Slashdot Mirror
Comparing Linux and BSD, Diplomatically
Joe Barr writes "Talk about a red-button issue. How do you compare Linux and the BSDs and keep the debate from turning into a friendly-fire flame-fest nightmare between bigots on both sides of the line? Linus Torvalds once handled a similar situation by wearing a BSD beanie at USENIX while delivering a Linux talk. Now he tries it again in this interview on NewsForge ."
TFA is not a Slashdot-style discussion, obviously. No matter how hard Joe Barr tried to get Linus to engage in a comparison, he was unwilling to rise to the bait. Good going, Linus.
/.ers think, Windows does work well enough to allow people to do productive work. The various BSD flavors work well enough for their community to do productive work. I would venture that Solaris users probably get quite a bit done with their relatively immature software as well. Oh yeah, OSX stuff works well too.
There are obvious merits to any operating system. Despite what many
The problem with comparisons is that once all of the products begin to operate at a level that makes them useful to their target audience, then the only thing left to argue about is the margins. Zealots exist on the margins and so are they are the most likely to carp and moan about the small differences between various products.
Linus is not a zealot. He is an advocate.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
How do you compare Linux and the BSDs and keep the debate from turning into a friendly-fire flame-fest nightmare between bigots on both sides of the line?
Would you have a "debate" with a racial bigot over which race is better?
Bigots of any type aren't worth the time of day.
IMHO
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Try to use the appropriate tool at the right time at the right moment.
What is appropriate depends on the situation and your experience.
Easy, you just compair them to Microsoft and the Linux and BSD bigots will unite.
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
So what? Everyone knows windows blows both of them out of the water as far as viral whoring goes. Try that with wine.
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
In summary, Linux Torvalds understands that computers are about the right tool for the right job. For some, that tool is Linux. For others, that tool is *BSD. But he rightfully takes the stance that competition is no skin off his nose.
;-P
This is a *good* thing people! I realize it's much easier to jump into Highlander mode ("There can be only one!"), but reality is rarely so simple. Until someone invents the "perfect solution", every decision will lead to a particular set of tradeoffs. If you don't have anyone else exploring alternatives, how can you know for certain that your own alternative is the best one? Cooperation always leads to better results.
That said, I have a feeling about the replies I'm about to get:
Girl: Don't even think about it!
Human Torch: Never do. (Jumps off building)
Human Torch: Flame ON!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Personally, everything is great, but that is from my point of view. Your mileage may vary. We might have different philosophies, but that's okay. We're cool with that.
To summarrize Linus :
1)They are different don't try to compare them.
2)I like Linux better because it agrees with me.
3) Don't ask me what I wan't in Linux (kernal) from BSD (kernal) because I don't use BSD.
Basically it was a whole bunch of nothing
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
Torvalds : It just means that I don't know anything about BSD technical internals, so I'm the wrong person to ask. Ask somebody who uses both.
Which are better, apples or oranges?
See, Linus could go into politics if he wanted too. I'm glad that his the head of the linux kernel, it takes more then just technical know-how.
Linux or BSD? I don't care...
As long as you use vi (and not Emacs).
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
One of the things I'd love to see in Linux that exists in BSD is umount -f for any filesystem, not just NFS. On FreeBSD (and probably other BSD's?) you can force unmount any filesystem. This is especially useful when you need to foce unmount snapshot mounts.
I shows a lot about how he thinks. He seems to be more of a realist than I would have thought.
I find Linus's interviews to be very interesting.
I do think that Linux, and Windows seems to be more similar than Linux and BSD, since he keeps commenting that BSD wants everything to be perfect, whereas Linux tends to be all things "good" for everyone.
I would consider Windows to be happy with just being "ok" at all things, and not perfect. Which also works for a lot of people.
Personally, I find it hilarious that there's a standard anarchy symbol....
Just junk food for thought...
Maybe he doesn't have the time but isn't it a good idea to learn some of the technical details of the competition, especially when it's all legal to look at the code of what they do well. He should know at least the general arch and some tech details in areas linux is trying to get better at.
of course, this is my engineering mind thinking. Learn from what's out there and then do it better.
Evolution or ID?
Your point of view is as utterly intolerant as the point of view of those you are criticizing.
"Mac users are phanatix. They are insecure and utterly intollerant.. Mod me up for being reasonable!"
Are you kidding us?
diegoT
That's almost like comparing a cancer patient with an AIDS patient.
"...It just means that I don't know anything about BSD technical internals, so I'm the wrong person to ask. Ask somebody who uses both."
That said, he raised some interesting points about the differences in philosophy between the two camps.
Seriously couldn't they have interviewed gartner or someone (not to say gartner is great) who has enough knowledge to answer this question without being on the development team of one of the products?
Believe me, if I started murdering people, there would be none of you left.
He's obviously a bad person to ask since he thinks things like "you'll find a lot of areas where Linux is better (often a lot better -- as in "it works"), and then you'll find a few narrow areas where one particular BSD version will be better." and "Linux has a much wider audience, in many ways. That ranges from supporting much wider hardware (both in the driver sense and in the architecture sense) to actual uses.".
Sorry, NetBSD runs on more hardware that linux does, and apart from running on very large SMP systems, I can't think of *anything* that linux can do and BSD can't, much less "many" things.
oh yeah, "Linux is Obsolete"!
Putting aside truly harmful types of bigotry, such as racism etc., I find "OS bigotry" pretty entertaining. I am a centrist, who sees merit in almost every viewpoint, so it's pretty funny to me to watch people get at each others' throats over ludicrous low-level minutiae from the inner bowels of arcane computing concepts. I mean, who gives a rat's ass? And yet people are using comparisons to the Nazis, and worse.
Truthfully, it's what keeps me coming back to Slashdot.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
How did this end up on the Slashdot front page? Only reactionary page churners need apply.
Linux is GPL, while *BSD are, well, BSD licenced. There are some things for which BSD licence is better, and for other things GPL is better. It is inevitable that theese differences will show up in the resultin OS, in some way. For instance Linux can take code from *BSD (and relicence it as GPL), while *BSD cannot take code from Linux, etc...
Wondering why i am doing so strange posts? I am trying to get a "+5,Flamebait" or "-1,Insightful" rating.
Summary: some guy tried to get a newsworthy quote from Linus, he says the interviewer's questions don't make sense and ends with "Ask somebody who uses both."
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
I've never used BSD, but from what I've heard in the local LUG, it's lousy, and I can say from my experience as a Linux user that Linux is a lot better!
It's quite easy.
Purchase 1x Tux Plushie, 1x Daemon Plushie, fill them both with audio tapes of associated OS zealot's verbal spew, put them down and press play. Whichever one's batteries run out first wins the debate.
Simple, no?
The easy part was getting the brain out, but the hard part was getting the brain out.
"The BSD people (and keep in mind that I'm obviously generalizing) are often perfectionists. They hone something specific for a long time, and then they frown on anything that doesn't meet their standards of perfection. The OpenBSD single-minded focus on security is a good example." - linus So what he's saying is bsd people don't release as much buggy code. I'll have to agree with him here with the bimonthly linux kernel security vulnerabilities creeping up. 2 years and no 'root level' exploit in freebsd's kernel.....
Believe me, if I started murdering people, there would be none of you left.
With its 9 occurrences of the word "kernel", this article can't fail to teach the correct spelling to everyone who reads it.
I think I read this article from some pro-microsoft publication site.
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
I am mainly a BSD user (I guess my .sig gives me away), but I have used Linux before I made the jump to FreeBSD (and OpenBSD) a couple years ago. I am not enough of an expert to comment on the technical superiority of one or the other, but it's not for technical reasons that I went with FreeBSD.
The reason is quite simple and probably uncommon: While I realize that Linux is easier to install and to configure (once you get used to the distro specific tools) and has wider hardware support, I just couldn't decide on which distro to use. For every review of a distro, there would be an equal number of comments arguing for or against it. To some, it was the most "polished", "advanced" and "easiest" distro ever, to others it was a "nightmare".
I didn't really feel like trying them all out just to see who was right. There's a plethora of distros all aiming for different objects, and I found that quite overwhelming. So I decided to spend some time exploring FreeBSD and pretty quickly fell in love with it. So, I enjoyed using Linux (SuSE), but I feel more comfortable with FreeBSD - and not for technical reason.
Obviously with only three main BSDs out there, or four if you count Dragonfly, there's a lot less variability in the installation and porting systems, which seem to take up a lot of the learning-curve time. Many of the Linuxes are focusing on either friendliness or newbie support, and I'm occasionally nervous about whether I can install something without it wiping out my existing systems. NetBSD was really easy to install, in spite of the BSDish disk partitioning issues, but it was sufficiently minimalist that when I was done I realized that I was going to need to learn Yet Another Ports System to get any work done, so I gave up and put Knoppix on that machine because it had the tools I needed for that project. OpenBSD's installation focus seems to be "Buy a CD from Theo or Do Everything From Scratch", and I haven't installed BSD from scratch since 4.2BSD on a Vax, so I haven't tried that yet, but I assume that if I had a project-related need or a bunch of extra spare time, it wouldn't be that hard (or I'd go buy the CD.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
You could go with XFS or JFS for a file system. I have never lost data but I have heard of some issues but they actually seem pretty rare.
Frankly I would say a LOT of people are using Linux for a professional OS on a day in day out basis. IBM and Goggle being examples.
Seems like your post contains a lot more heat than light.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
How do you compare Linux and the BSDs and keep the debate from turning into a friendly-fire flame-fest nightmare between bigots on both sides of the line?
;)
:)
How, easy. You just simply acknowledge the superiority of BSD up front and get that out of the way first. The following conversations go a lot smoother then
ducks and runs for cover
For me the best OS is the one I already know how to use. My brain has been full for a few years now and--as pathetic as it sounds--I just don't feel like learning another OS. I use Linux and Windows since I know how, but, for all I know, BSD may be better.
I guess that when I find something that I really need to do that Linux and/or Windows can't manage, then I will be forced to learn something else. Maybe BSD...who knows?
Sitting Walrus Blog
This is easy. Linux is cool because it has an X in it. Everyone knows Xs are cool. (Of course, Linux would be cooler if they capitalized the X, but that's a minor point.)
On the other hand, BSD is cool because it has a hot chick.
Both are valid attributes and neither side should feel bad.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
it boils down to preference like anything else. Do you prefer orange or blue tshirt? What about hamburgers vs cheeseburgers? They are both superb operating systems with pros and cons. The license issue is a non-issue for the vast majorit of people.
It would be enough to ask slashdotters which one is better to get a clear answer. Neither one wins. Both are good OSes. Either that or half of US is ignorant... = P
diegoT
Parent is a troll. ReiserFS version 3.6 is stable and is included in the kernel. Reiser4 is the best version, not for mission critical servers obviously. The Linux kernel is extremely stable, outperforming BSD quite often. You could always compile just the parts of the kernel that you need, eliminating some variables and making it even more reliable. Most of the crashes that happen on Linux come from proprietary drivers (nVidia, ATi, printers, etc.) that aren't thoroughly tested. The parent is an obvious zealot/troll.
Funny, maybe, but how is this insightful? Even that kind of joke is a little old and tired. Anarchy isn't about people working alone, it's about avoiding hierarchy and state power. You can certainly come to agreements on things like symbols without a central authority to decide it for you.
Ceci n'est pas un post
Case in point: Knoppix is supposed to have scripts you can call from the command line that create boot/root floppies, install Knoppix to the hard drive, and do other nice things. Only problem is, the documentation, both the docs on the CD itself, and the docs found throughout the Internet, is all wrong. There is no mkbootfloppy command, as the cheatcodes on the very same disc say there is. I found at least 3 different names of utilities that are supposed to install Knoppix onto the hard drive. None of these exist on the CD. Everything is upside down, equine-backwards, and inside out in the documentation. Linux is the suxx0rz.
Reiser 3 has been stable for some time.
You neglected to comment on JFS or XFS in your discussion of journaling filesystems.
And I certainly wouldn't say crashes are a regular part of my Linux experience at all. Nor "hardware failures". It's been a long time since those were the rule rather than the exception.
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/technology/13dri ll.html
The movie biz is bitching about movie downloads. They're citing stats gathered from people's hard drives.
Hmmm?
With what degree of knowledge or cooperation from the people who's hard drives were scanned?
Or were these people just hacked? (Linux and OS X probably not just cooperate quite so readily to an invasive procedure like this, so is it just Windows that tattle-tells?)
An enquiring mind wants to know...
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
First of all, you don't need to learn yet another ports systems, all 3 BSDs use a very similar ports tree. You just have to type "make install" in the directory of the software you want installed. They also have excellent documentation, so you could have found this out in less time than it took to find your knoppix CD.
And wether you buy an openbsd CD or do a network install makes no difference at all, they are the exact same installation procedure. There is no need to "do everything from scratch" anymore than there is with any linux distro. Leave your FUD at home.
there's a few more filesystems available to Linux, I've found XFS to be every bit as robust, and also faster to recover, as UFS. As a certified admin of a couple commercial Unix(tm) who also does Oracle/Linux clusters & builds FreeBSD servers, admining a Linux distro is no more time consuming or complicated than BSD, and a little easier than Solaris or HP/UX. The very highest performance and largest clusters on the planet are running Linux, so what is this nonsense about no scaling or performance. Oracle and SAP and many other enterprise grade vendors are moving their software to Linux. The high performance SAN and archival tools are running on Linux. IBM is running Linux on mainframes. Your post would have been true in 1995, but it's a trollful of baloney in 2005.
Personally I find it funny that there is even a common symbol for anarchy.
Kinda ironic that something which represents total dissolution of common groups and order would so easily be united by a common symbol.
I didn't RTA, but just to answer the question in summary:
... and keep the debate from turning into a friendly-fire flame-fest nightmare between bigots on both sides of the line?
Keep the discussion focused on complaining about a third OS with each side comparing how their OS works better.
Also, when have the editors stopped noting that NewsForge is owned by OSTG in the summary. Maybe I just haven't been paying attention lately.
This is not my sig.
You must be referring to Solaris on Intel. I still don't think "immature" is the right adjective. The problem with Solaris on Intel is mostly hardware support, and that's not going to change with age. Hardware popularity shifts faster than Sun's ability to support it.
"Stodgy" and "crusty", maybe, but not "immature".
For vanilla hardware in a server, it does just fine.
sigs, as if you care.
Well, you'll notice in the opening song, they say "In the not too distant future... there was an OS called BSD." Not is, but was...
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
Its very easy on openbsd, and I seriously doubt its much harder on freebsd. You have to download the distfiles manually because of Sun's stupid license, but then you just type "make install".
And of course, some company not making software for BSD is not a limitation of BSD. BSD is entirely capable of running the software, Sun just doesn't feel like releasing a BSD version.
perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
Wow. Amazing. Linus has managed to speak to another human being in paranthesis. What happened here, was he talking one minute verbally and then transmitted his thoughts to the interviewer through some Jedi'ish mind trick?
I knew Torvalds had to be an alien. I just knew it.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
"In summary, Linux Torvalds understands that computers are about the right tool for the right job. For some, that tool is Linux. For others, that tool is *BSD. But he rightfully takes the stance that competition is no skin off his nose."
And sometimes it's BitKeeper.
I didn't say anything bad about linux at all, I stated two simple facts. Maybe you could point out some of these things that linux does and BSD doesn't? Just because its Linus spreading the FUD doesn't make it ok.
The whole descension of Linux arose from 'doing' it from scratch.
I don't think Linus, or any other coder on the kernel would grab BSD code to do a job (or even looked at it to see how it worked), as that then isn't the same as writing it from scratch (which is the fun).
I mean, they are all switched on guys, so don't really need to anyway.
Sorry, good sir, but your comparison is fundamentally flawed.
I can see how the root post would call anti-Linux and anti-BSD freaks "bigots," but the debate is still fundamentally about choice. Your post tries to compare this kind of debate (a debate about something that is fundamentally a choice) to a debate about something that is fundamentally not a choice.
That's a very long stretch.
By the way, it's about ten 'til 13 O'Clock.
It must be Windows. It needs half a gig of RAM and a hardware-accelerated graphics card just to run Solitaire.
Or as the PS2 guy put it when advertising the new hard-drives, "Linux is legacy!" ;)
"I prefaced my query to Linus by recounting my observations from a Usenix conference in San Diego a few years ago. He was a speaker that day, and a group of BSD users came right down to the front row to hear him. In fact, they laughed and joked with him, and eventually gave Linus one of the beanies with horns on it they were wearing, a familiar symbol to BSD fans.
They may have been surprised by his reaction. I was. He took the beanie they offered, put it on, and wore it during his entire presentation. No big deal, the leader of the Linux kernel wearing BSD colors. He defused what could have been a contentious moment."
Did one of them have a shiv or something? I'm failing to see the tension of this moment.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
"The very highest performance and largest clusters on the planet are running Linux, so what is this nonsense about no scaling or performance. Oracle and SAP and many other enterprise grade vendors are moving their software to Linux. The high performance SAN and archival tools are running on Linux. IBM is running Linux on mainframes"
Not to dispute that Linux isn't capable, but the popularity of Linux on very high performance clusters might just happen to be because IBM is responsible for building so many of them!
When will human kind get rid of this primitive tribalism, it's just seems as if people want to be label as a member of a certain club, how utterly pointless turning what you put on your machine into a religion, because to be honest they really aren't all that different.
USE WHAT WORKS! for you.
personally I use freeBSD on my server cos I find it easier to navigate without X than Linux distros.
I use Arch on laptop cos it's fast and fun to use and learn.
and god forbid yes I use windows on my desktop, cos the girlfriend and friends get a little bit freaked by anything *NIX, and I'm comfortable with that and prefer using it for certain things, seems a lot of modern Linux desktop distros are Window wannabes anyhow.
Now, now, operating systems are technical things, with technical merits and disadvantages.
A good computer scientist can look at any system and ask himself, "ok how does this suck?".
Because the answer to that question can be followed up with "how do we make it better?".
If you can't ask "how does this suck?" for fear of being an "troll" then you've effectively eliminated thought.
Oh, wait a sec ...
...when Linus says he thinks "Which is better" questions are stupid, and Joe's first few questions are all of the "Which is better" variety.
Exactly. It's about as hilarious as the fact that there's a word ('anarchy') that describes the concept.
Okay, so a philosopher, a philologist, and a philatelist walk into a bar...
Perhaps the interview was done electronically? Or else whoever transcribed it was simply putting the words Linus said into a grammatically correct format with the parenthesis.
If you can't say something nice, make sure you have something heavy to throw.
Don't mod something flamebait without reason. Linus even said he was a bad person to ask because he doesn't use BSD. I pointed out where he is incorrect. This is not flamebait, its reality. If you disagree, then grow some balls and tell us all why you think I'm wrong, don't just mod it down because you don't like it.
I can see how the root post would call anti-Linux and anti-BSD freaks "bigots," but the debate is still fundamentally about choice. Your post tries to compare this kind of debate (a debate about something that is fundamentally a choice) to a debate about something that is fundamentally not a choice.
/-g&-t&d/ adjective
Main Entry: bigot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
- bigoted
- bigotedly adverb
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
I tried to start an anarchists group, but we couldn't decide on where and when to hold the meetings...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
But what is more fun. Is if you post a message that can really rial them up. Like saying all the things you can do in windows that you can't do in Linux, or Dissing on Stallman. You can get hate responces as far as the bowser scrools. and you comments and Modded down into boliavian. I am sure some of them are people who are tring to egg me on from the other side, and have some fun at my expense. But still it is a lot of fun.
Some of my favorate Instults.
"Tie Wearing Sheeple." (Although I only wear a tie like once ever 3 months or so)
"poorly argued rant simply demonstrate that you are a close minded jerk of lower than average intelligence that no amount of college could help." (Ohhh good comeback, If my argument was so poorly argued why didn't he just give reasons.)
"Windows loving fananic" (although I normally run Linux, Solaris or OS X)
If they were just a little bit more moderated they would live happier lives. Because every other thing out there that could be more popular then their choice wont make then annoyed. I know I use to be an Open Source Zealot then I relized ill just be happier if I wasn't
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Yes, but once a group of people (i.e. more than one person) has standardized on a symbol representing Anarchy, then they have set themselves up as a central authority, admittedly not one that has a headquarters, fixed membership, or corporate structure. Nonetheless, it is an authority, because if you used a different symbol, these people could point at you and say "you've got the wrong symbol if you want to be recognized as an anarchist."
At which point, all you so-called anarchists will have shown your true colors, and someone more truly anarchic will have to overthrow your authority.
Now, personally, I'm not an anarchist by any means. My personal source of amusement is how the German punkers have their own annual "Chaos" day, all nice and according to schedule. I'm always suspicious their next step will be to get recognition for a Punker union.
He's right though. Any comment which is critical of macs and doesn't mention being moderated down gets moderated down as a troll or flamebait, regardless of how reasonable it is. Look at the apple threads, really, you can't deny it's happening.
I am trolling
So, you think you can compare arches linux supports to CPUs netbsd supports? What kind of logic is that? Those 22 architectures linux supports include different arches using the same CPUs too you know. There's nothing wrong with that for either system, arch is more than just CPU, and involves drivers for chipsets, BIOS/firmware/framebuffer/video, as well as common peripherals.
Mysql works fine, you are just plain spreading FUD now. Maya works fine under linux compatability, more FUD. And of course neither BSD nor linux supports any applications, the applications support whatever OS's their creators choose. Pretending that BSD is inferior because companies don't both releasing BSD native versions of their apps is rediculous. Or do you also believe that windows is superior to linux?
All these postings prove why Linux and BSD are having a hard time becoming a huge force in the Tech market.
Everyone has the one opinions and flavors of the two.
I never felt this quote to be fitting until now "...united we stand, divided we fall".
"It's not rocket science, Smithers! It's only brain surgery!" --Mr. Burns
"...and the NetBSD folks want to port their system to anything bigger than a digital watch..." Linus has you beat again. http://www.freeos.com/articles/3800/ (Linux wrist-watch)
"Tolerance is a virtue of a man without convictions." G.K.Chesterton
I totally agree. With a Mac it isn't about functionality, stability or security, it's about *image*.
Take the Apple marketting for example, "Think Different", and calling your choice of computer a "Lifestyle".
I've noticed the moderation habits around here too. While Linux/BSD users can get pretty bad with the zealotry, Mac users are the worst of the lot. Let's be honest here people, buying a Mac is only done for 'show', as a way to try and feel better about ones self by buying something horrifically over-priced just for the 'image'. It's exactly like buying designer clothes and then claiming you did it because they were 'better quality', or a 'better fit'. I would assume the price is the main reason that Mac users are so insecure. It's that they get upset at the idea that they have paid a fortune for a large amount of eye-candy.
I mean, you've got to be able to come up with a better BSD daemon girl than that without even trying. What, is that your girlfriend or something? Pathetic.
Honestly, doing a google search didn't give me _just_ the image I wanted, but there are some pretty impressive examples in this collection, even if what is perhaps the best one is animated. ( Warning: not entirely work-safe, *and* contains flamefest-inducing images of penguins impaled on pitchforks ). You've been warned, now let's see that server melt...
Documentation is very easy to find and readily available for the BSDs:
NetBSD packages
OpenBSD packages
FreeBSD packages
DragonFly uses FreeBSDs ports at this time as per the FAQ
Also see FreshPorts
perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
A: I don't know, man. It depends what you mean by "better."
Q: Okay, then, why is it BSD used to be better?
A: Was it? I was busy not noticing.
Q: So you prefer Linux?
A: Um. Yes. Are you an idiot?
Q: Why do you think BSD and Linux are two different operating systems?
A: Probably because they start at different places in the alphabet. Are we done here? (points) Hey, look, there's Tanenbaum! Go ask him why writing a Unix kernel from scratch is impossible!
Q: Thank you for your time. Tune in Wednesday as we ask the BSD leaders why they insist on using one-button mice.
ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine
I've tried Mac, and while it has it's merits, it's not for me. Mac is commendable for being sleek and slick, it really is duh-simple to use, but it just doesn't have the functionality I like that I get in Linux. And I like to upgrade my own hardware, thank you!
I've used OS/2 Warp a long time ago at a job, and found it merited the term of derision: "Half an operating system", though some things were done quite well.
And then there's Windows. Which is just terrible in every regard. It rips off ideas from every other system and re-presents them in sloppy, half-realized, buggy style. It is even more bondage-and-discipline than Mac, having a single-minded drive to force you to do it the Windows-way ONLY, and punishes you harshly for deviating from the path.
The frustrating thing is that people cannot see the logical loop in their thinking when they say, "I have to use Windows because that's what everything's compatible with." Windows does nothing to bring this about. Instead, peripheral device makers say, "We have to write our drivers to be Windows-compatible, because that's what everybody uses." Change the public mindset all at once, and the percieved superiority vanishes like a soap bubble.
I notice that whenever somebody calls me 'bigot', it's a Windows user talking 100% of the time. Hmmmm...
Look in the article! He sez:
I often find black-and-white people a bit stupid, truth be told.
See! See?!
include $sig;
1;
Personally, I find it hilarious that there's a standard anarchy symbol....
The hilarity can be explained by the following reasons:
1. You have absolutely no clue what anarchy means in a political sense.
You are probably one of these people who imagine crazed lunatics running around with cartoon-style bombs when you think of anarchists. In fact, anarchy (as a political term) is defined quite simply: absence of authority. Generally, I would describe it as a system of living without government or the enforced hierarchy which accompanies such government. You may not think this is practical or reasonable (fine, I agree) but don't ignorantly define anarchy as "chaos". If anarchists simply wanted chaos, they would call their movement chaotics or something.
The ideal of anarchy is a system voluntarily accepted by all without forcing it's ideas on anyone. Society would operate by a system which no one person or group controls, but everyone agrees to. By standards everyone follows, with no need to enforce them. Metaphorically, the best symbol for anarchy would be one that all anarchists adopted, but was not dictated or owned by any one of them in particular. Thus, we find that the symbol is actually quite appropriate, contrary to your "hilarious" view of it.
Bigots of any type aren't worth the time of day.
:)
You're a bigot against bigots.
Does anyone have a picture of Linus with the BSD horns on? I think this should be the new apple logo for the zealotfrenzy.slashdot.org section where everyone's head will simultaniously explode.
You are all individuals!
I can't think of *anything* that linux can do and BSD can't, much less "many" things.
Same happens to me if I think of anything that BSDs can do and linux can't. Heck - even in windows I can do basically everything I want
That probably means that modern OSes are pretty much "done", the interesting fields are apps, not the kernel. Kernel stopped being the reason why you use an OS long time ago. And in that field, BSD and linux are pretty much identical, so..
Religion: Which is the One True Faith?
(credits to snpp.com)
Linus at beginning: ...you'll find a lot of areas where Linux is better (often a lot better -- as in "it works"), and then you'll find a few narrow areas where one particular BSD version will be better.
...I don't know anything about BSD technical internals, so I'm the wrong person to ask.
Linus at end:
Extremely stable my foot.
Try putting a system with an aic7xxx SCSI host adapter (very std host adapter) into standby mode using ACPI.
Watch it fail to do so and for ahc_dv_0 to use all available CPU cycles until the next reboot.
Still isn't fixed - there are tons of complaints about it but no official fix.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Does anyone really think apples are better than oranges? I'm really asking.
Speaking strictly from a taste standpoint and not mixing them with other foods, I don't see how anyone could argue that an apple tastes better than an orange. Given a choice between a fresh raw orange and a fresh raw apple, I'll take the orange every time.
but why did IBM choose Linux over its own AIX?
Either way I was going to have to deal with my corporate IT department to get hooked up to the printers, and I figured they'd know even less about BSD than about Linux, though it turned out they didn't know that either. I'll try some BSD flavor in my lab when I get the chance, and it may be that it really is simpler than typing apt-get whatever, or hassling with RedHat RPM repositories.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
1. Linux
Killing a fly with a shotgun for desktop power. Its server origins betray it and the best useage is for technically savvy users as a workstation OS in the higher-end sense. Really doesn't belong in front of people who can't make sense of Windows XP and think there is such a thing as an "any key".
2. BSD
Killing a fly with a tactical nuke with a flaky timer and faulty fuse for desktop usage. It shouldn't even be on a workstation. It shines on servers and is most at home there. Will burble along to itself happily if fed and cared for by a true BSD techie.
3. Windows
So easy to use, it is embarassing to admit to having family members or friends who cannot comprehend looking on the screen for the "start button" and instead scour their keyboard. Excellent for the casual user and Pro is great as a low end workstation OS unless to pack it with lots of hardware to eat. The server version is notoriously easy to compromise by teenagers with way too much free time on their hands. Point, click, throw dice, maybe crash, maybe work.
Each has its place. I would not use a naked Windows box on a public IP as a home LAN gatway, I'd use a carefully installed Linux distro like FC3 or 4. I'd not throw FC anything in front of my family, I'd give them WinXP home. I'd put BSD on a must-stay-up workhorse server over any common Linux package short of maybe Red Hat AS or Novell Suse. Each to where it belongs.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Impressive. Your deductive powers are good, but you are not a Jedi yet.
FYI, your parenthesis comment is the funniest thing I've seen in a LONG time. The people in the cubes around me are walking by wondering what's going on.
Please explain to me how your opinion is humble. Also a bigot does not see themselves as bigoted. It's others that don't share their opinions that consider them bigots.
What you are really referring to when you say racial bigot is someone that is not politically correct. This concept of PC is a common way to marginalize those that don't have the same opinions as yourself. Therefore it is you that is the bigot.
quod est demonstratum
You're an anti-bigot bigot.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Mac users ARE all the things he said. Not all, of course, there are a few who are still rational (myself); but overall, Mac users do view their platform as something holy, perfect and unstoppable. Try to get a mac user to admit that there is a better alternative out there. It will never happen -- except as a response to this post, in order to "prove" that they're fair, after which they will go back to flaming superior products en masse.
And saying that mentioning that Mac users are intolerant is itself intolerant is bad logic. Are the FBI intolerant for shutting down murderous KKK mobs?
You're talking about the wrong kind of authority. Yes, one source might be more "authoritative" to answer a particular question, but anarchists care about the authority to impose your will on others.
It's a tricky English word ambiguity, perhaps, but it's important.
Ceci n'est pas un post
Disclaimer
I'm not a linux zealot. I don't use Linux at home (I use OS X), and have no ideological reason to prefer Linux. I'm also at UC Berkeley, so, for "patriotic" reasons, I have a slight bias in favor of BSD.
That said, I have to admit Linux is more mature than FreeBSD for desktop use. Before you flame, hear me out.
Background
I'm a graduate student, and, with the help of another grad student and the College's head unix support guy, I'm stuck administering a small network of about 15 computers, all of which are vanilla Dell Precision 360s. Some run Windows, some run *nix. Our server is an Xserve G5, and it serves user home directories via NFS and does authentication & directory services via LDAP.
The FreeBSD story
We started with FreeBSD 4.9. Out of the box, we were able to get NFS mounting working, but there were a lot of problems. Sound didn't work. To get X working, we had to grab a special Nvidia driver. Even then, we only had VGA support, and not DVI. After much tinkering and kernel recompiling, I got DVI working, sort of (there were a few weird random "twinkly" pixels on each screen that showed up when in BSD DVI mode, but not BSD VGA or Windows DVI). Sound never worked. Then we tried to get LDAP working. No go, pam_ldap and nss_switch require FreeBSD 5.x.
So we upgrade to FreeBSD 5.2.1 (read, reinstall from scratch). That breaks DVI video, and the same kernel options as before don't work. No amount of tinkering can get sound working. Thus, we give up on DVI and sound. LDAP *does* work, after some effort, and so we have a mostly-usable system. There are still problems: KOffice apps crash on saving, and that the default PDF viewer doesn't work.
In an effort to fix KOffice and the PDF issue, we update & upgrade the ports tree. After a great deal of manual intervention to deal with broken dependencies in the pkg database, non-building ports, etc., the upgrade finishes. Now X is broken. It turns out the configuration file format for XFree86 changed when X got upgraded in the ports upgrade. A similar thing happens to KDE. After resolving those problems, the PDF and KOffice issues are resolved. Still no sound or DVI video, but we can live with that.
Then we upgrade our Xserve to Mac OS X 10.4 Server. All of a sudden, logging in via KDE as a "network" user on *some* of the BSD machines doesn't work. KDE complains that it doesn't have write access to the user's NFS-mounted home directories. A quick check on the command-line or with a failsafe session shows that users do, in fact, still have write access. I spend forever on this, and get nowhere. Some users can log in, others can't, on some BSD computers and not others. There are no clear differences, no explanations, and nothing makes sense.
I call in backup. The College's head unix admin comes over and spends a day on the problem. He contacts the KDE developers. I call Apple "Premium" Support. Nobody knows what's going on. In the end, we realize that the issue is that the NFS spec is fairly loose, and it's possible to have two nominally compliant implementations that don't quite talk to each other. Our theory is there's some sort of strange conflict between Apple's OS X 10.4 NFS implementation, the FreeBSD 5.x implementation, and KDE that causes some very subtle race condition with writing some KDE configuration file. At this point, we decide to try installing Linux on one machine as a test to see if it will work any better.
Total time about 100 hours.
The Linux Story
We install Centros 4.0 (a RedHat Enterprise Linux-derived distribution) on a machine. Everything works out of the box, except LDAP. After an hour or two of futzing around, that works too. Everything works. Sound, DVI video, NFS, KDE, PDFs, you name it. It all works.
Total time 3 - 5 hours.
Moral of the story
FreeBSD just isn't ready for the desktop. I wish it weren't true, because I like lots of things about FreeBSD, but it is. FreeBSD
A good question indeed. Perhaps IBM choosing Linux has more to do with the faults of AIX on that scale then it really does with the strengths of Linux? Perhaps not.
Still, I believe it would be cold day in hell before IBM suggests that anyone install Solaris on their hardware, no matter how good Solaris is or becomes.
By not doing it on slashdot!
Restore America: Dr. Ron Paul for President!
Is downloading the installation file sets from an FTP mirror "Do Everything From Scratch"??
Read again: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq4.html
The best way to predict the future is to invent it
What the hell? This is diplomatic? Luser.
The biggest difference I see between BSD and Linux is how they are built and assembled. When you use a BSD box and use a Linux box, it is very hard to tell them apart from first glances. They both have Unix commands and are reasonably POSIX-compatible, both run my favorite programs, both are very stable, etc. However, when you dig a little deeper inside the operating systems, there is a big difference in how they are engineered.
One big difference between BSD and Linux is the userland. Remember that in Linux, Linux refers to just the kernel. All of the other tools (ranging from little things like ls and grep to your editors and compilers) come from the outside, mostly from GNU. In BSD, on the other hand, the userland and the kernel is developed by the same group. For example, while Linux users get glibc (from GNU), BSD users have their own libc. The BSD userland has some non-BSD portions in it; gcc and groff (both GNU utilities) are installed by default, and there is no BSD equivalent (I guess McKusick, Karels, and Bostic didn't feel like rewriting AT&T's comiler and typesetting tools). However, those GNU utilities are adopted for BSD.
Another difference between BSD and Linux is the Unix-ness of the operating system. BSD sticks as close to the traditional Unix as much as possible. The man pages are very well written and the old Unix documentation written by Dennis Ritchie and others are still there (located in the /usr/share/doc/usd or /usr/share/doc/psd directories; thanks Caldera for releasing those sources). BSD sticks to the traditional Unix environment mostly because BSD is a direct descendant of AT&T Unix. Linux, on the other hand, doesn't really stick to the traditional Unix as much as BSD does, mainly because its utilities are from GNU (remember, GNU's Not Unix). For example, try reading the man pages for a GNU utility. It is usually poorly written, and tells you "well, we hate man pages; look up the info page." I personally hate info pages; I want all of my documentation for a utility on one page, not on hyperlinks.
Finally, I don't even want to get started on the virtues of BSD ports, which is literally a godsend. Linux's packaging managers are getting quite good; there's Debian's apt-get and Gentoo's portage.
Linux has many advantages to BSD, as well. Linux seems to get much better support from software developers than BSD does. I can buy Mathematica for Linux, run Java (officially supported by Sun), run Oracle, and other big commercial software. Linux is also officially supported by Mozilla, OpenOffice, and other important OSS software. BSD doesn't have the same type of commercial and OSS support that Linux gets, but FreeBSD runs Linux binaries very well, and most of the open source software works flawlessly on FreeBSD; I'm typing this in Firefox on FreeBSD, even though it is "unsupported" by Mozilla. Linux seems to get faster hardware support for the latest gadgets. Finally, Linux's popularity is much higher, meaning that you're more apt to find Linux support groups than BSD support groups.
All in all, the main difference, IMO, between BSD and Linux is its Unix-ness and its support. To put it like this, BSD is to Linux as vi is to emacs. (Interestingly enough, vi is written by Bill Joy, one of the original BSD developers. emacs is popularized by Richard Stallman, founder of the GNU project).
compare them to Windows, but never to each other.
Easy.
Can I have my cookie now?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The most striking difference between the BSDs and GNU/Linux is that the BSDs are completely built and distributed by one devel team (the kernel, the filesystem, the c library, etc). While Linux is a mostly parts from different groups... Torvalds does the kernel, Hans Reiser does the file system, GNU does the c library, etc. IMO, Linux is a combination of 'best of breed' technology, but I still admire the cohesivness of the BSD devel process.
You are claiming that to install openbsd you must buy a cd or "do everything from scratch". This is completely false, and given that it would obviously deter people from using openbsd based on a made up fear of having to "do everything from scratch", that makes it FUD.
Of course mozilla is not included in the base system, its a huge bloated monster that most people don't want on say, a mail server. But you don't have to ftp anything by hand, or learn any complicated package management system, that's the point. The package management across the BSD is almost the same, so when you know one you know them all, and they are very simple and well documented. All you had to do was type pkg_add "whatever_software_you_want" and it will install it and any pre-requisites.
And FYI, printing is the same in linux and BSD, either BSD lpd or CUPs, both are available for both linux and BSD.
Most of the comments I've seen w.r.t. Solaris, BSD, and Linux performance or features have been anecdotal in nature, but I've seen very few hard numbers to back them up.
I'd love to see how the latest mainstream Linux, *BSD, and Solaris/x86 kernels perform in various situations, how smoothly they can adjust to load differences, and how well their filesystems work under various scenarios, but I've not found much data along those lines.
It should also be kept in mind that the features or performance tweaking which might make a given kernel close to optimal for one type of task might well cause problems for other types of tasks, so the whole concept of "the best kernel" might not even exist as a general concept except in the minds of platform advocates.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Because linux is capable for those types of tasks. Linux has good horizontal scaling properties while commercial unixes might be good at that as well as vertical scaling, the price of AIX for x,000 servers can be avoided by going with an operating system that doesn't need to be paid for.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
I've got my mind on Shared Folder, Write Permissable, Execute Open right now.
.... trust me, it's not a honey pot trap ... tick . tick . tick ...
Here, virus script kiddies
I think it's funny - just ignore all those humorless assholes.
That's easy. Don't discuss it with people who can't handle a calm and rational exchange of ideas. If you find the person starting to raise their voice, interrupt you, or become more and more emotional just politely change the subject and/or walk away.
Why, I guess it is. I couldn't remember the name, honestly, just the latex outfit. If you look, you'll notice that there is at least one image of Ceren on the page I referenced above, though.
Now I can only question why you'd choose an image without said red latex suit... I'm going to guess you're just showing off/trolling. Typical BSD geek behavior ;-)
So no, I didn't know her by name, nor did I recognize her without the outfit. You're clearly a much bigger BSD geek than I. I bow before you in shame.
But really, how famous do you expect the 'most famous BSD chick' to be ?
Just compare this link with this link
The first is smooth, the second hurts so much you will admit that BSD is the best just to get rid af the pain in your head.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
...and why is that smbol not a part of the charset ?
Once at my last job I gave a class on Windows while wearing a Linux T-Shirt. The Windows bigots in the audience didn't give me the same respect that Linus got from the BSD guys. (But maybe they were quiet because they know BSD is dead anyway)
That's a very important qualifier. :-)
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Solaris has fault tollerance features that aren't found in Linux. Solaris has support for isolating failing hardware and hotswaping everything includeing cpu boards. Big IBM, and SGI/Cray iron support this as well. To be fair most Linux developers don't have access to a Sun E10k. So it is understandable if they don't fully support it. Solaris zones are nice and currently better then Linux/Xen, and much better then usermode linux or VMware. On the userland side Solaris has excellent nis/nfs support that I have yet to find in any Linux distro.
However Solaris is big, stubborn, and ugly. I would rather admin three machines each with a different Linux distro then a single Solaris box.
Linux has other strenghts, but on big servers Solaris is best.
I wonder how many people RTFA and caught the irony of one of the things Linus said there, that perfect is the enemy of good enough. The irony being that in fact it was the Unix world that originally championed this view, and the perfectionists of the time were the MIT LISPm folks and the folks at SAIL.
The extra irony is that what killed the LISPm wasn't the goal of perfection - it was the death of proprietary hardware, in combination with the weakness of the proprietary source development model.
Anyway, I don't take offense at what Linus said, but I think he's way off the mark. Sure, OpenBSD focuses on security, but most of the BSDs focus on having a good general-purpose kernel. The problem the BSDs have, in comparison to the Linux world, if I may be so bold, is the lack of a cohesive goal other than to be BSD.
Being BSD is actually more than enough for me on my servers, but it's not so good on the desktop. The specialization that Linus is talking about isn't in the kernel, though - it's simply that by and large, there isn't anybody in the BSD world who's deeply concerned with the desktop right now. So most of the desktop work right now is going on on Linux.
The good news is that by and large, that work ports nicely to BSD. So if at some point someone decides that they really want a BSD desktop, all they have to do is some integration work. GNOME desktop runs pretty nicely on NetBSD, but the integration needs work - it's nowhere near ready for the end user right now.
I personally prefer FreeBSD, but keep up with Linux dev as well and am aware that sometimes Linux is the best tool for the job. I do prefer ports for FreeBSD and I know it can't be beat. (I've seen portage, and it's great, but not quite there yet).
Did anyone learn anything of interest from this interview? What new insight into Linux or FreeBSD did you come away with?
I think I learned just as much about open software from this article as I did from E!'s coverage of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes.
There is much pleasure to be gained in useless knowledge.
...because BSD has hot looking booth babes dressed in red vinyl devil outfits at the trade shows.
"Now I can only question why you'd choose an image without said red latex suit"
I'm lazy. Damn lazy. I went to google images, spelled her name the best I could, and that was the first picture I found. You're right, I should have found a better one. But I didn't, let's both be brave and move past this. Thanks!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Centrists suck! It is people like you that allowed Hitler to gain power.
If you are connecting your system to the internet in any way, OpenBSD's virtues shine. Propolice and w^x are features that are rarely implemented in mainstream Linux distributions, I positively cannot live without spamd mail greylisting, the patch traffic is easily a tenth of RedHat if not less, the utilities are better (a real inetd, a real ksh), and the security otherwise just sings. On the downside, there is no lvm, no pam, some of the packages are older (samba) and some features aren't available.
That said, there are plenty of places where I will deploy CentOS - if I need an Oracle database, if I'm running a complex Linux application or I need to compile Linux binaries, or if I might need to eventually be on a formally supported platform (RedHat Enterprise).
There are other times when I might choose something else (NetBSD because it supports some wierdo hardware, SuSE because an application is certified to it, Mac OS X because it arouses my curiousity, etc.). I would hesitate in moving many of my systems this way, though.
Sometimes the practical concerns can drive the choice of platform pretty hard - moreso than most might think.
but why did IBM choose Linux over its own AIX?
... because Linux runs on much more architectures and scales down to desktops, esp. cheap stuff like x86 - this makes communication with clients and frontends easier.
Just a guess.
Obviously you see irony there because you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Boy, that couldn't possibly be a problem with the driver and not the kernel could it?
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
What, you can't hear people's punctuation when they speak? I say things in parentheses all the time... hear them pretty often too... then again, I also think that mint tastes very green...
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Nothing flamebait-y about pointing out mangled English. This should be a +5 Informative. This forum needs it.
Where do Linux drivers go?
The kernel!
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Yes, they piss me off. They want mac's, but they don't want to not have PC's (read laptops) :P) anyway. The sooner they get MacOS onto x86 the better!
Anway.
This Mac user claims he prefers a mac cos PC's are shite. I challenge. He comes out with the MacOS 10 angle. I counter with "It's Linux". He counters with "It's BSD" I offer to put BSD with a friendly GUI on his laptop. He counters with a counter counter (he's a teacher
Fscking teachers! Never liked them when I was at school now I change country and they're still difficult csnts!
Let googlefight.com decide....
Fruit for fruit, I will rate most apples higher than most oranges.
... Redmond!).
The default American apple, like the default American OS, is a mealy, unsweet sphere of crap called the Red Delicious. Somehow the apple-for-teacher crowd convinced people that apples should be judged by size, hue, and uniformity of color -- not by taste. The runner-up in the popularity contest, McIntosh, isn't much better.
Try these to find out what apples can taste like :
Granny Smith ( the green ones, a unique taste!)
Fuji
Gala
Braeburn
Pink Lady
Compare this to Orange availability. Usually, you can only get Navel oranges, which at least in the northeast, are practically tasteless, or Valencias, which even the sellers recommend only for juicing. (I leave out tangerines, clementines, tangerines, and blood and mandarin oranges, all of which are much better).
Stop judging apples by the red delicious (which, not coincidentally, are grown near
Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
They disagree with the concept of property. Hell some of the morons don't even support the right to own guns, much less land.
I have a problem with anybody owning more land then he and his private army can protect. I'd solve it by taking it from him.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Who can blame Linus for not knowing anything about BSD?
In any system where you have no init.d and so cannot get to first base for trying out subsystems on the fly, it's just pointless proceeding.
BSD people are simply not of an engineering frame of mind, or they'd have adopted a system for switching subsystems on and off independently. It doesn't have to be init.d, but it has to fulfil the same requirements. They haven't. QED
BSD may be superb as a comms O/S, but without a sunsystem switch, it's just crap.
Technology wise, I really don't have any problem at all with BSD. The way it is licensed is the *only* issue, all the other debates just ammount to acinllatory justifications reguarding the license.
And when it comes down to it, the all the license issues boil down to just one issue too: is it allright for another to impose copy restrictions on their neighbor, or is it not. If it is not, and copyrights are wrong then the GPL which uses "fire to fight fire" will be much more attractive, otherwise the BSD style license is more attractive.
Of course, the Linux community has no threat from people forking off proprietary varients that they then modify and extend to put the screws to everyone else. In my opinion that says a lot.
...and why is that smbol not a part of the charset ?
I dunno, nobody could agree on a codepage for it?
I dream in binary.
Joe Barr writes "Talk about a red-button issue. How do you compare Linux and the BSDs and keep the debate from turning into a friendly-fire flame-fest nightmare between bigots on both sides of the line?
Joe Barr, the man who was featured in 'roadrage on the information superhighway' when he posted this: Xref: www.linuxworld.com linuxworld.forums.articles.1999-06-vcontrol_4:3
From: Joe Barr [joe@pjprimer.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 8:02 AM
To: sales@mindcraft.com
Subject: Industry Scum
Hey, Mindcraft
I am writing an article about asslicking whores in the industry.
You know the sort, they bend over for folks like Bill Gates by
producing totally false "benchmarks" based on liess, mistests,
biased hardware and software, and scores of other unethical,
deceiptful, dishonest, duplicitous means.
Like your reviews of NT vs Novell and Linux. Classic cases of
professional prostitution.
Cock sucking the geeks in Redmond.
The question for you maggots, whores, whatever you prefer to be
called, is: how much does it cost to buy one of your benchmarks?
tHANKS,
Joe Barr The Dweebspeak Primer
This would be the SAME JOE Barr who made up a Linus T. quote at LinuxWorld 2000 'FreeBSD is just a handful of programmers'.
Joe Barr wondering 'how to be diplomatic' needs to stop calling others whores and faking quotes as a 1st step in 'being diplomatic'.
It isn't REALLY bigotry, tho. It's fanboy-dom. They don't say (well, I HOPE they don't say) oh look, there's a BSD user; burn him/no mixed marriages/whatever shite it pleases racists to babble on about.
Me (Blog)
Arrogant, detached observers are quite entertaining. It is especially funny when they pipe out occasionally just to point out that they really regard their fellow "humans" as mere puppets.
I myself like to sit around all day, deep down in my lair, in my steel armchair, watching them do their little chores. Sometimes I even let out a grin and a little dry laugh before I resume petting my white cat!
So if I trademark the anarchy symbol...then what?
Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
Waaaaahhh! Your post wasn't 100% pro-BSD, FUD FUD FUD!!!! Wahhhhhaaa!
Sometimes, specialization and generalization are mutually exclusive. Linux is a very powerful general purpose OS, but there's a lot of specializations that they can't have or don't have because their focus is elsewhere.
Fine with me. A monoculture would be a Bad Thing.
Anyone who ties themself to one OS is automatically at a disadvantage.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
and Modded down into boliavian
comments modded down go to Bolivia? I never knew that. It explains a lot though. Yup, explains a lot...
There is no linux emulation, it is linux compatability. Its a simple syscall translation, there is nothing dodgy about it, and it doesn't cause any problems. It simply uses the same libs a linux machine would (typically taken from redhat), and maps linux syscall numbers to the native BSD syscall numbers.
And as I already pointed out, there IS FFS with journalling already. You just have to pay for it. Nobody does because journalling offers no advantage. Or did you have some kind of facts to back up your claims that journalling offers something?
You are the one taking the cop-out. The OS doesn't "have it", in BSD or linux. You are talking about people custom packaging the OS, and people do that with both linux and BSD, your point is complete bullshit. Your inability to work google is not a flaw of BSD.
And of course, 3d graphics is supported just fine. If ati doesn't release a driver, that doesn't make it BSDs fault. Or are we going to start claiming windows is superior to linux because it has more vendor supplied drivers?
Anybody has one ? A photo/video etc. That would be fun :)
I agree 100% I think people confuse bigotry with opinion. I prefer using linux over Windows, and I have good reasons for it. I don't care if other people use Windows, but I hate it, won't support it, and will try to convince people to switch if they aren't doing something that requires Windows (like gaming, or running some sort of niche third-party application).
Some people like to yammer about "using the best tool for the job", but your tools don't get better unless you try to make them better. If everybody had just thrown their hands up and said, "Yep, Windows is the best desktop OS. Who cares about MacOS or linux, just use Windows" the linux desktop would still be XFree86 3.3 w/ IceWM. Now the linux desktop is quite on par with the other offerings, minus a few places that need some polishing. Practicality is good, but ideology also has its place.
And let's not forget that the criteria for picking the best tool is different for different people. For example, for me the convenience of freely downloadable software packages with automatic dependency checking outweighs the detriment of limited hardware support.
Newsforge: Let's talk about the differences between Linux and BSD.
Linus: I'd rather not.
Newsforge: Is BSD better than Linux technically?
Linus: You're comparing apples to oranges.
Newsforge: Do you think Linux has become better than the crap it was 5 years ago? More like the technically superior BSD?
Linus: Apples and oranges, dude. We have different goals.
Newsforge: Ok, you won't take the bait, so I'll just ask a stupid question. Do you guys share?
Linus: Not really. We tend not to add citrus to our apples much, but thanks for asking a dumb question.
Newsforge: Ok ok, but surely there's some BSD stuff you want, right?
Linus: Ask someone who grows apples and oranges what works with both. Now if you'll excuse me, I have some apple crumble burning in the oven.
Newsforge: Damn! Well, tune in next week when we try to bait the BSD guys.
MS and Apple both now have competent OS's - as of Win2K (in my opinion) and OS X - but they will always be driven by a different set of values than Linux and raw BSD.
So, I personally use Windows and sometimes even like it, but my hat goes off to those who use Linux, whether it is best or worst.
It depends on what you mean by "competent OS's".Though for the past several years I've used mostly Windows I rank it at the bottum of the heap in stability, with WinNT being the most stable to me, and I've used Windows from 3.x to XP though not Server 2003. Well actually 3.x gave me less trouble than the others, but then comes NT 4.0. Win95 crashed pretty regularly, and though not as much WinME still crashs too much for me. Of Win2000 and XP, though I've only used them in classes I've taken and not at home, I had 2000 crash on me a few tymes in a 16 week semester and XP crashed on me the very first day of the class I first used XP in. For now, I plan on getting a Mac Powerbook for my next computer/OS. I am wondering though if I should set it up to dualboot Linux or just use BSD.
FalconShould there be a Law?
What a crock.
Property "rights" secured by private armies has been tried: perhaps you've heard of medieval Europe? Not too bad if you were a king, sucked if you were a serf. And if you decided to travel from the safety of one petty kingdom to another over poor roads, depend on your own resources against the depredations of highway robbery.
Forgive me if I prefer a more modern civilization, where I pay taxes to support the state's heinous apparatus of oppression, including such dastardly schemes as clean public water supplies, sanitation, and toll-free roads secured by highway patrolmen, and not just thugs hired by local strongmen.
Compare driving across Europe or the U.S. or Canada to driving through Afghanistan, or the current basketcases of Africa. Funny how bands of Taliban don't set up armed checkpoints on Route 66 to collect private tolls. There are plenty of private armies in Afghanistan and Somalia; what a paradise those places must be!
... are the principles of the engineering 'tradition' that we have inherited. This doesn't really change dramatically (if at all) depending on the particular Unix each of us use. The received wisdom echoes throughout the last 36 years of Unix software development. There are always some things that are either 'just plain wrong' or 'the right thing' and I believe these become apparent more from exposure and utility of underlying programmatic textual interfaces. These are what truly makes something 'Unix' (if such an adjective can be applied).
Whether it's configuring BIND or implementing an LDAP directory server or a SQL database or whatever - these are all uses of the programmatic textual interface. Everything is in a configuration file - in fact, 'everything is a file'. Hence the extraordinary flexibility and expressive power that all Unices provide.
This book: The Art of Unix Programming provides a fine insight from many Unix pioneers as to why things are the way they are for all users of a Unix system. The meaning from its pages haven't varied from each incarnation of Unix over the last 36 years and certainly haven't lost relevance for today's Unices. I am, admittedly, a tight-wad and seldom pay up for a book I can read for free. I bought a copy of this book before I found out that it was freely available. I have never once regretted that purchase. The same is true for K&R - try telling me (and anyone I know) that that book has lost any relevance since 1978!
I think Linus wouldn't engage in flamebait zealotry (first of all, he ain't a zealot) regarding one platform's capabilities over another because there are universal truths in software design from which Unix (in whatever incarnation) derives its usefulness and power. If it wasn't so damn useful, Linus wouldn't have bothered implementing a Unix kernel for the x86 processors that were so often the woefully underpowered laughing stock of industry. And as a 'hobby' no less!
The ideal of anarchy is a system voluntarily accepted by all without forcing it's ideas on anyone. Society would operate by a system which no one person or group controls, but everyone agrees to. By standards everyone follows, with no need to enforce them.
Which sounds about as realistic as "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". Great system if everyone played by the rules. There are always people who don't agree with the system, particularly when there is no means to enforce it, or they think "if I can get away with it". What will you have then? Vigilante justice? Not a good idea on so many levels, including persecution, lack of due process and available only to those who can afford it. Then you need courts.
But what should the court rule by? Oh, laws. So you need some kind of way of agreeing to those laws. Or would you rather each person decided for themselves what was legal or not? I'd love to see every criminal define their own actions as legal. Since you have no authority, each is as valid as any other. Umless you want to put it to a majority vote. Like, some form of democracy who'll put into words all the things we agree on. We could call this parliament.
Since we're all in agreement, I'm sure there are some things we'd like to do in common, all of the people. But then you have the problem of freeloaders. Many services are such that they are either there for everyone, or they are not. It wouldn't be feasible to have a police force that only solves crimes against funding citizens. Or a fire department that only saved buildings owned by funding citizens (the whole block would burn down). Soon everyone but the freeloaders will agree that we need a public system, paid for by taxes. This we would call government.
Basicly, what anarchism is suggesting is to unpin everything that creates order. The result would be chaos. Not even the preschool child shows have a world that is so rosy red that everyone would play nice, or that there exists any such magic "common standard" for anything, that we could all agree on. Take something as fundamental as the right to life. What is allowed in peace? In war? In self-defense? By the courts, both in peace and war? Even where there is white and black, there are many shades of gray inbetween that people don't agree on. Always has been, always will be.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Modded down into boliavian.
What does South America have to do with RMS?
the Linux Version Excursion... :(
ports... :)
happy
Yes of course he's a Green card holder ;)
I'm sure big iron will be important in the computer industry for many decades to come, but it is not where the innovation happens. With Solaris, Sun is investing money in perfecting a dying technology.
The future is light kernels running on hypervisors and clusters. If anything, Linux and BSD need to lose weight and functionality, not gain it.
So.. we are told to tune in wednesday for a responce from the BSD developers et. all... So is there any particular month or year that this is planned for? A search of the newsforge site for Joe Barr doesn't provide any references, obviously it hasn't been posted and wednessday is almost over (At least from a business sense). So is this going to happen or was Joe just blowing sunshine up our collective butts?
Where's a modpoint when you need one!
This is going in my cookie file!
If he says he finds black and white people stupid that makes him a racist. ;-)
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.