Slashdot Mirror
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?
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...
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
"Try using the FreeBSD kernel with OpenBSD"
True, although FreeBSD has had a lot more development time thrown at it recently with the upgrade to the 5.x kernel.
"It has very little commerical support for commodity hardware."
I suspect you mean that there aren't a lot of closed source drivers for hardware. The question then comes, do you really want a whole load of closed source drivers hanging around? To date, I think the most that Linux has got is Nvidia drivers and possibly some ADSL stuff. I *believe* that the Nvidia drivers run under Linux compat, but I've not checked, mainly because I don't really want my freebsd box to do that kind of thing.
"BSD has always been a geek os and will never reach the same popularity as Linux. Linux is everywhere."
Replace 'BSD' with Linux and 'Linux' with windows to see how fallacious this argument actually is. For shame.
"It is harder to install. You have to compile everything manually from a huge CVS respitory. It dosen't havge advanced Linux Packageing Systems such as APT, RPM, Portage, friendly GUI based autodectecting installers such as YaST, DrakX, Anaconda, etc."
The ports collection is not a CVS repository, and it's actually extremely easy to install FreeBSD. Open and NetBSD are completely different, however, and not for beginners.
Having said that, I've gotten on extremely well with the ports collection and CVS updates, although I don't class myself as anything approaching a hardcore geek.
"BSD is easy to make propreitery. You can take the code and make it propreitery. I can make Microsoft WinBSD XP and you can't do anything about it hahaha!"
Except ignore it. I fail to see your point here. Are you against freely available source code or the BSD license?
"It is not secure. People do not trust bsd to run it. Even OpenBSD, which claims to be "the securest OS ever made" runs on Solaris. They can make up excuses, but if you don't eat your own dog food, why should my Dog eat it?"
Nice, you picked out a good point there. Did you check the Freebsd or NetBSD servers? Did you not thing that not checking those out would drop you to the level of a troll? FWIW, Linux and FreeBSD tend to share the same security advisories.
"It has no support."
Au contraire. You can buy support, or avail yourself of the many newsgroups (ick), books or mailing lists without those dumbass kids trying to make you feel stupid. It's one reason why I'm really happy that FreeBSD stays under the radar compared with the religious wars over which 'distro is best'. I just can't abide this constant comparison with other OS's based on the 'whizzy' features that made Windows such a bloaty piece of crap.
FreeBSD does it's job, and it does it's job well according to my five odd years of using it.
"BSD are ex-linux geeks who coudn't take the fact that KDE and GNome made linux useable for the masses, so he ran and cried to his command line mistress!"
Ah, you're suggesting that the graphical user interface is the way forward? Have you considered windows 2003 server for your needs?
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
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
Debian is a big project, and includes a GNU/NetBSD distro.
-Peter
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".
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
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...)
Find free books.
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.
http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
It's interesting to note the GNU project's essay about the X Consortium and Open Group's plan for developing X and an essay on GNU/Linux naming. Both essays cite some calls for chasing popularity at the expense of software freedom. I think we're better off as a community letting popularity take a back seat to freedom.
Your point is well-taken, but I'm not sure what roots you're talking about here. Bruce Perens is part of the group that started the Open Source movement--the movement that wants to "sell" Free Software by never mentioning the software freedom and only talking about the practical advantages of a software development methodology. They do this because they believe this will make the software easier for other people (chiefly businesses) to adopt. The advantages that the Open Souce movement touts come from having software freedom, so it's quite ironic that the Open Source movement champions the practical benefits of software freedom while distancing themselves from freedom talk. This leads to a built-in flaw for the Open Source movement: people can't justify choosing the software the Open Source movement wants you to run and develop if there's a proprietary program that better meets your practical needs.
The Free Software Foundation wrote an interesting essay on the differences between the Open Source and Free Software movements that also discusses shortcomings of focusing on the Open Source movement's goals.
Digital Citizen
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.
He is not worried about any of the issues you stated. His concern is allowing companies who buy UserLinux to use the toolkits to develop propriety applications (which you can do with GTK+ and PostgreSQL). With Qt and MySQL you have to use the GPL as your license, while this isn't bad, it is a sticking point for many companies that can be avoided.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
>> BeOS proved that generally speaking, Windows users aren't interested in switching to another OS, even if it's far superior to what they have
:) With all due respect, BeOS was *never* superior to windows. The post you replied to suggested an OS experience geared towards users, not gear-heads. BeOS had a nice (but incomplete) object-oriented design. Other than that it missed the target pretty much all-around. Asides from its complete lack of user software, it was buggy (crashed when the wind blew), had virtually no drivers for even popular hardware, limited network and security, and even Cygwin boasts better Posix compliance. In an attempt to be different for difference sake, the UI was almost completely unusable and made simple tasks far harder than they needed to be while introducing strange new concepts that did not add anything to the experience. On top of it all, it was nearly as expensive as Windows and was equally closed-sourced.
That takes me back
From day one, BeOS was basically an OS for hobbyist programmers and I seriously doubt that any other type of user ever considered it for personal use. I completely agree that it was a fun toy to have (I bought every PC version shipped) and hack on, but really, it was not better than the mainstream alternatives--particularly for the average user.
Don't allow BeOS's mistakes to insinuate the idea that Windows users can not be migrated to a FREE operating system.
Best regards.