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 ."

Comments

Knoppix is the suxx0rz.

[rice_burners_suck]

Linux is the suxx0rz and here's why: I downloaded and burned a Knoppix 3.9 ISO. This is one of many distros that I have tried and used with much success. It starts up and works as it should, quite nicely I should add. So why am I saying that Linux is the suxx0rz? It's not the software. It's the documentation. To this day, I have not experienced a single piece of documentation that was actually accurate.

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.

Get real.

[Some Random Username]

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?

Re:Not About To Be Baited

[diegocgteleline.es]

I don't think even the most hard-core Linux user would dispute that (well, maybe the zealots would).

I, for one, like some parts of the linux kernel. The kind of locking used in solaris is harder to "get right" than what linux uses, for example. So, duh, no, I don't think Solaris is "the best kernel available". Maybe solaris zealots think that, but certainly not everybody.

For sysadmins: no init.d == crap

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Solaris is best at big iron

[speculatrix]

Since Sun keep NFS alive, it should be good on Solaris!

Try SMB support on solaris and you're quickly in a whole world of pain.

Solaris10 might be a great step forward for Sun, but having lived with FreeBSD5.3, SuSE9.2 Linux and Solaris10, I can say that the user experience of Sol feels like going back in time 6 years compared to FreeBSD or Linux. Hell, even Debian3.0 felt positively new-fangled!