Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Interview With The FreeBSD Core Team

Posted by timothy on from the free-as-in-bsd dept.

Gentu writes "OSNews features an ultra interesting and in-depth interview with three members of FreeBSD's Core team (Wes Peters, Greg Lehey and M. Warner Losh) and also a major FreeBSD developer (Scott Long). They discuss issues from the Java port to corporate backing, the Linux competition, the 5.x branch and how it stacks up against the other Unices, UFS2, the possible XFree86 fork, SCO and its Unix IP situation, even... re-unification of the BSDs."

3 of 281 comments (clear)

  1. Re:BSD? by Frater+219 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    What are the advantages of FreeBSD over Windows 2003 Server. Both are stable OSs, capable of running a high traffic server. But, with Windows, you get the award-winning support of a Fortune 500 company. With BSD, you get nothing.

    With BSD, or most any other Unix system including Linux distributions, you get a time-tested and proven base upon which all the system's services rest. You get a well-understood system upon which hundreds of thousands of people have built upon, and millions of people have hands-on experience using. You get not only an operating system, but a thoroughly proven model for maintainability, ease of administration, and security.

    Windows 2003 Server is a new and unproven offering from a company whose past successes in marketing have been dwarfed in the public eye by the harms due to their failings (see, e.g., Nimda, SQL Sapphire Worm). Nobody has years or even months of experience on Windows 2003 Server, and its frequently accurate technical documentation cannot match the depth of understanding which Unix professionals bring with their platform.

    You could choose Windows 2003 Server, and your staff might be able to make it work for you. But what will you do in two years? BSD, Linux, and the rest of the Unix heritage will still be going strong -- but if history is any guide to the future, Microsoft will be running ads touting Windows 2005 Server, a new and equally unproven platform, and telling you that 2003 Server is a piece of unstable trash. What kind of a future is that for your business?

  2. There's a quote... by devphil · · Score: 4, Insightful


    I wish I could find this webpage again. (Google's not responding and I'm too busy to wait.) Anyhow, some guy had a great quote which IMHO accurately summed things up as far as free operating systems go. Went something like (in random order)

    FreeBSD is the most powerful OS.
    NetBSD is the most portable OS.
    OpenBSD is the most secure OS.
    Linux is the most popular OS.
    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
  3. Re:BSD? by Frater+219 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I've had the discussion with a BSD-zealot friend of mine whether Linux or BSD is better, and all we could come up with is that both are much better than Windows:)

    Not for everything. Windows beats Unix if you want to run Photoshop. :) I was talking specifically about server systems, where reliability and understandability of the system is crucial. I think the Unix edge is not merely the Unix architecture, but also the history and deep understanding which Unix professionals bring. It just isn't possible for a culture to have that kind of deep understanding of a system that has just been released -- no matter how featureful it may be.

    To be snarky about it: On Unix systems, novices know they have no idea what is going on, and experts know that they know what is going on. On Windows systems, novices think they know what is going on, and experts know that they do not know what is going on. That may make Windows experts more Socratic ("Socrates is wisest, because he knows that he knows nothing") -- but I would not want my enterprise database dependent upon Socrates.