6 ms·
This isn’t all that different from choosing the Linux OS of choice. That decision often is partnered with the package manager that’s desired, and how quickly th
by bluejekyll 5y ago
This isn’t all that different from choosing the Linux OS of choice. That decision often is partnered with the package manager that’s desired, and how quickly things are upstreamed in it. Do you want apt, nix, yum/rpm? Then how stable do you want it? Debian, Ubuntu, etc? How much support are you looking for? Redhat, etc.
I guess I don’t see a major difference in the complexity of that decision process in the Linux space, which might have been alluded to.
- 5e92cb50239222b 5y agoMost Linux distributions are much more similar to each other than BSDs are. At least that's my impression after spending the last month at work porting a bunch of scripts from Linux to several BSDs (Free, Open, and Net). The differences are too many to describe here, from where they install third party libraries, to configuration file locations and formats, to how basic tools work (essential things like grep/sed/awk have (sometimes very) different feature sets, flags, and runtime characteristics (for example, how exactly do they handle signals)). Default shells are also very different, though that's a pretty minor thing. If you compare something like Debian, Alpine, and NixOS, then maybe..
- bluejekyll 5y agoI find each Linux OS that’s based around a different package manager to generally feel like a different operating system. That’s my point. The BSDs all have a common ancestor. The Linux’s tend to all have a GNU user space, the kernels are mostly the same, but the OS layout tends to differ in important ways.
- anthk 5y agoNot even close. Each BSD is it's own OS.
- snvzz 5y ago*its
- bluejekyll 5y agoIs Debian a different OS from Redhat?
- anthk 5y agoCan you run Debian stuff on a RedHat chroot without needing different ABI compat libraries? Yes. Can you run FreeBSD binaries under OpenBSD? No.
- bluejekyll 5y agoThis depends on the glibc version, but sure, that's a valid difference between the two. edit: and oddly if you only go with this definition, that is Windows with WSL also a Linux OS? I'm guessing most people wouldn't say yes...
- hulitu 5y agoWith shared libraries versioning enabled it is like in this famous movie "HAL: Without your space helmet, Dave, you're going to find that rather difficult." And taken into account that it is in fashion to introduce incompatibilities even between shared libraries minor versions, more so.
- GekkePrutser 5y agoGood question. Depends how you define OS. I consider them different OSes based on the same kernel. They have too much disparity in terms of configuration to consider them the same OS for management purposes which is my main focusat work. But I can understand if someone with another perspective feels differently.