr/local/etc. This separation, applied to all files and > applications on the system, is one of the best userland reasons to favor > freebsd over linux, imho. Why doesn't Linux do it that way? They've been adopting standards and I think that sounds like a good standard, or at least a good recommendation to developers. Mike