Slashdot Mirror
BSD For Linux Users
noackjr writes "Matt Fuller posted among his rants a great introduction and explanation of BSD For Linux Users: 'It's been my impression that the BSD communit{y,ies}, in general, understand Linux far better than the Linux communit{y,ies} understand BSD. I have a few theories on why that is, but that's not really relevant. I think a lot of Linux people get turned off BSD because they don't really understand how and why it's put together. Thus, this rant; as a BSD person, I want to try to explain how BSD works in a way that Linux people can absorb.'"
Perhaps for the same reasons that the Branch Davidians or the Ralieans knew more about the Cathloics than most Cathloics knew about the Branch Davidians or the Ralieans? Maybe Linux is just a much more widespread cult than BSD.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
BSD folk are just annoyed about the quantity of Linux zealots that ignore BSD.
But the GPL is something to get zealous about, the BSD license is hard to get excited about.
It's been my impression that the BSD communit{y,ies}, in general, understand Linux far better than the Linux communit{y,ies} understand BSD.
And my impression is that Ogg communit{y, ies}, in general, understand Mp3 far better than Mp3 communit{y,ies} understand Ogg
*ducks*
Free XBox, PS2
I'm a Linux user, but I do consider trying FreeBSD. The only thing that turns me off is people like you.
Only to tell you that you won't get any Linux user to use BSD by telling them "they don't understand it" (as the article does) or by ranting as you do.
(Yes, I know there are Linux zealots, too)
Unix makes easy tasks hard and hard tasks possible. Windows makes easy tasks easy and hard tasks $29.95.
Condescending is just the right word for the style of this rant.
My favorite snippet:
and make up your own damn mind. That's why you have one.
Oh! That's what that thing is for! Thanks for letting me know.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Both communities should remember that development for either tends to benefit both.
A lot of BSD code flows into Linux, and a lot of apps that are made worthwhile (in terms of size of userbase) by Linux are ported to BSD.
Every person using Linux OR BSD is an asset to the free software community, and helping things in the right direction. There is no need to get pissy over small things like licenses or religious wars until only Linux, BSD and other free OSes are left standing and all other non-free systems are long buried.
Beep beep.
"BSD is designed. Linux is grown. Perhaps that's the only succinct way to describe it, and possibly the most correct."
I'm wondering what he's smoking. Of course, if he's in Berkeley maybe he's using more LSD than BSD...
If the SCO lawsuit has done anything positive, it has caused a lot of research into the history of UNIX and its derivatives. And based on the continuous ripoffs between Berkeley and AT&T, BSD definitely didn't start out with a plan. Linux hasn't forked into eight or nine individual large projects, and is still spearheaded by its original creator, who ultimately decides what goes where or delegates the decisions. True he takes input from more and more people, and probably has less direct control than he used to, but the core of what is wanted for the next stable series is usually pretty clear once things are played with.
and other than Slackware, all of the distributions seem to be pretty tight too, not just falling completely where things end up.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I have a theory about this, and I borrow it from the movie "The New Kid." Basically to make a reputation for yourself, you find guy bigger than you in the school and you kick his ass. For BSD, the next biggest kid is Linux. For Linux, it is Windows (no, not OS-X, you get a bad rep for beating the hell out of the big retarded kid. People don't think your tough, just mean). Basically, most Linux evangelists aren't concerned with which UNIX like OS is better, but with freeing those people shackled to a proprietary operating system that hampers their freedom. That is the reason you don't see many Linux users writing articles on why BSD users should switch to Linux.
IANAL... But I play one on
I was a linux fan from quite a while back and I decided to try FreeBSD to see the differences.
I installed it without much difficulty and poked around. I liked what I saw. I sorta shrugged my shoulders and said "Looks like a Unix system to me" and continued using Linux.
I was using Redhat for the longest time before RHAT forced me into migrating (Mandrake if you must know). I never really saw a reason to switch from this distro to that distro unless the features were significantly different.
I think it's all what you get used to and prefer. I never understood the BSD/Linux platform wars. To me, we're on the same open source team. As long as I can download the code, I don't see a big problem. If SCO got their wish and asked me for 699$, you can bet I'd be hopping straight over to FreeBSD. All the software I need is there anyhow.
After all, LinuxDistros/BSD aren't so different when they share the same features (KDE, openoffice, etc...)
The first page stated that BSD is for those who like Unix and Linux is for those that hate microsoft, and that last statment is not going to win support for Linux.
Take the Wikipedia asking for donations last week, half the posts here at slashdot were, "Why don't they go salvage a few old PIII 600's and cluster them together. Should only cost about two grand". Hell, an worthwhile opensource project needs some help paying the bills and they get ripped apart here. Sorry geeks, but Econ 101: There is no free lunch. It costs someone something somewhere. (Yes I did donate $25. Not much, but all that I could afford at the moment.)
I do use Linux, but mostly I do use some kind of BSD, whether it be Mac OS X, OpenBSD, or FreeBSD.
I see the people trying to either be funny or karma whoring state: Well if he can show me a freeBSD server that can survive a /.ing...and I have to ask, "How many sites are taken down a week by slashdotting running Linux?" Hell I know our little 2.Ghz Xeon box with 1GB of Ram wouldn't survive no matter what OS we had on there, it is Linux btw.
Bottom line...the negativity needs to go out of OSS. Linux cannot have the banner, "Microsoft Sucks! and use us because...Microsoft Sucks!" and hope to really make it into the desktop arena. OSS and Linux needs a banner of, "Hey our system works, has fewer viruses, easy to use, and it will do any thing Windows will do, except play games."
And to the "any thing you can do, I can do for free" dot communist crowd: In order to make Linux viable, its going to need programs written for it like games, quickbooks, quicken, adobe products, that people are willing to spend money on and need before it will truely be accepted main stream.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
That statements about as true as your average bumper sticker. Never trust anyone who thinks slogans are an accurate picture of the world (except this one).
XML causes global warming.
"The only thing that turns me off is people like you."
People with his pretentious attitude make up a sizable portion of the FreeBSD community. That kind of superior attitude comes mainly from walking through a sea of crashing Windows machines and recompile-reboot-repeat Linux machines only to end up at a FreeBSD machine that's more reliable than running water. Now, that's not to say that there's anything wrong with Linux, but its frequent updates to stay on the absolute bleeding edge does cost it a measure of reliability. On the FreeBSD end of things, you've got "running water", but not many of the newer toys. Things like firewire support, new file systems, CD and DVD burner support don't make it into the FreeBSD-STABLE line until long, long after Linux and Windows have had them.
"Only to tell you that you won't get any Linux user to use BSD by telling them "they don't understand it" (as the article does)"
I think a lot of this comes from the fact that the small Linux fanboy group screams so often and so loudly that it often appears to make up the majority of Linux users. When you see someone shouting "0h D00DZ! I ju3t g0t t3h n3w k3rn3l! Fuck1n C00L!" on a forum, followed by a dozen 'me too' posts similarly formatted, you tend to think of the posters as... well... morons. When enough of them shout long and hard enough, one can't help but feel that you'd be talking to a wall trying to get into a reasoned debate about the pros and cons of each OS.
The fact is that SCO isn't Linux's biggest threat. Microsoft isn't it either. The single most dangerous threat to the success of Linux, especially in the workplace, are the legions of fanboys who show up at the most inopportune times and places to rant and rave irrationally, irreverently, and incessantly; spouting off profanity-filled immature propaganda about how Linux equals the second coming of Christ Almighty. As a community, Linux would do well to figure out a way to shut these idiots up so that Linux's fate can be determined by the merits of its code, rather than the character of a small portion of its users.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
I see a lot of folks in both camps that use both, because both have their strengths and weaknesses.
The folks that will choose one or the other and be biased about it are either:
1) BSD folks that tried out linux in 1994, and still have the impression stuck in their mind. They seem to think that linux hasn't changed at all since then.
2) Linux folks that at some point of their complete n00bness went into a BSD channel in efnet and asked some lame question like "since linux is unix, where can i get the FreeBSD RPMS?" and got flamed so hard that they had to crawl out of a hole in the ground. Therefore, they think that BSD users are all crusty assholes that cling to a "little used" OS that is fading into obscurity like people that try to ride out hurricanes. Hence all the "BSD is dying" bullshit.
And it's really sad. Both have their merits. Both share many of the same goals. I wish they could get along and do great things together.
My $0.02USD + tax.
do() || do_not();
Now, I like that quip, not because it's some sort of absolute revealed truth, but because it gives a very good feel for some of the differences. The BSDs, in general, are very much more like traditional Unices than Linux
Yep. No argument there. If someone wants an authentic 1980's feel to their system, by *all means* use BSD. It's just that authenticity to traditional UNIX is not of high priority to most folks -- it's getting things done that is. That's why bash, gcc, and other utilities traditionally associated with Linux systems seem to be installed even on "real" UNIX systems nowadays.
The comment at the top, in css class "ahem". Saying that my browser doesn't support css. What actually happened is your server couldn't serve the css page. With pretentions like these are you suprised people don't care about the facts of BSD?
Special Relativity: The person in the other queue thinks yours is moving faster.
1. Linux, not BSD is run like an anarchy. The kernel is done by one group, Gnu, the utils, libs and applications are another, they're not even vaguely in sync with one another and like a sloppy carpenter they're leaving it to the plasterers and painters (Distributions) to make it look good.
2. pass (aside from noting a Goodwin)
3. Small companies obviously vary, I've had both extraordinary good luck with some(most) and less good luck with others. That's called a market, caveat emptor. Particularly smaller software firms I've worked with have been extraordinarily good at listenting to customer requirements and actually responding.
4. Shared Source ... ahh now that's an important license type. Didn't want to contrast Public Domain, Artistic, MIT ...?
5. As with (1) you've reversed it. The BSD's in fact operate considerably more slowly than Linux in developement pace, however they do so with far better coordination of the various parts. Kernel, Libc, utilities are released together, and probably benefit from the faact that the whole assemblage is tested.
I have *nothing* against any of these systems, some I use, some I don't. Linux works, BSD works and I'm fluent in the advantages and disadvantages of each and can make educated decisions about which is appropriate to a given task.
You've also demonstrated that you don't understand crap about governments. The world has many flavors of democracies, the Linux, BSD, Gnu, Perl communities are all vibrant forms of demorcracies in action (as, by the way are commercial / proprietary vendor - customer environments.)
It's as simple as that. Let me guess you use Debian? or is it Windows?
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
I don't really get the schism between FreeBSD and Linux. I use both. The servers I have full control over usually get loaded with FreeBSD. The reasons for this are simple; I haven't found a Linux distribution with the ease of system upgrade and general maintenance that FreeBSD has. The ports system isn't perfect but using cvsup to get update patches for the core OS is simply wonderful. Combine this with the reputation for stability and it's a winning combination. A combination that makes me comfortable to upgrade the complete server remotely without worrying too much about the upgrade failing.
Gentoo is somewhat similar but they aren't aiming for ultra stability and they don't have a long term reputation like FreeBSD.
Debian is great for upgrades but the glacier pace of upgrades to the stable release is unacceptable.
Slackware is wonderful (I'm back to using it for my desktop OS) but upgrading the OS isn't as nice as FreeBSD. Third party tools like swaret are slick but not time tested.
I would love to have a tidy distributation of Linux and a small core of tools released in the same way as FreeBSD with a similar "make world" upgrade process.
It really is about freedom. Either you have it, or you don't... and beer has nothing to do with it.
"That would resonate a little more with me if it actually resembled my experience with Linux."
I tried to be clear that I in no way intended to disparage Linux. The culture simply tends to be one of always going for the latest 'n greatest stuff. This means getting the latest kernel as soon as it's released, then compiling and running it. Certainly not everyone does this with Linux, but it does seem to be the mainstream view so far as I can tell. That's not to say Linux people are sitting there every day recompiling their kernel. I haven't done any research into the exact frequency of kernel releases from Linusland, but my general feeling from friends that run Linux is that every month or two it's off to the races with doing this or that which requires some fairly substantial work.
The difference that I generally see between that and FreeBSD is that many FreeBSD users just want everything to work as expected - like running water. No one expects anything fancy to happen with their running water. What they do expect is that they can go to the faucet at any time, day or night, turn it on, and get water. To continue the analogy, the mainstream Linux folks seem to enjoy disassembling all the pipes every so often so they can be re-run. They can get all sorts of different flavors and colors of water, but occassionally a couple pipes come loose and need to be hammered back into place. That's not to say that either line of thought is better or worse, merely that the lines of thinking tend to be different.
I'm a minimalist by nature. I don't want to have to jump through hoops to get something going. That doesn't mean I wont sit there and tinker with something if I want to; I just don't like ever having to tinker with it to get it going. In terms of what I use, it's a mix of FreeBSD and Windows 2000, mostly. I'll toy with other things (inluding Linux) now and then, but the combination of FreeBSD and Windows 2000 meets all my needs for reliability and feature-richness at home and work. That's not to say it's for everyone, but it works very well for me.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
"Microsoft will bury it, just like they buried UNIX back in the 1990's when they called UNIX 'forked' and 'confusing' and offered Microsoft as a 'stable target'."
Microsoft edged *nix out of the low-end server market in the 1990s because companies were able to take any half-wit drunken dumbshit off the street and have him trained (sort of like a monkey) as an admin inside of a few weeks. The resulting drop in reliability from moving to Microsoft products wasn't substantial enough, and didn't kill off enough mission ultra-critical servers to justify moving back to the more expensive *nix solutions.
The fact that you could toss NT onto a hand-built off-the-shelf machine also made a big difference. Instead of moving back to the more expensive, but far more reliable *nix solutions, they simply segmented server functions such that isolated Windows failures didn't cause major problems. With promises of (relatively) cheap upgrades, much better reliability, and far more features on the horizon, Microsoft kept many companies with them by dragging the proverbial carrot along. The simple fact is that Microsoft did a much better job marketing the OS that the *nix vendors did.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Dude, check the date on that. FreeBSD 2.x vs. Solaris 7 vs. (some linux that might well have been kernel 2.0 and libc5)? I know '99 isn't that long ago in our time sense, but that's two, three, or more whole OS revisions since that article was published.
I've admin'd *BSD (free and open), Solaris, and Linux in corporate environments (as well as a bewildering array of freenixen at home). All the systems have advantages, all of them have disadvantages. Personally, I run debian by choice when I can get away with it because *BSD, Solaris, and most Linuxen just piss me off in various ways, but I still use BSD where it makes sense. Running around trumpeting this or that OS as being the end all and be all of existence for everyone just shows that you're a greenhorn.
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
After reading that I feel almost ashamed. But really the author and all those that think like that should feel shame. I like FreeBSD for it's licence and it's legacy. Maybe FreeBSD now is as the author discribes but there never would have been a FreeBSD without the origional BSD hackers fixing things and sharing patches. Not all the patches and programs origionated at Berkley. What the school did was organize a distribution amist all the chaos. In reality it was the first hacker rebirth of an OS. They took a flakey prototype and make something useful of it.
The only real part the author got right was the anology in comparing BSD/Linux to PC/Unix users. Mainframe verses PC; Client/Server verses decentralized P2P. But there is no reason it has to be that way. And in fact it can't because FreeBSD is just a fragmented in it's pieces as linux, many like him just won't admit it.
I like BSD for it's licence. I dislike Linux for it's licence. There is some truth to FreeBSD being a stronger distribution (which is another reason I like it) but it's still a distribution all the same as any Linux distribution. His statements to the contrary just don't stand up. Both sides pick and patch from what's useful.
FreeBSD is a distribution built around a core set of tools with relatively tight quality control. It is more focused that many Linux Distros. FreeBSD is also controled democraticly among the elite where Linux people have no problems forking code and competing against one another, with users and distributors judging the winners and hence is more democract.
The FreeBSD ruling class may have a bug up their ass about somethings but I'm still free to fork code. But it turns out it's not worth it. If you have good reasoning on your side and enough patience people learn, or else they die while you persist. In gerneral BSD is more about patience, who has it, and who doesn't.