UserBSD vs. UserLinux - Is It Feasible?

A not-so-anonymous Anonymous Coward asks: "Someone has suggested to make a UserBSD instead of a UserLinux. From what Bruce Perens' anonymous 1-million-$ backers seem to want (no GPL-/Commercial dual-licensed development toolkit like Qt in any library, but only gratis LPGL stuff), this seems to make a lot of sense. After all, only the kernel would be different, the rest of the stuff (including the KDE or GNOME desktops) runs pretty much the same on BSD as it does on Linux. Is it possible to get the legal problems solved with licenses and still create a usable enterprise Unix desktop system on *BSD?" The idea, in and of itself, sounds fine, but does the choice of kernel really matter? What advantages would BSD have over Linux in such a project, and vice-versa?

Comments

This Already Exists?

[fuzzybunny]

MaxOS X, no?

Seriously, I've been using FreeBSD as my desktop in various forms for about 4 years now. It's nice, although my experience became a lot more agreeable once I partitioned my work into two bits--the "hardcore" stuff, like scripting, testing, compiling, sniffing networks, etc. and the "soft" stuff like doing presentations, writing docs, etc.

I do not like Star/OpenOffice, and the lack of something like Crossover Office (from CodeWeavers) running nicely on FreeBSD, despite Linux binary compatibility, has made me keep an XP box around. For some things, FreeBSD is just faster and better, and for others, XP involves a lot less knob-dicking around to get application xyz working.

So in short, yeah it's doable, yeah, it'd be nice (I've had _no_ stability issues with FreeBSD at all, and the whole thing is organized nicely) but it would need a lot of work to get it all prettied up for the masses.

That's honestly why I'm considering buying a Powerbook...

Re:This Already Exists?

[narratorDan]

Very insightful.

MacOS X is close to what the main question was but the GUI is closed source. (Mac Zealot here, buy the powerbook)

I've looked at many linux and *bsd distros, and while many of them had nice GUIs most of them had problems centered right around the geek factor. The target was the geek, not the MS drone or the fresh out of the box computer newbie.

Apple somewhat addressed this with OS X but it only runs on Mac hardware so the Windows lemmings can't jump ship unless they buy a new ship to jump on to. Which is very silly, come-on, who really wants to buy a whole new computer just to see what it's really like doing some real work?

Want to make a good User*nix? (or *bsd for that matter.) Target the USER, not the geek, nor POWERuser. But don't make the MS BOB error. Make a GUI that's as clean, powerful and most importantly as newbie friendly as the Aqua GUI and but also open enough for the geek or poweruser to bend to their whim and you'll see the tide turn.

Deranged Mac Zealot.
NarratorDan

Re:No its not.

[sk1]

This seem a lot like an uneducated rant then anything helpful.
I have used freeBSD as my mail computer for years and it has been rock solid.

1. You do not need to compile everything. You can add packages easily, but compiling is as easy as typing "make install"
2. FreeBSD is far more secure then Linux and windows. There is a reason that major ISPs use an OS like FreeBSD, Not nearly the amount of bugs that are found in Linux and Windows. And it is far more stable. (Try reading about it)
3. FreeBSD is a Complete operating system, Unlike Linux which is a kernel that is packaged with someones distribution i.e. Red Hat. Free BSD is the whole system and it is so damn good that most Linux distros take large chunks of the code.
4. Every time I have personally compared the speed of applications running on FreeBSD to Linux (on the same machine) FreeBSD has been the winner.
5. BSD is the best operating system to run a network server like apache, or exim. Believe it. It's true. There is a reason yahoo runs on it. I have been a part of ten ISPs now and ALL of them have used *BSD for critical servers.

The fact is that the BSDs are geared towards being servers. So people who can actually run a server usually set them up. This means a cute GUI installer that holds your hand has not really been needed.
I think many of the Linux users would really like FreeBSD and I for one would love to see more desktop hand-holding in FreeBSD

UserBSD is a better idea than UserLinux

[dublin]

This is a great idea. There are a huge number of technical advantages to building atop a BSD, rather than a Linux base for this sort of project, entirely aside from licensing issues. I've used both extensively, and even the best Linux distros are dramatically less stable and robust than the BSDs. (I've also found that those arguing otherwise have usually never really tried the BSDs - just managing to have installed them doesn't count - use in actual production does.)

But it's also quite clear, given Bruce's requirements for the UserLinux project, that BSD would be a better fit, since it is not a commercially hostile license. It's great that even a guy like Bruce now realizes that GPL-only licensing is the kiss of death for the kinds of large-scale commercial support such a venture needs.

I personally would be in favor of a modified BSD license that would add only one stipulation: that the code can never be placed under another more restrictive license, preventing the modified-BSD-licensed code from being relicensed (and thus effectively "stolen" from the community) under the GPL or similar viral licenses. In this way, it can be assured that truly free software remains that way and cannot be co-opted and limited to Stallman's twisted idea of "free".

Re:UserBSD is a better idea than UserLinux

[pirhana]

> even the best Linux distros are dramatically less stable and robust than the BSDs

Any benchmark or anything to substantiate your claims ?

> GPL-only licensing is the kiss of death for the kinds of large-scale commercial support such a venture needs.

Bullshit !! Then how come commercial vendors like IBM, HP and all support linux and not any BSD based proejcts ? When they joined the "linux bandwagon", BSDs were clearly superior. Actually commercial firms prefer GPL because they are guarantied that their work wont be leveraged by competetors against them.

> that the code can never be placed under another more restrictive license,

Then it would be against the very idea of BSD license . BSD license is all about freedom to do ANYTHING you like with the code.

> As much as I detest Microsoft, I've reached the conclusion that the GPL is a greater long-term threat

Please try to join SCO my dear. As far as I know , they are the only one who holds such a view at present.

Linux is dying

[bcrowell]

Warning: the subject line is a joke!

But seriously, the idea does make some sense. I switched from Mandrake to FreeBSD, and actually find it easier to use. Yes, seriously. The biggest problem for a user of OSS is installing software, and FreeBSD's ports collection does a very nice job of handling dependencies automatically, finding the server that has the software you want, etc. It's similar to Debian's apt. I also like the fact that FreeBSD is a single OS, rather than being fragmented into a lot of different distributions; you can walk into Barnes and Noble and buy a book on FreeBSD, and it actually describes the system you're using.

As I see it, FreeBSD has a couple of advantages over Debian.

One is that Debian has set itself a very ambitious goal of supporting lots and lots of architectures. While I'm sure this is great for the tiny number of people who want to run OSS on obscure machines, I think it's also had the effect of making it impossible to create a good installer. Good doesn't necessarily mean GUI-based -- FreeBSD's is text-based, too -- but my own experiences with the Debian installer have been really really painful. Reading Debian's documentation for its installer is like reading code: "If you're installing on a Cray with a punched-card reader attached, do this, unless it's the first Tuesday after the new moon, in which case..."

The other big disadvantage of Debian, as I see it, is that they simply have a history of being elitist. Now there's nothing inherently wrong with elitism -- the alternative to elitism is sitcoms and top-40 music -- but when it comes to usability for ordinary end-users, they just don't seem to get it. (I say this after several attempts to get a working Debian system going. The third one resulted in a running system, but way too much stuff wasn't going to work right without many weekends of pain and suffering...)

BSD license will not attract developers..

[pirhana]

I belive the success of Linux(and GNU) over BSD was because of the license also. Most of the opensource/free software developers want their work to REMAIN free. Face it, most of the people dont like their work to be taken away by corporations and made proprietory. If we look in to repositrories like freshmeat and sourceforge this trend is clearer. A good majority of the programs are released under GPL/LGPL. Even many of those who use *BSD as their platform also tend to follow this pattern more or less. Actually if BSDs were licensed GPL, then I think they would have continued to enjoy the developer base they had in the past. If UserLinux is to be dropped in favour of UserBSD, I think its going to enounter the same fate of BSDs.

Why Linux is more successful than BSD

[caseih]

I've often wondered lately, why Linux? Why didn't FreeBSD or OpenBSD take off the way Linux did and get the kind of corporate interest and deployment that Linux enjoys? The answer is interesting.

Althought it is true that a "UserBSD" or any BSD could be a very good product, having the same features in every way as Linux, BSD will never have the same success as Linux is having. There never will be any large traditional corporate sponsers of BSD. Why? The reason is the GPL. Although many proclaim the BSD license as a more liberal license, and one that is business friendly, companies that contribute to Linux, such as IBM or Novell will not touch it.

From a business standpoint, contributing to a BSD-licensed project makes no economic sense. To do so would be tantamount to subsidizing your competitors, such as Microsoft. Linux, on the other hand, is licensed under the GPL. IBM and Novell can contribute greatly to it, in order to build themselves a better platform to support their business. Any improvements they submit to the community benefit everyone, but no one can take their contribution and use it for their own proprietary projects. So the GPL makes it so that what's good for IBM is good for all, but that any benefit that others get from using IBM's code also comes back to benefit IBM again. Thus the playing field is leveled and fair. IBM actually gets the spirit of the GPL whereas SCO just does not.

Anyway, regardless of the technical merit of using BSD as a platform for a User distribution, because of the BSD license, there will never be the corporate backing needed to really ensure the rapid development needed to support an initiative such as UserBSD.

I am always wary of corporate dependence, but I feel that companies that work within the letter and spirit of the open source licenses are a great benefit to all, while they themselves can benefit. And this benefits projects like UserLinux.