Well, it's all the same Linux kernel; for each branch of each distribution,
they pick a kernel train they want to run with and then backport patches as
required for security or device driver support from more modern kernels ...
Nothing to stop you from running X kernel (or Z window manager) on Y
distribution, generally. The primary differentiator is really the packaging
scheme; whether it uses the Debian style (*.deb) or the Red Hat (*.rpm)
style or perhaps something more basic (*.tar.gz) like Slackware.
While there are a few "forks" of BSD, there never was a proliferation of
various "distributions"; that is to say, there is only one, definitive
FreeBSD, one, definitive NetBSD and one, definitive OpenBSD. All are
significantly stripped of crud out of the box compared to Linux.
Ironically, I had to migrate a few of my home servers _to_ Linux _from_
FreeBSD (with some reticence) because FreeBSD dropped support for my Fore
PCA-200E cards and I didn't want to stop running OC-3 MM ATM at home :O
I do still run some FreeBSD systems at home but just as ESXi VMs.
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Chuck Guzis <cclist at sydex.com> wrote:
On 09/30/2015 02:50 PM, Sean Caron wrote:
Just the whole idea of so many Linux
distributions makes me bang my
head against the coffee table. One thing I greatly admire about the
*BSD projects has been the strong arm of unification, all
contributors are working towards one goal... It just so happened that
Linux was the "free UNIX that took off" (just like i386 was the
"architecture that won") and we have to live with the repercussions
of that in IT ops every day for better or for worse ... But that's
just my two cents and no more ... I know this topic can get
I find that most of the difference between Linuces lies in the GUI, not in
the "guts" of the system. Many, if not, most use a Debian-based kernel
with other stuff bolted on--and even that's not cast in Sakrete. I'm
sitting at a system now running Ubuntu with the XFCE desktop (I can't stand
Unity). At the command-line level, there's little that's substantially
different among Linuces.
Anent BSD, you'll find considerable differences in approaches to OpenBSD
compared with FreeBSD. OpenBSD is conservative to the point of being
almost paranoid, an approach I greatly admire. OpenBSD management seems to
despise virtualization in any form, so no Wine for you, much less
VirtualBox. Ftp is not officially supported, etc. Compared to OpenBSD,
FreeBSD is a painted whore.
It's been a long time since I've updated my systems with NetBSD, so it's
hard to say much there.
Linux is getting to be (or has gotten to be) the host of the latest shiny
toy. They no longer support older chipsets, such as the VIA 8237A
nothbridge (it was just ripped out without commentary, so you have no hard
disk access). The BSDs--and even Windows seem to have kept it.