FreeBSD, Stealthy Open Source Project

zam4ever writes "Sean Michael Kerner has written an article on how FreeBSD has become a Stealth-Growth Open Source Project with various reasons outlined for FreeBSD's growth over the last years."

Comments

competition with Linux

[dekeji]

But why hasn't FreeBSD become as widespread as Linux? The answers may lie in its history.

That's roughly like asking: why do people eat less chocolate than they eat potatoes?

The answer is not history, it's that they are different kinds of "products" with different strengths and weaknesses.

FreeBSD is an OS, Linux isn't....

[B747SP]

I'll show my colours up front: I've been worshipping the Daemon since somewhere around version 1.1 - practically since forever!.

The thing that sells me for FreeBSD in corporate environments is that FreeBSD is an operating system. The same group of people do the kernel *and* the OS. I've put a lot of FreeBSD boxes in production corporate environments, and I've never been bitten by the choice of OS, so I've become a pretty loyal punter. On the other hand, I just can't bring myself to put any OS that uses the linux *kernel* (there isn't an OS called 'linux' as best as I can tell) on a production enviroment - I've always had the impression that the Linuxes are all terribly fragmented, incoherent, and you never know what you're getting.

(by about now, all the script kids with mod points have cluelessly clicked the 'flamebait' button already... should I bother going on?!!! :-) )

In other news, I've become a really big fan of Gentoo Linux... it's just brilliant. I'm using it all kinds of non-production environments, and loving every minute of it. Bottom line though, it's too hard to sell something that is just a kernel as stable, reliable, and suitable for business.

Re:FreeBSD is an OS, Linux isn't....

[mslinux]

This is a great point. In fact, besides the license difference, this is the main difference between FreeBSD and GNU/Linux.

In FreeBSD, you get the filesystem, the kernel, a shell... all developed by the same group of SW engineers. In GNU/Linux, you get a Kernel from kernel.org a filesystem from Hans Reiser a shell from GNU, etc... that's why most Linux installs are called distributions and that's why distros vary so much.

Don't get me wrong, I like both GNU/Linux and FreeBSD. Just think others should be more aware of this difference as it's a fundamentally different approach to developing SW:

FreeBSD = All core parts developed together.

Linux = Assembling a collection of core parts from different sources.

Re:FreeBSD is an OS, Linux isn't....

[quantum bit]

In FreeBSD, you get the filesystem, the kernel, a shell... all developed by the same group of SW engineers.

...and libc. It always seemed strange to me that the Linux C library (glibc) was not developed together with the kernel, since the C library is how most programs interface with the kernel.

Re:FreeBSD is an OS, Linux isn't....

[rho]

The best part of this cohesion you get from FreeBSD (and Open- and Net-) is that the filesystem is not laid out like they gave a paintbrush to an epileptic. Things are put in logical places.

This changes a bit when you delve into the /usr/ports/ tree, but not much. The port maintainers generally keep to the standards. I.e., they don't fill /etc with a bunch of crap.

I can't bear to use any of the GNU/Linux distros these days. Partially for aethetic reasons, but also because of the gung-ho mentality of Linux nerds who will stick any damn thing any damn place they damn well want to. *BSD admins tend to stick to canon, I've noticed, whereas GNU/Linux admins each do their own thing. So after a couple of years, you can't find anything and often enough find the same thing installed twice. My experience, YMMV.

"Stealthy"?

[ewg]

FreeBSD is a "stealthy" open source project in the same way the Brooklyn Bridge is a "stealthy" public works project:

It's been there forever, doing its job, fully appreciated only by an informed minority.

PS: Neither are for sale. :-)

$$$ Poured into Linux, puts it over the top

[HighOrbit]

You only quoted part of it

Quandt also contends that FreeBSD is not currently on the same level as Linux when it comes to supporting heavy enterprise workloads. "The community activity around Linux in the late 1990s and support from system vendors and large independent software vendors fueled key enhancements in Linux," Quandt said. "Improvements in symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) virtual memory, asynchronous I/O, a native POSIX thread library, as well as other features and support from multiple vendors [in Linux] made FreeBSD a less likely choice for enterprise workloads."

Big Business has put a lot of money into Linux, and it is just now overtaking FreeBSD (and then only in some areas). If just half of the money and effort that has been poured into Linux had been put into *BSD, FreeBSD would be a truly bad-ass system and would probably smoke any other Unix/Unix clone. I had high hopes that Apple would contribute back to the community, but I don't think that has materialized like I had hoped. Although I don't like to get into the license religous wars (I prefer the BSD license for freedom), I think this is a case where the GPL has served Linux well by forcing users (i.e. developing corporations) to give back.

As far as stability and consistancey goes, only Debian-Stable approaches BSD, because Debian enforces a strict development and testing process (as opposed to adding in just any random unstable bleeding edge package because it is "new").

Questions to ponder

[Korpo]

A lot of "Daemon worshipper since ever" and "Tried Linux, didn't like it" in here. Some "Like both". A few trolls have been modded down.

But when looking at it, *BSD users are throwing praise at each others in here. It's not like anyone is arguing in here, because mostly people with the same opinion responded to the article.

But no one is really talking about why Linux has more market/mind share. Or why the kernel developers for Linux have created a technologically similar kernel without having a head start (i.e. a full UNIX kernel). Or why - if any *nix - is taught, nearly always Linux is taught at universities. What made Linux the platform of choice for so many people in so "little" time?

These are not flames. These are questions I'd really like answers for. And maybe the *BSD communities should have them, to take advantage of that knowledge!

Nothing gained from 20 somewhat posts of the style "I like the ports tree", "Me, too!".

Start asking: "Why isn't *BSD dominating the *nix world now?" Don't answer: "It doesn't want to." Because that's not true. Hear yourselves talk. You want to! But you don't.

So why? Don't give me the USL/Novell case. In the time from 1991-1993 Linux had not become a comparable kernel, it became after.

Is it the license? The more chaotic collaboration? Linus' personality? The anti-Windows stance? The urge for people to develop something new (that lured more developers)? Why is (almost virtually etc.) nobody talking of a FreeBSD desktop?

As long as a lot of people talk about history, or past successes, or think along "I always have done it that way / have used it" nothing is won for *BSD in terms of "innovation" (it hurts to write it). *BSD needs some new answers to the Linux question, not some self-content same ol', same ol'.

If *BSD asked these questions, found the answers for them, and used them, it actually again become the most-used *nix system.