Linux For Losers According To De Raadt

elohim writes "Theo has some scathing comments about Linux in his new interview with Forbes Magazine. From the article: 'It's terrible...Everyone is using it, and they don't realize how bad it is. And the Linux people will just stick with it and add to it rather than stepping back and saying, "This is garbage and we should fix it."'"

Comments

"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[grub]

"Linux For Losers According To De Raadt"

Nowhere in that article does he say "Linux is for losers" or use that label. The headline of the story rhetorically asks that question, way to generate flamebait, Forbes & Slashdot editors!

Now I'm going to get a coffee and enjoy the comments which will probably not differ much from "Theo is teh ghey! L12nux r00lzzzzzz!!!"

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[Fr4ncis]

Theo is teh ghey! L12nux r00lzzzzzz!!!

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[Otter]

Yes, and no. He doesn't say "Linux is for losers" but I would say "scathing" is a pretty fair description of "It's terrible...Everyone is using it, and they don't realize how bad it is. And the Linux people will just stick with it and add to it rather than stepping back and saying, 'This is garbage and we should fix it.'"

Anyway, interesting in regard to yesterday's debate on "Whimsical Comments In Code: Vital Human Right Or Proof Of Idiocy?" is:

Lok Technologies, a San Jose, Calif.-based maker of networking gear, started out using Linux in its equipment but switched to OpenBSD four years ago after company founder Simon Lok, who holds a doctorate in computer science, took a close look at the Linux source code.

"You know what I found? Right in the kernel, in the heart of the operating system, I found a developer's comment that said, 'Does this belong here?' "Lok says. "What kind of confidence does that inspire? Right then I knew it was time to switch."

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[SatanicPuppy]

"It's terrible," De Raadt says. "Everyone is using it, and they don't realize how bad it is. And the Linux people will just stick with it and add to it rather than stepping back and saying, 'This is garbage and we should fix it.'"

Seems pretty scathing to me.

Of course, anyone who is that dedicated to OpenBSD is bound to have some issues. It must be hard to be devoted to the unloved stepchild of the Open source movement, and have to watch as everyone worships Linux.

I found it amusing how they touted the BSD foundations of OpenBSD as being superiour to Linux's from scratch origins, and whined, in almost the same breath, about the lawsuit that nearly shut them down. Need to make the connection there boys; where would linux be if SCO had managed to come up with solid evidence?

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[Strawser]

The article was awful for being kind of sloppy, but De Raadt was feeding it. It's an article composed of generalizations about caricatures of steriotypes, which is something like sloppy*10^3.

"Linux people do what they do because they hate Microsoft. We do what we do because we love Unix"

Could have just as easily been . . .

"Linux people do what they do because they hate Microsoft. We do what we do because we hate Linux"

"BSD guys are a lot like Linux guys, except they have kissed girls."

Would have been as meaningful had it been . . .

"BSD guys are a lot like Linux guys, except they have kissed each other."

I mean, no, linux isn't perfect, but that's not news. It's also not news that some people in the BSD community flame people in the Linux community, and vice versa, and they're usually silly flames. I don't mind silly flames so much on /., but silly flames in Forbes is pathetic.

I bet they just do what they do because they hate Slashdot. ;)

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[Southpaw018]

Torvalds, via e-mail, says De Raadt is "difficult" and declined to comment further.

Eloquent and refined as always. Apparently, De Raadt has chosen to be less so. If his OS were as superior as he claims, its merits would be apparent without him having to act like the -1 Flamebait posts that are to follow.

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[vandon]

The title of the article 'Is Linux for Losers?' was written that way to attract readers.
You get both:
"What?!? Someone said linux sux?" and "Ha! I knew linux sux!"

So now they get readers from both sides to view the advertisements on forbes.com. I wouldn't be surprised if they knew it would get posted to /. and they could get extra money from all the click-thrus to the story.

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[llamashoes]

does this belong here?

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[ArsonSmith]

Without the GPL I would be about the same place it is now. Like it or not the GPL requires that if a company uses and adds to Linux they have to give back. The BSDs would all be used and abused but wouldn't get the company support that Linux has. Look at how Microsoft ripped the TCP stack from BSD. Did BSD get any benifit from that? Other than bragging "Windows uses our network stack!!" Well not really something to brag about.

It may not make you or anyone happy but it does force the improvement of Linux as a whole.

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[Pandora's Vox]

It must be hard to be devoted to the unloved stepchild of the Open source movement, and have to watch as everyone worships Linux.

is it just me, or isn't openBSD the unloved stepchild because of the assholishness of some *cough*theo*cough* of the developpers?

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[jedidiah]

Hey, I just used the first PC Unix to support MY hardware.

This could have been NeXT.
This could have been Solaris.
This could have been FreeBSD.

As it turned out, it was Linux. End of discussion.

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[SquadBoy]

Yeah. That and there is some very well reasoned arguments over on undeadly that Theo was taken out of context. Which given everything else I've ever read from him on the subject makes perfect sense.

Also the person here seems to have left out this link.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2005/0704/071.html

Having said that I've been using Debian since 1997 and I'm in the process of switching over to OpenBSD. To a large degree this is because the "secure by default" mindset fits with where I want to be and want I want to do more than any Linux distro can or to be honest should. But to a large degree the attitude on behalf of Linux users is a *big* part of the reason I'm leaving.

It will be interesting to see what Theo has to say about the accuracy of this article. I'd suggest you watch undeadly to see what happens.

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[beq]

Well yes, BSD did get some benefit from Windows using the FreeBSD TCP stack - it got an assurance that 95% of the computers in the world would have a functional TCP stack - not a small thing.

The goals of the BSD license and the GPL are different, folks. The BSD license is all about building technology that can be come the standard everywhere. The GPL is about building a permanent ecology of free (as in freedom) code. A GPL project can pick up and use BSD-licensed code, and release said code under the GPL if they wish (provided they retain the copyright notices). The reverse is not true.

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[danheskett]

It's a question of your goals. Many of the people pushing the GPL have three major things going on, (1) they want to promote the software, and GPL is good at that; many hands = quality, quantity, etc; (2) they want to promote a political and/or social philosophy and force down the costs of computing, software, and business; and (3) they want to take down Microsoft, and if possible, be famous doing it.

Which are all fine, valid goals. Great. Good for them. Happy for them.

The BSD people have a different goal. They want to write software that is suitable for a specific goal within certain parameters. And they want that code to actually be used as widely as possible. It's not about ego (Theo not withstanding), it's not about credit, it's not about changing the status of things, it's about doing something specific. And at the end of the day that's what the BSD style license is great for. Microsoft based their NT stack on BSD code. It's not about ego - it's about the fact that millions of users are using a much better TCP stack that is designed and produced to a much higher standard than was in place before. The people who wrote that stack aren't out bragging, they know that the work they did has advanced their goal of the Internet using quality software implementations.

GPL loves, go for it. Do #1, #2, and #3. But don't be pissed about the BSD people. They aren't much interested in #2 or #3, and that's good not just for GPL or BSD or Unix people, but for *everyone*.

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[DigitumDei]

...BSD guys are a lot like Linux guys, except they have kissed girls.

Its times like this that you have to link to penny arcade

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[ajs]

"Like it or not the GPL requires that if a company uses and adds to Linux they have to give back."

Horse hockey!

I use and add to GPLed software that I don't "give back" to all the time. I also use and add to GPLed (and non-GPLed) software that I do give back to.

The only requirement is that if you SHIP modified GPLed software, you have to provide the modified source to those whoe recieve it. The amusing part is that you don't even have to provide that source to the original authors, only to those you ship to. So, if you write software that you only ship to, say, Fortune 500 companies, then you're well within your right to tell the people who originally wrote the code that they have to go talk to the people at those companies if they want to try to get access to your modifications.

The GPL only grants rights (with stipulations) on a volutary basis. It does not remove any of the rights that you already had under copyright law, and it cannot be forced on you if you don't wish to agree to it.

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[Dogtanian]

"BSD guys are a lot like Linux guys, except they have kissed girls."

The only reason the girls let the *BSD guys kiss them is that they felt sorry for them- apparently the *BSD guys are dying.

Netcraft confirms it.

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[jedidiah]

Thus the crux of the problem.

Back in 1994, pretty much everyone else only wanted to support "server class hardware". If you wanted to run something like Solaris or NeXT on your PC not only did you have to shell out $400 for the OS itself but you also had to have SCSI hardware to do it.

Deciding to use something else that is not a part of the Lemming hegemony requires enough dedication all by itself. Adding in extra barriers is not helpful.

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[44BSD]

First to support your hardware, eh? Well, you must have some spankin' new HW. UNIX (!= Linux) has been available for the i386 for a hell of a long time. Think NET2. Think BSDI. If it wasn't for the efforts of folks you are dissing with your "End of Discussion" claptrap, UNIX would still be encumbered, and your HW would be a boat anchor or a Winblows box.

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[Anonymous Coward]

"That isn't a Xerox machine! It's a Brother brand copier so stop calling those papers xeroxes!" the functionally austistic person exclaimed.

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[dougmc]

...BSD guys are a lot like Linux guys, except they have kissed girls.

Well, they thought that was a girl that they paid $20 to kiss, but after googling for her name, they found some pictures of her on the `Transexuals are Friends, not Food!' web site, and noticed that she had a rather prominent Adam's Apple, so they're not quite so sure anymore ...

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[iainl]

My guess is that he doesn't mean i386, but just the particular hardware configuration he has right there.

Assume for a minute that I'm not a developer. Assume for a minute that even if I am, I'm lazy and/or have other things to do with my time. Assume the only x86 Unixalike to already come with drivers for soundcard X, graphics card Y and motherboard Z is currently Linux.

Would you install it, or leave the box on the shelf until someone writes Solaris drivers?

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[harrkev]

But to a large degree the attitude on behalf of Linux users is a *big* part of the reason I'm leaving.

Can you please explain?

First, look at Microsoft XP. Large corporations (including the one that employs me) use it. Script kiddies use. Grandmothers use it. Uber-gamers use it. You cannot say that there is an "attitude of Windows users" because you cannot expect all of those people to have the same attitude.

I would expect the user base of Linux to be somewhat more homogenous than Windows, but attitudes still vary. And you have to remember that in any population large enough, you will get some jerks and butt-holes in the mix -- and that is the type of person who is most likely to chime in with their $0.02 (This includes me -- just look at this worthless post).

You also have to expect a certain amount of "Micro$shaft sux," of which I have myself posted one or two. And you have to allow for a certain amount of fan-boyism, as it is human nature -- just look at how non-geek males fawn over their favorite sports team.

So, I am sure the you have your reasons, but is it possible that your perception of reality is somewhat different from reality itself?

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[John Fulmer]

Funny. I rarely hear Linux-oriented people (including myself) badmouth *BSD. I don't think I've *EVER* heard anyone really badmouth BSD. It's a great, solid operating system, which tends to be fairly conservative in its goals and design decisions. I would never say anything negative about someone just because *BSD was their OS of choice.

I wish the opposite were true. Linux is a solid, popular, full-featued *nix clone with a different design philosophy. It also works very well. I wish that some of the *BSD people would just deal with it and get on with their lives.

jf

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[Shads]

Exactly.

The *BSD community hasn't ever supported the hardware *I* use as well as linux does. Shrug. The line I like the best is... the part about the comment saying "Does this belong here?" by a kernel hacker... realistically what was he asking?

Should this code be here?
Should we be doing this in the kernel?
Should we be doing this in an alternate part of kernel?

Becuase someone posts a comment in source questioning something doesn't seem to me to be a problem, it's there for a reason... a good reason would be to make other hackers take a closer look at it and make decisions based on it.

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[setagllib]

Unless his hardware had an nVidia video card and it was the small alley of time in which nVidia released drivers for Linux but not FreeBSD, there should have been no such situation. The BSDs aren't often behind unless a vendor is being difficult, and sometimes ahead (in-tree Intel PRO/Wireless drivers are in the BSDs already, yet Linux still uses Intel's drivers and not in its own tree). I don't know about Solaris.

But sometimes Linux is the only thing that WILL work out of the box. On a certain Toshiba Satellite (exact model unknown: I have no idea where my friend got this, but it's still interesting to tinker with) Linux (2.6.11-gentoo-r9 via a LiveCD) boots just fine with some notes about what evil, twisted things the BIOS has done to the system, while FreeBSD 5.4 locks up before even a screenful of kernel messages, and NetBSD 2.0 a little bit later with at least the in-kernel debugger. So Linux won that fight. It surprises the willies out of me, but sometimes Linux actually does have more stable hardware support than -stable/-release BSDs. Or maybe Toshiba just sent in a patch to cover up their shoddy manufacturing. Either way...

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[saleenS281]

please, if you haven't learned by now that being the superior O/S has nothing to do with market share, I guess you never will. As if there haven't been a dozen other os's over the years that neither linux or windows could hold a candle too, yet they've been long since relegated to obscurity.

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[setagllib]

I think his point is that a developer should never be asking a question in a comment - it implies that developer communication (and often individual competence) is at a low ebb. I don't know about all of the BSDs, but I have had the pleasure of witnessing developer discussions in #dragonflybsd (on efnet) and they always come to conclusions on where things should be and how they should be done, and can tell you volumes about it if you aren't convinced (but often won't because their time is precious).

Although there are many dedicated Linux teams getting the work done, there are also many individual hackers submitting things, and many inexperienced ones who aren't sure if something should work the way they did it - so questions come up. A sensible developer would at least ask before implementing, or a sensible committer would think/ask before committing. If a question like "Does this belong here?" emerged in a release kernel, it means somewhere the development process broke down.

Personally I wouldn't drop the whole system just off a comment like that, though. It probably means his code review was restricted to comments and their interpretation rather than what the code did and how it was put together. Which, okay, was probably not great either, but it would have been fair to look at that as well. I'd love to be proven wrong though.

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[melodraama]

juhan@galadriel:/usr/src/kernel-source-2.6.11$ find . -name *.c -exec grep "belong here" {} \;
if we don't belong here... */
/* This does not belong here, but locally generated errors need it if connection
* I think these routines belong here because they're not yet really hardware
/* nothing. lockup detection does not belong here */
/* nothing. lockup detection does not belong here */
* this stuff doesn't really belong here..
mb(); /* nothing. lockup detection does not belong here */;
* I think these routines belong here because they're not yet really hardware
* I think these routines belong here because they're not yet really hardware
* First some stuff that does not belong here:
* KG: This was in DATAOUT. Does it also belong here?
* - remove allow_modeset (acornfb idea does not belong here)
/* FIXME: This doesn't belong here... */

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[pootypeople]

But it's the "you must have knowledge" attitude that keeps people out of open source and sticking with Microsoft. I remember my early days in the Linux wilderness, seraching in vain for the stuff that would let me do anything fun/useful with this desktop operating system I'd spent months just getting working. Everywhere I looked were imprecations against noobies or people who didn't know everything about their systems. I'd go to help forums and it seemed like the only help that was being offered was sarcasm and RTFM. Sadly, it hasn't gotten much better. The linux/OSS world has become more and more fragmented (why do we have multiple packaging systems? WHY?) and more and more insular. We fight amongst ourselves about which UNIX-like operating system is better- I'm sorry- that's the dumbest argument I've ever heard. BSD can be just as insecure as Linux if you set it up that way. Linux can be just as secure as BSD if you set it up that way. WHO CARES! We're all going to disagree. If we were the kind of people who got along well with others, we wouldn't be playing at slashdot. For pete's sake- let's stop the flame war and get to making better software.
But then slashdot would no longer have a reason to be. And there would be much rejoicing.
James

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[StenD]

The only requirement is that if you SHIP modified GPLed software, you have to provide the modified source to those whoe recieve it. The amusing part is that you don't even have to provide that source to the original authors, only to those you ship to.

Go read the GPL.

• 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
• a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
• b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
• c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

"Any third party" means anyone, not just those you shipped the program to.

So, if you write software that you only ship to, say, Fortune 500 companies, then you're well within your right to tell the people who originally wrote the code that they have to go talk to the people at those companies if they want to try to get access to your modifications.

Only if you shipped the source code with the program. If you shipped the program with an offer to provide the source code on request, that offer is valid for any third party.

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[StenD]

And that was the reason that I began using Linux, despite the fact that the *BSD FAQ maintainer worked down the hall from me. My home system had only IDE drives, *BSD at the time did not support IDE drives, and Linux did. That choice flowed upstream - when the group I was part of decided to use an alternative to SCO Open DeskTop, Linux was chosen over *BSD because those of us who would have to support it were familiar with it, when we were not familiar with *BSD (the *BSD FAQ maintainer was in a different group). Then the sites that used our software were moved from SCO to Linux. I'm only talking about a few dozen systems here, but how many times was this scenario replicated, where the choice between Linux of *BSD turned on IDE support on a personal system?

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[moyix]

Not looking at the ads is like taking something from the grocery store without paying...

Yeah! Or like getting up during commercials on TV!

Damn pirates, ruining it for the rest of us.

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[Master of Transhuman]

What part of this didn't you understand?

"When we submitted the bug-report, with logs, version numbers, exact details on system setup and what was running, and everything else listed on the "how to file a bug-report" list, we got a response from Theo: "Come on! That's not nearly enough information!" He then closed the post, with no mention of what further information he wanted or needed, and no suggestion as to where else to try."

I've seen this attitude on Linux newsgroups, too, so it doesn't surprise me that BSD nerdboys have the same impatience.

While I see plenty of newbies posting totally inadequate questions on Linux newsgroups, the "How to Ask A Smart Question" document is NOT required reading for everybody on the planet by the age of five. Mostly I've seen it used to avoid dealing with newbie problems that might actually be a challenge to solve.

It also speeds things up if you at least try to be civil while pointing the newbie to the document while at the same time offering suggestions as to possible causes of their problem - something I've found a lot of nerdboys have difficulty comprehending.

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[greed]

Yes, you are "party of the first part", your customer is "party of the second part", and you can start at "party of the third part" for other persons or entities after that.

But, only one of the alternatives in section three says "any third party"--option B. Option C allows you to distribute the binary you recieved under that option and propagate it--and only noncommercially and only if you received it in binary form (and therefore couldn't modify the source).

If you use option A and provide the source code with your binaries, you are not exposed to the "any third party" clause.

But anyone you give the source and binary to can then give the source and binary to anyone else, for any fee they can get someone to pay. (The only restriction on fees is for obtaining a copy of the source once you have obtained a binary-only copy.)

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[Anonymous Coward]

`grep -ri fuck /usr/src/sys` (that's the kernel) on OpenBSD 3.7 returns lines from 2 files.

compat/svr4/svr4_misc.c:

#if defined(COMPAT_LINUX) && defined(i386)
if (SCARG(uap, egid) > 60000) {
/*
* One great fuckup deserves another. The Linux people
* made this their personality system call. But we can't
* tell if a binary is SVR4 or Linux until they do that
* system call, in some cases. So when we get it, and the
* value is out of some magical range, switch to Linux
* emulation and pray.
*/
extern struct emul emul_linux_elf;

dev/ic/ncr53c9x.c:

if (sc->sc_phase != MESSAGE_IN_PHASE) {
int i = (NCR_READ_REG(sc, NCR_FFLAG)
& NCRFIFO_FF);
/*
* Things are seriously fucked up.
* Pull the brakes, i.e. reset
*/
printf("%s: target didn't send tag: %d bytes in fifo\n",
sc->sc_dev.dv_xname, i);

Searching for ' hell ' finds 10 matches. One example is in dev/pci/if_sis.c:

/*
* Reading the MAC address out of the EEPROM on
* the NatSemi chip takes a bit more work than
* you'd expect. The address spans 4 16-bit words,
* with the first word containing only a single bit.
* You have to shift everything over one bit to
* get it aligned properly. Also, the bits are
* stored backwards (the LSB is really the MSB,
* and so on) so you have to reverse them in order
* to get the MAC address into the form we want.
* Why? Who the hell knows.
*/

If a reporter wanted to take it out of context, "Why? Who the hell knows." would be a great line.

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[electroniceric]

Don't give Linus short shrift. In spite of his occasional barbs, he is by all accounts an excellent leader and motivator of people. Part of the reason that megacorps can get involved with Linux is that they know they and their devs can interact sanely with Linus.

And the BSD control-everything mentality, while good for building secure routers, doesn't do much to encourage the hobbyists and hackers that are the backbone of the OSS movement. Linus and Stallman both deserve a lot of credit for understanding that you need to build a team (massive, distributed, uncoordinated, internet-based) to build a platform, and laid the groundwork to do that. That's more than just a tolerable personality, it's an understanding of people.

Finally, how about some jeers for Daniel Lyons, who will do just about anything he can to rain on the Linux parade, including publishing a rant by a left-out OSS leader widely reputed to be something of a crank.

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[Peaceful_Patriot]

I use and love adblock. I also understand that ads help pay the bills for the websites I visit and enjoy. My general rule of thumb regarding ads is simple: If it moves, blinks, flashes, or annoys me in any way, I nuke the ad, block the server and never see it again. I usually don't block ads that just sit there quietly. I have even clicked on a few of google's textual, relevent, non intrusive ads.

Like most other issues, I feel the reasonable ground is a shade of grey and lies somewhere in the middle between black and white. (i.e. 'All ads are bad / all ads are good.')

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[David Gould]

Its times like this that you have to link to penny arcade

Heh. Man, one of these days, I'm gonna add penny arcade to my list of regular webcomics. Aw, who am I kidding?

...BSD guys are a lot like Linux guys, except they have kissed girls.

The way I like to say it is: "BSD: It's like Linux, but for grown-ups!"

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[c0d3h4x0r]

No, that is not it, and you just don't get it... it isn't about having knowledge, it's about finding it. Asking a FAQ on a mailing list should get you flamed any where. "Asking" stupid questions like "I installed OpenBSD on my Dell but got no sound k thnx" sould also.

All anyone on misc@openbsd ever asks is that you do your homework (read the FAQ, search the archives, serch google), and if that fails then ask an intelligent question.

Actually, you and nearly all geeks just don't get it. Most non-geek people don't even know where to start looking or how to find the answers for themselves, so it's not their fault for asking "stupid" questions. They have to start somewhere, and the most obvious way and place is the e-mail list associated with the thing they are having trouble with.

Besides that, when newbies post vague or uninformed questions, it's not because they are looking for an answer. They are looking for a person to step in and solve their problem for them end-to-end, not a single answer to a single problem that is only one part of a larger hassle. In short, non-geeks just expect shit to work without hassle, and when it doesn't, they expect the people who created the shit to take responsibility for making it work. Non-geeks don't WANT to learn or to be educated -- what they want is for shit to work. And it's wrong to belittle them or look down upon them for holding those priorities. Instead, you should be catering to those priorities.

And why is it wrong to belittle or look down on those people who just want it to work without hassle? Because if you, the GEEK, stop and think about it, you actually want the same thing. Sure, you may love coding and problem-solving, and you may know Linux like the back of your hand, but I'm sure that even you can think of an instance in which you got PO'd at some other piece of software you were simply trying to install and use to get something else done when it didn't work smoothly and you had to go off on a 2-hour sidetrack to deal with that instead of getting your originally intended goal accomplished. So yeah, you're really not so different from the non-geeks after all. Chew on that for a while.

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[c0d3h4x0r]

But that is the price of free software.

Then it's a hidden cost that needs to be honestly and accurately stated up-front. I get sick of seeing various Linux distributions touting themselves as "easy to use" when in fact you have to resort to arcane command-line tactics to accomplish the simplest of daily needs, or understand technical things like package dependencies or disk partitions just to install. If expectations were set realistically up front by the distros, stating something to the effect of, "This software is really only suitable for computer experts and you shouldn't expect it to be as easy as a Mac or Windows", then people wouldn't walk into it expecting it to be user-friendly.

If you have a problem that is interesting to the developers, the free support is better than anything you can buy. However, there is no guarantee that your problems have any interest to anyone else.

And that's exactly the major impediment that prevents the software from meetings the needs of ordinary people and which prevents ordinary people from having success with the software.

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[atriusofbricia]

And why is it that people expect a very complicated and flexible piece of equipment to require no knowledge or skill on their part to use? The reason your toaster is so easy to use is that it does one thing, and only one thing. Computers will never be that easy to use, which is what you seem to want, until they do one thing and one thing only. That's why PS2s are so easy to use. They can't do anything but play games. Is that what you really want? Do you really think that most people want a machine that can write email and browse the web, and that's it?

I've known people who said that's all they want. And within twenty minutes of having something that can only do those things, they'd be pitching a fit. Why can't it play music? Why can't it burn CDs? Why can't it edit graphics? Why can't it do this, that, or the other?!?!?! Flexibility and some complexity are linked hand in hand.

Re:"Scathing" != "Untrue"

[sirket]

That's funny because when I went to install my server FreeBSD supported the hardware and Linux didn't. This was when the first I2O RAID adapters were coming out and I tried numerous Linux kernels and patches to get it working. None of the versions I tried would boot or run reliably for any length of time. So I went and tried FreeBSD which had a "beta" version of the drivers for this hardware. Lo and behold it worked flawlessly for over a year before I upgraded to a newer kernel.

I contacted the devloper to see why it was still listed as beta and he responded by sending me numerous pages of documentation and stress tests that had been performed along with a performance analysis. Basically he said that it was still listed as beta because he wasn't sure it was perfect and although he had not seen a crash yet with the latest version he had some more stress testing to perform before he would release it as a final verison.

It was then that I realized I needed to be running FreeBSD and not Linux. The Linux kernels I tried all listed I2O support (including my card) but some would not see the card at all and some would see it but crash. Linux listed support (it was not marked as a beta driver) for a card that it did not work with. FreeBSD did not list any support for a card it worked perfectly with. That, in a nutshell, is the difference between the two.

At last!!!

[DaHat]

You mean for once I am not a loser? I never thought I'd see the day when running Windows was... cool.

Re:At last!!!

[bodester17]

I was always imbarrased for using windows. I would hide in the corner at coffee shops with my toshiba laptop hiding from the disapointing eyes of those harolded mac users. But now I am free. Loosers use linux, not windows. Hurray!!

Re:At last!!!

[SoupIsGood Food]

You assume that being a loser is a monopoly, an understandable assumption, as you run windows. No, I do hate to break this to you, but many people can all be losers at once, and compete with each other for uncoolness and anti-cred. OpenBSD users see Linux users as losers, but thet also see you as a loser. No coolness for you today, try tomorrow.

SoupIsGood Food

Re:At last!!!

[l3v1]

You mean for once I am not a loser? I never thought I'd see the day when running Windows was... cool.

Aninteresting point to see the world from you got there :] Since an OpenBSD guru sees Linux users as loosers you suddenly feel that running Windows is cool ? :) Some logic profs would surely enjoy listen to your reasoning :D

Re:At last!!!

[rvega]

Toshiba? What a loser...

Re:At last!!!

[The Other White Boy]

I was always imbarrased for using windows. I would hide in the corner at coffee shops with my toshiba laptop hiding from the disapointing eyes of those harolded mac users. But now I am free. Loosers use linux, not windows. Hurray!!

...wow. i'm not normally one to go nazi on spelling, but good lord.

Re:At last!!!

[Quiet_Desperation]

Well, you didn't read the companion piecein last month's Forbes titled "Windows Is For Childraping Dogfuckers Who Drive Giant SUVs Over Baby Ducks"

Hey! It's a joke! :D

Re:At last!!!

[hype7]

You're cool by a process of elimination if you're not represented in this photo

-- james

Re:At last!!!

[ConceptJunkie]

Hey, I use Windows and I resent the implication that I drive an SUV.

Re:At last!!!

[ninewands]

I seem to detect an irony meter in desparate need of recalibration. :)

Classy Response to Theo by Linus Torvalds

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article:

Torvalds, via e-mail, says De Raadt is "difficult" and declined to comment further.

I must say, Linus really comes across as a classy, quality person. It takes mature restraint to deal with "difficult" people like Theo, and Linus does so with class.

Re:Classy Response to Theo by Linus Torvalds

[JohnFluxx]

Actually the worst part is that Theo is often right, which means you do have to actually listen to him rather than the easier just ignore him.

Re: Classy Response to Theo by Linus Torvalds

[Black Parrot]

> > Torvalds, via e-mail, says De Raadt is "difficult" and declined to comment further.

> I must say, Linus really comes across as a classy, quality person. It takes mature restraint to deal with "difficult" people like Theo, and Linus does so with class.

He knows he can count on us to fill in the details.

Re:Classy Response to Theo by Linus Torvalds

[47PHA60]

OpenBSD is a technical marvel. There is nothing else I would use for a firewall than OpenBSD, and as a router it has been replacing our Cisco systems one at a time. I buy their CDs every release to help support the project.

I use Linux as my desktop, and would not use OpenBSD unless I had endless hours to maintain my system. Just getting X to run reminds me of Linux in 1996. Linux is also easier to maintain depending on the distro.

If you disagree with any of that, fine.

As for behaviour, Mr. De Raadt is seriously inconsistent. In the past he has been quite rude to people who defend the GPL, in one post telling Richard Stallman to "bugger off." It's pretty immature. He has every right to say what he wants, but I have never seen him actually explain why the Linux kernel is "crap." He makes vague statements like "most people can't write 10 lines of C code;" when he is asked how to program with security in mind like OpenBSD does, he says he can't explain it, that you just have to learn it yourself. Again, all within his rights, but now he looks like nothing but a PR flack to be used by a hack like Dan Lyons. Then you go look at the project goals of OpenBSD. My favorite is that politics is secondary to technical merit. That would seem to imply that you can explain your point of view without insulting people who disagree with you, or treating a rival like an enemy of some sort.

And for historical perspective: look at a timeline of UNIX development, and you will see one thing very clearly, the fact that none of the Free BSD systems were released until well after GCC. If only for that, people should be more respectful of Richard Stallman, who started the GNU project by himself in 1984, long before the AT&T vs UC BSD lawsuit.

Score...

[Paiway]

-5 Flamebait

Hoo Boy

[TripMaster Monkey]

Talk about throwing gasoline on the fire...why would DeRaat say such hateful things?

From TFA:

De Raadt makes a rival open source operating system called OpenBSD.

Ahh.

Here's another quote from TFA:

"Linux people do what they do because they hate Microsoft. We do what we do because we love Unix," De Raadt says.

Apparently, you also do what you do because you hate Linux...

Don't be hatin'...

Re:Hoo Boy

[killmenow]

I know a lot of *BSD people who don't care for Linux, and a lot of Linux people who don't care for *BSD.

And I know several people who provide *BSD and Linux services as consultants as well as a number of what I'll just call *BSD or Linux advocates. It has been my experience, however useless an anecdote may be, that a lot of "Linux people" appreciate the *BSDs and are willing to show some respect to them and their advocates even though the reverse is not true...again, in my experience.

Perhaps, this has something to do with many Linux advocates *also* being advocates of building strong communities...whereas, many *BSD advocates are less concerned with community.

IMHO, YMMV, OMGWTFBBQ.

Shocking News!

[GypC]

Theo De Raadt Abrasive and Opinionated! Film at 11

Theo has never run Linux

[pebs]

The funny thing is he has never run Linux. Quoting this interview:

Theo de Raadt: I don't know. I have never run Linux.

Re:Theo has never run Linux

[mrm677]

Theo de Raadt: I don't know. I have never run Linux.

Torvalds says the same thing about Windows. I suggest that creators and active developers of open-source operating systems should start using rival systems to learn and carry over the best practices. This is quite common in industry and the attitude displayed in these quotes show arrogance and ignorance.

Re:Theo has never run Linux

[Phleg]

No. No no no no no. I'm going to borrow from Joel Spolsky for a minute, but it shouldn't matter one iota what your competitors are doing. Listen to your customers, not your competitors. Your customers will let you know what they really want that your competitors have, and anything else isn't worth looking at.

Re:Theo has never run Linux

[iabervon]

Linus only works on the kernel (and a couple of tools, but not equivalents of what Windows comes with), and the Windows kernel is not accessible to users. There aren't really any practices of Windows, best or otherwise, that he'd be able to carry over.

Re:Theo has never run Linux

[dabadab]

I fail to see how running MS Office on Win XP could give Linus some insight into how the VM of Windows works.

Re:Theo has never run Linux

[Arkaein]

it shouldn't matter one iota what your competitors are doing. Listen to your customers, not your competitors. Your customers will let you know what they really want that your competitors have, and anything else isn't worth looking at.

Sorry, but this is a really dumb attitude. While it's a poor approach to copy feature willy-nilly, it's worse to ignore expereince, however it is gained. I think you've likely taken a Spolsky idea and warped it into something he himself wouldn't agree with. Ignorance is never a virtue, and should not be sought after.

Customers don't always know what they want, or what is possible (or feasible). A competing product is evidence of what is possible and how well it works, and can provide key insights for new designs. Chances are your competitors have thought of a few good ideas that you haven't. A customer may not be aware or fully informed about the competition; if you truly want to provide something better then you should be keeping abreast of new ideas so that you can share them with a customer.

I use the word customer loosely here, mainly because it is what was used in the above post, but what is really meant is audience, and applies to anything which will be used by others.

Re:Theo has never run Linux

[malikvlc]

But Linus is head of kernel development. Windows' kernel is closed source, so mucking around in a Windows environment won't really give him any insight into windows kernel "best practices".

And one really can't overlook that Windows EULA. Would the creators and developers of open-source OSes volunteer themselves for that enslavement?

If I was Theo de Raadt

[Raindance]

I'd be angry too. About how the Forbes article portrayed me as a raving lunatic out for blood, after giving what was probably a thoughtful interview.

All the article consisted of was trotting Theo out for choice quotes about how Linux sucks, and a tiny bit of BSD history. Only 2 out of the 16 paragraphs even started to cover *why* Theo thinks the way he does. The rest is tabloid-style trash-talk and what seems to be an ADD-inspired history lesson. There's nothing approaching a coherent argument.

I'm giving Theo the benefit of the doubt on this one- he probably gave a fleshed-out argument then Forbes eviscerated it. Even if that's not the case, they should have written a better article. This is awfully shitty journalism.

Re:If I was Theo de Raadt

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, but... this is Forbes magazine - it's like the equivalent of "Marie Claire" for executives, except without the fun quizzes telling you what technique to try in bed next month.

Re:If I was Theo de Raadt

[Alioth]

No - Theo really does talk like this. He shoots from the hip very often. He's basically a walking PR disaster.

But he is more often than not right.

I strongly disagree with him on one point - "Linux is for those who hate Microsoft, and BSD is for those who love UNIX" - all the people I know who use Linux do so because they want a functional Unix-like OS, not because they hate Microsoft. The lawsuit he mentions has much more to do with Linux's popularity than hating Microsoft.

I use both OpenBSD and Linux, and I like them both but they are different tools for different jobs. I would never use Linux for a firewall - iptables is awful - poorly documented and has a terrible syntax that means you have to dive into random HOWTO docs on the internet to get anything done. On the other hand, pf is well thought out, everything you need is right there in the manpage, and the syntax is a lot more straightforward. On the other hand, OpenBSD is simply not much of a desktop OS - it doesn't have the polish that even Debian has for that use (and that's saying something). But as a secure web server, mail server, firewall etc. OpenBSD is fantastic, and I have to hand it to Theo.

Re:If I was Theo de Raadt

[Lucractius]

Thats the problem These days people bitch about not getting EVERYTHING.

I have no expectation that my "desktop" OS is a great server. I have no expectation that My server can play games, I have no expectation that my Sparc machine be anything other than more screen real estate.

As parent said. Linus and OpenBSD are very different Tools. As are FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Plan9, and Linux. Each has a role, (ok plan9 .. seems a little roleless but it does have uses ;) ) if i want a kick ass web server im going to go FreeBSD every god damn time cause i know it has the features. If i want to shoehorn some porgram onto my PS2 Dreamcast, Cobalt Qube, Router, Japanese toilet with LCD display or whatever the hell else with a CPU some ram and and some bootable storage, then damn strait ill go with NetBSD unless by some amazing chance theres some platform it isnt ported to, partialy functional on, or cant be gotten onto with help from the community. Then ill try porting linux that way. If i want THE best (my opionion is not a fully qualified fact) Security consious OS for creating a router, remote access box, Network Gateway, Firewall, etc. its openBSD all the way. Linux makes a damn good Desktop OS with little kicking around, these days its almost as easy to get a linux desktop as windows no matter HOW you setup linux (its only easier for windows cause its Built in and cant be gotten rid of, and thats not a good thing)

People need to start understanding that Open Source, means all these OSes work together. There are no MS related hassles involved in Transparent X serving over the net. SSH works from one OS to the other just the same. You choose the os you want for the reasons you want it.

But people please think about WHY you chose that OS and then dont just riticule others cause its not "yours"

(I use Windows XP Pro, Gentoo on Sparc, FreeBSD NetBSD and Debian. So i do have a good idea about this :P )

And how would he know?

[jdaluz]

In a NewsForge interview a couple of days ago de Raadt was asked about technical comparisons between Linux and BSD and replied, "I don't know. I have never run Linux."

http://os.newsforge.com/os/05/06/09/2132233.shtml? tid=152&tid=8&tid=2

Suddenly, he's an expert on how bad Linux is?

Re:And how would he know?

[JamesTRexx]

He has commented on how messy the code's supposed to be (read also the comment on the bottom of TFA), therefore he doesn't have to run it to have an opinion of it.

Theo

[evenprime]

Theo is openbsd's greatest strength (a fanatical security coder) and their worst handicap (a PR nightmare)

Dan Lyons

[Perl-Pusher]

Dan Lyons has made a career out of trashing linux in Forbes.

Dan's Resume

Re:Dan Lyons

[jakepunk]

Yes, Forbes and Dan Lyons should be taken with a grain of salt when it comes to Linux. Dan Lyons is the columnist who finds fault in every piece of technology he reviews regardless of manufacturer. He never has anything positive to say, and it doesn't take much talent to be a cynic. In a more general sense, Forbes takes the editorial stance that OSS is equivalent to communism. Forbes fails to realize that OSS wasn't started as a capitalistic endeavor, and therefore sees it as a threat to technology and business models.

Nitpicking

[allenw]

I think the coverage for the BSDs is great. Really. I think it will help them in the corporate mindset. But, Dan Lyons, the person who has the byline, really should have had someone technical proofread his article. Only three open source BSDs? When did Solaris switch back to using a BSD kernel? That last one is particularly embarrassing given the amount of coverage Sun is getting with the whole opensolaris thing.

BSD may be great for admins, but OpenBSD isn't

[chunderfest]

I ran an OpenBSD system at work for years. There's one single reason that I ran screaming to Debian at the first opportunity: lack of binary security patches. OpenBSD happily distributes their releases on CD-ROM, but the instant there's a patch needed for some obscure library you've never heard of, you have to rebuild your entire libc subsystem from scratch. With (as of several years back at least) almost no documentation.

Doing this on the older Sun hardware they claim to support is incredibly painful. Until Theo changes this one way or the other (preferably towards providing security patches in the same form as releases) I have to consider them a developer-only product, not a use-in-the-real-world one.

Oh yeah, and there's the wipe-and-reinstall mentality for each release too.

Pot/Kettle

[TomorrowPlusX]

Sure, I'm not a linux or BSD guy. I run OS X, I'm out of all these loops. But get this quote:

Torvalds, via e-mail, says De Raadt is "difficult" and declined to comment further.

I've tried never to say this on slashdot, but: LOL.

All the way to the bank...

[qweqazfoo]

Too bad Forbes wouldn't know who Theo was if it wasn't for Linux.

Remember folks, UNIX was fragmented and dying before Linux became mainstream. BSD and GNU were nothing but obscure academic projects. The popularity of Linux brought UNIX to a whole new generation of users, and BSD has benefited from the uprising as much as anyone. Even the big boys, like Solaris and AIX, are trying to be more like Linux.

And the whole quality thing is a myth. Linus approaches the kernel with the approach of an engineer, and the rest of Linux mirrors this approach. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to work. Theo thinks of himself as an artist, and his arrogance does as much to hurt BSD as it does to help it.

Re:All the way to the bank...

[TheRaven64]

Remember folks, UNIX was fragmented and dying before Linux became mainstream. BSD and GNU were nothing but obscure academic projects.

Nice revisionist history. BSD UNIX was used in a lot of places before the AT&T lawsuit, and portions of it incorporated into other operating systems regularly. Time elapsed, and high-traffic web sites like Hotmail were powered by FreeBSD, while this little Linux thing was being touted as the next big thing.

Even the big boys, like Solaris and AIX, are trying to be more like Linux.

No, they're not. IBM is trying to cut costs by selling Linux instead of AIX, since they don't have to pay for Linux development. Solaris is still a long way ahead of Linux in many areas, and is trying to appeal to the generation of purchasers who bleat `Linux good, UNIX baaaad'.

And the whole quality thing is a myth.

The OpenBSD folk believe that code quality and security are inseparable - security holes are just a particular subset of bugs. They have a process of constant code review to fix any bugs, even those that are not directly exploitable. Compare the number of Linux exploits this year to the number of OpenBSD exploits ever, and then tell my it's a myth.

It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to work.

Work for whom? Work when? Is it okay if it just works on the system it was developed on, when it only does exactly the things the developer thought about? Or would you rather have a little more stability that that?

Theo thinks of himself as an artist, and his arrogance does as much to hurt BSD as it does to help it

Theo may not have the best people skills, but that doesn't make him wrong. And his arrogance does seem to generate a lot more awareness of the project than if he were a nonentity.

Re:All the way to the bank...

[evilviper]

Remember folks, UNIX was fragmented and dying before Linux became mainstream.

Complete bullshit. You must be the "BSD is dying" troll.

If you'd even read the article, DeRaadt clearly explains the situation. The AT&T lawsuit against BSD was scaring developers away from developing the BSD code, and sent them to Linux. If not for that lawsuit, I wouldn't be surprised if FreeBSD was the mainstream free OS.

BSD and GNU were nothing but obscure academic projects.

BSD was not obscure in the slightest, it was a popular commercial Unix distro, and when it was open sourced, it started gaining popularity very quickly.

GNU, though not an OS, had plenty of popularity. Linux was started because of people upset that they couldn't get GNU tools working on Minix. Many Unix vendors were including the GNU tools in their OS before Linux came along.

The popularity of Linux brought UNIX to a whole new generation of users,

Of course, the queston is, if Linux wasn't the one to go mainstream, wouldn't FreeBSD be in it's place, and just as popular?

Re:reasons?

[SolusSD]

please.. it is really way too early for anyone to be taking my post seriously. I read tfa. I still stand by the well known fact that De Raadt has never used unix in his life.

Re:What I don't like about BSD

[mrm677]

1. /usr/local. Everything that you add afterwards goes in there. It's just extra to type. And is apache config in /usr/local/apache/conf or /usr/local/etc/apache/conf ?

Maybe a more experience sys admin can chime in here, but /usr/local is exactly where additional software, not included in the base OS, should be installed. More typing?? For what? /usr/local should be in your path and manually going to this directory should be rare.

There are many reasons why one might _not_ want to use BSD, but this is the silliest yet!

7-11 versus National Bank.

[Nijika]

So the National Bank says to the 7-11, "your security sucks!" The 7-11 says "Yeah but we've got slurpees."

And that's about as much sense as this conversation makes.

Re:What I don't like about BSD

[grimwell]

Ah, grasshopper... take a bath. Data hygiene is a good thing.

Funny, the default mixing of apps and OS in linux distros is what I dis-like the most about linux.

Keeping added apps seperate from the OS highlights the beauty of *nix over windows. With everything you installed after the OS in /usr/local, you can re-install the OS(e.g. partition corruption, junior admin fubar'ing, etc) without having to re-install your apps.

Trust me, I've been there. Windows admin hoses OS, I re-install OS and I'm done. The needed apps are already in place & configured. /usr/local , /opt is a good thing.

Switched from Linux because of a comment?

[cpn2000]

From the article ...

Lok Technologies, a San Jose, Calif.-based maker of networking gear, started out using Linux in its equipment but switched to OpenBSD four years ago after company founder Simon Lok, who holds a doctorate in computer science, took a close look at the Linux source code.

"You know what I found? Right in the kernel, in the heart of the operating system, I found a developer's comment that said, 'Does this belong here?' "Lok says. "What kind of confidence does that inspire? Right then I knew it was time to switch."

So this guy switched from Linux to BSD not because he saw some poorly implemented code, but because of a comment?
That is absolutely insane.

Re:Switched from Linux because of a comment?

[Jacco de Leeuw]

"Does this belong here?" is in OpenBSD too.

Time to switch again...

Re:Switched from Linux because of a comment?

[dozer]

It's pretty clear you're not a programmer.

Forbes bias

[zifferent]

Simply put I think Forbes has a teensy little bias.

From the other Linux related stories box on the page:

Wind River Gets Smart

Peace, Love and Paychecks

Linux Scare Tactics

Kill Bill

Linux Loyalists Leery

Linux's Hit Men

IBM Refuses To Indemnify Linux Users

Red Hat's Mad Matt Vs. Humongous SCO Lawsuit

IBM Takes Linux To A New Level

Why You Won't Be Getting A Linux PC

The Limitations Of Linux

PeopleSoft Jumps On The Linux Train

The Cult Of Linux

Honestly, Forbes obviously is FUD central when it comes to Linux.

Re:Forbes bias

[zifferent]

My letter sent to Daniel Lyons a Senior Editor (see how high this goes up) at Forbes and the author of all these Linux nastygrams:

You seem to have a rather large bias against Linux.

Why is that?

Why is it that Linux should get under your skin so much?

Is it that companies that switch to Linux gain competitive advantage and hence make more money? No, it can't be. Forbes, is a magazine devoted to greed.

I think it's a devotion to suck up to your advertisers e.g. Microsoft. I suppose I can't judge you too harshly since the advertisers are the magazine's bread and butter. What is journalistic integrity in comparison to money?

Theo lacks class

[capn_buzzcut]

No matter what your endeavor is, blabbing about how bad your competitors are shows a lack of professionalism and class. If this is the prevailing mentality of the *BSD guys, I'll stick with Linux just BECAUSE they think it sucks.

Hmmm.

[kc0re]

Disclaimer: I love Linux.

He has a point. We keep adding functionality and then we'll worry about going back and improving the code. Such is human nature however..

Look at the .com boom. We were in such a rush to get everything set up.. hurry hurry! we must get connected!!! hurry!..that we forgot about security. Now we're paying for that mistake, but it's quite interesting.

But I think we should work in both directions. Old code, and new code. But who wants to fix someone else's code?

the real interview and netbsd comments

[richlv]

it seems that the interview itself is not linked :
http://os.newsforge.com/os/05/06/09/2132233.shtml? tid=152&tid=8&tid=2

while reading it, it seems so strange how polite both linus (in previous interview) and Christos Zoulas (netbsd) can be - especially in contrast to raadt.

well, there are some poeple in companies that are never ever again allowed to speak publicly after a single sentence - not so if you own the company, i suppose ;)

Re:BSDs=good stuff, De Raadt=nuts, it's the licens

[Ingolfke]

As I understand it: stuff you contribute to BSDs can be pirated by msft, and others, and put into their binary code.

The code is not pirated. The BSD license allows for distribution and modification of the code w/o the restrictions that the GPL places on code (namely that you must keep the code open).

Linux development model is different than OpenBSD

[syslog]

As Theo says, his 60 person development team puts out quality code. Whereas Linux evolves by thousands of people putting in code that sometimes works, sometimes doesn't.

OpenBSD's approach reminds me of "regular" CPU development, where all elements of the CPU have to just work. Linux's approach reminds me more of the new CPUs being worked on which are fault-tolerant, simply because there are many, average quality pieces in it, and the system as a whole can recover from some pieces failing.

I guess what I am saying is, what happens if a few of "Theo's 60" don't pull their weight anymore? What if some knock off? He has a problem. Linux does not have the same issues simply because there are so many people who are allowed to step in and fix things, even if they are not aces like "Theo's 60". I think in the long run, the Linux development model is better, and will enable Linux to survive long after the high-quality OpenBSD is dust.

BTW, I get to be the guy who coined the "Theo's 60" phrase ;)

naeem

The prom

[beforewisdom]

This guy is one of the people behind Open BSD which wants to fill the gnu/linux niche and for various unfair ( and fair ) reasons missed the boat.

This is coming off as jealous in the article, like the girl ignored at the high school dance who decides to talk trash about the girl the guys are dancing with.

He comes off looking bad and were I involved with OpenBSD it would be my wish for him to stop talking as his behavior is a bad reflection on that good project.

He is acting like a child.

Re:BSDs=good stuff, De Raadt=nuts, it's the licens

[Zemplar]

"GPL offers a little more protection"

What?? Mac OS X is one of the mose secure OS's around, and it wouldn't exist without FreeBSD and their associated BSD license. Now if everyone used Mac OS X, the computing world be much safer as a whole.

In fact, if you contribute code to BSD project and "msft, and other" use this code, that use is encouraged and not considered "pirated"!

Code comments vs public comments

[A nonymous Coward]

What will Simon Lok do? He doesn't like what he finds buried in the Linux comments, so he switched to OpenBSD; will he now switch again because of Theo's public comments? Does Theo actually inspire confidence, that he is so angry all the time, and that he has time to spare to disparage the competition?

Sour grapes indeed.

Re:Code comments vs public comments

[slurpster]

Simon Lok knows computer science right? Then he should knows people put comments in code to indicate that this fuctionality may be better moved elsewhere.

It usually means they are thinking ahead at when they revise the code on what to IMPROVE and not that they don't know what it is doing!

I have been writing code for ages, and I have many such segment ripe for improvement.

Re:try it first

[mindstrm]

Of course it is... like FreeBSD, it's a core set of tools that are updated as a whole. And OpenBSD is even more focused, with less clutter than FreeBSD, which is already quite tight.

Of course it's more coherently engineered.. BSD is about updating a core set of libraries and tools. When we say "OpenBSD" we don't just mean a kernel.. we mean the entire package.. similar to if we say "Debian Linux".

Linux isn't "well architected" because there is no "Linux".. there is a kernel, developed by some people, and a bunch of tools and libraries develoepd by a bunch of different people, which are together rolled into distributions by yet OTHER people.

Pirate ?

[Animaether]

Is this the seafaring, raping, murdering pirate ?
Or the copyright infringement pirate ?
Or the license infringement pirate ?

You do realize that none of the above apply, right ?
If you contribute to a BSD under a BSD-style license then yes... others can use your code in their closed-source products.
Don't like it ? Don't release under that license.

As for the GPL.. crikey - which one ? which version ? There's too many of them out there already. You mean GPL 2.0, I take it - which doesn't stop a company from "pirating" your code by using it only internally on a webservice and just spitting out the results of the code. That's one of those things GPL 3.0 is supposed to address, I guess ? whatever

Re:What I don't like about BSD

[pdbogen]

For the record, I agree with parent; /usr/local is a very good thing. Now, then. I'd just like to point out that the situation is worse in Windows. "But," you say, "Anything I install goes in C:\Program Files!" And this is true. Except for the configuration, which goes into The Registry (cue evil-sounding organ music). This here is probably the worst idea ever. "Hey, let's have a single place to throw all of the configuration data that needs to be completely parsed repeatedly (I.e., when right-clicking on the desktop), and have no simple, clean way to differentiate who owns what so that entries can be removed when the software is! GRRRRRRRRRRR-EAT!

Zealots come out swinging...

[Mephisto_kur]

We all know the guy is a bit off. Why is it that the Linux community can't listen to criticism, tho?

You talk about usability. The Linux people come out with "just because it isn't like Microsoft doesn't mean it's wrong."

The excuses are rampant in the Linux world. Do I use Linux? Sure. When I can get it running. Even modern distros are kludgey and clunky. Half the time the GUI does nothing but provide useless and cryptic error messages. I have a Win2k print server. I have tried (easily) a dozen distros to get things working. One will see the network. One won't without downgrading Samba. One will, but can't access anything. One sees everything and accesses everything but can't print. Sound is the same way. Some have issues with setting resolutions on the video side, others have other problems.

There are too many distros all in it for themselves. Even the ones that use one of the main distros as their base. Debian, Red Hat, what have you, all are kludgey and unrefined.

I want Linux to work. Desperately want it to get out there and do good. But it isn't going to, especially if every response to criticism is not "okay, let me see if I can work on that" and continues to be "Its better than Crapple and Microshit!"

No one wants another Microsoft Windows, but some friggin' usability isn't going to hurt your cause, and you may even be able to swing it without giving up your anti-Microsoft rhetoric. You can be different and still be intuitive and intelligent.

Re:Zealots come out swinging...

[Nasarius]

I want Linux to work. Desperately want it to get out there and do good. But it isn't going to, especially if every response to criticism is not "okay, let me see if I can work on that"

No no no. You want something done, you file a bug report in the appropriate place. Speaking as someone who does work on an open-source project, our time is not infinite. We'll work on what we have to, and what we want to. Anything else, you'd better put it on our to-do list. Want something done faster? Pay us! We're not your slaves.

anti-Microsoft rhetoric

When have you ever seen this from open-source developers (ie, the people who are actually working on it)? I see it from users all the time, but very rarely from the devs.

Recent FreeBSD convert

[uofitorn]

I started using FreeBSD three weeks ago on my desktop at work. Every day I use it I become more and more impressed by it, the integrated userland and kernel are like a breath of fresh air compared to linux. In fact, I'm having such a good experience with it, I already put it on a few sparc64 machines I'm setting up for an NSM platform. For anyone who's frustrated by the million linux distros and their slight incompatabilities, I'd suggest giving FreeBSD a try - it's really easy to get into, and you might just like it!

My kneejerk reaction

[Cytlid]

...was who is this clown on Forbes bashing Linux? Then I saw it was an OpenBSD thing... and went, oh, nothing new there.

Then I felt dumb when I realized it was *the* OpenBSD guy. But I still didn't feel so bad.

The best part of the article was the mention of "In a sort of hacker equivalent of the Ford-versus-Chevy rivalry..." which is exactly what it boils down to.

So to add to the petty bickering, I've decided I like Linux more only because I've had more exposure to it, and I like the mascot more. Of course, here I was thinking it was the little Devil thing, but I guess thats just my confusion of the BSDs, eh?

No excuse....

[jsimon12]

Actually the worst part is that Theo is often right, which means you do have to actually listen to him rather than the easier just ignore him.

Reguardless of whether Theo is right or wrong he should not be such an asshat. Honestly have you ever dealt with the guy? If you don't see eye to eye with him he treats you like a giant turd. WTF? This is why it is good to have social skills and to know when to keep your mouth shut and when to open it. Theo from my experiance appears to have niether.

Lunix For Losers

[elohim]

The title I submitted this with was "de Raadt Blasts Lunix in Forbes Interview"... Blame Zonk for the "Lunix For Losers" title.

Re:Lunix For Losers

[Exaton]

I believe you do well to point that out.

I blame Zonk for a lot of things included, but not limited to : many story duplicates, sensationalism bordering on disinformation, and often posting stories that plainly just don't know what they're talking about.

I realize one would have to Be New Here not to expect such stuff from /. , but Zonk really pushes it to extremes. I can't be bothered to go and fetch a recent very blatant example of an article which was obviously way out of his field of expertise, but I'm sure I wasn't the only one who noticed that it consisted entirely of stuff he squeaked out of his ass.

I admonished him very severely a month ago concerning dupes, and whether he saw the comment or not, I do believe he let fewer through after that, at least for a time ; somehow the positive impression hasn't stuck with me.

Anyway, I now start looking out for him in the news title the same way I keep an eye out for Roland Piquepaille, you know ?

Mod me whatever. I just say what I think out lout, and without AC cover.

Bullshit again, Dan.

[Erris]

What a hack job. I'm sure Dan Lyons, who has a long history of Linux hatred, pumped Theo and then took everything out of context. It's possible he made most of the quotes up, as Microsoft lovers will. Still, people read Forbes, so I'll respond to what's published.

"It's terrible," De Raadt says. "Everyone is using it, and they don't realize how bad it is. And the Linux people will just stick with it and add to it rather than stepping back and saying, 'This is garbage and we should fix it.'"

The bottom line is that it works better than commercial software. Anyone can look at the source code and see the comments, which are blunt about what needs fixing and how crappy the hardware is. Even commercial Linux rocks next to popular alternatives. For ease of installation, use, relative protection from mal and spyware, you can't beat a distribution like Mepis. Winners can step up to pure Debian, "losers" can fall all the way down to Caldera Open Linux and still do better than what 90% of the world uses.

There's also a difference in motivation. "Linux people do what they do because they hate Microsoft. We do what we do because we love Unix," De Raadt says. The irony, however, is that while noisy Linux fanatics make a great deal out of their hatred for Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ), De Raadt says their beloved program is starting to look a lot like what Microsoft puts out. "They have the same rapid development cycle, which leads to crap," he says.

That's what Micrososoft would have everyone believe, and so Microsoft is worth hating. People use Linux for freedom and the superior performance it brings. Study after study show this. Why people like Dan Lyons don't get it is beyond me, except that he might be a Fanboy.

Let's look back at other nasty junk he's written:

• seems to have noticed Red Hat in 1999, cites M$ hatred as reason d'etre.
• Big SCO supporter who's finally turned around? I doubt it. His long series of BS about SCO is where I remember him from. What a HUGE TROLL.
• Others use him as a case study of what's wrong with Tech Journalism. They are being generous and ignoring his pro-M$ slant.
• Here's another guy who's being generous.

Dan Lyons, you are a shill. I dare you to make the entire tapes of your interview with Theo available. Anything less is second hand BS and the kind of thing the web makes obsolete.

Linux confidence boosting measures

[mukund]

"You know what I found? Right in the kernel, in the heart of the operating system, I found a developer's comment that said, 'Does this belong here?' "Lok says. "What kind of confidence does that inspire? Right then I knew it was time to switch."

Damn. Somebody remove that comment.

Re:What I don't like about BSD

[TheRaven64]

/usr/local is for stuff that is not included in the base distribution. This means that you can (for example) install the base system on a hard drive, but NFS-mount /usr/local from a central file server, meaning that you only need to update applications in one place. Stuff that is part of the base system is configured in /etc, stuff that is not is in /usr/local/etc. Stuff that is needed in single user mode is in /bin, stuff that is not needed in single user mode, but is in the base system (i.e. maintained by the same group that maintains your kernel etc.) is in /usr/bin, while everything else is in /usr/local/bin.

The exception to this is on OpenBSD, where Apache is run from a chroot environment by default, and so everything related to Apache is in /var/www, which adds to security.

I personally prefer having interfaces named after the driver, because it makes it easier to identify a particular interface. On Linux, you have to read the dmesg output (or similar) to know whihc eth0 and eth1 are. With *BSD, I can tell that rl0 is the cheap RealTek card I bought to connect to the cable modem, while fxp0 is the Intel card that connects to the Internal network. I previously had to tweak something on a Linux gateway which sat between 4 networks, and I had no idea whether it was eth0, eth1, eth2, or eth3 that connected to the outside world. Of course, as others have mentioned, it is possible to change the names to more sensible ones.

Confidence vs. bravado.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Bravado is never being wrong, even when you'd say someone else was if it were anyone else but you. It's never bothering to be introspective, to question yourself or your actions.

Confidence is knowing you'll get there eventually, even if you aren't there yet. You're allowed to ask questions along the way like "Should this be here?".

I would much rather rely on software that is like the latter, than I would the former.

Besides, I bet Simon Lok maintains a few hundred windows machines too, but since he can't read those comments at all...

not news...

[Daytona955i]

This would be like Bill Gates saying linux is for losers.

Let's face it, Raadt is pissed off that linux has supassed OpenBSD in terms of userbase. A little resentment? I think so.

Factoring

[Tony]

If the developer isn't confident about even *where* some part of the code should be, and code from that confused developer actually made it into the kernel despite that confusion, why should a user have confidence in it?

A specific feature may be implemented in many ways. If there are several equivelent or nearly-equivelent ways, it makes sense to question your implementation decision. It does not necessarily imply the developer was unsure if "it" really belonged in that particular location; it is far more likely that the developer was unsure if there wasn't a better way of doing it that he was overlooking.

Sometimes writing code, something just doesn't feel right, even if you know your implementation is just fine. You have the feeling there's a better way. Usually, when you come back to it later, the better way is apperant. Often, the better way is simply cleaner code, not a better algorithm.

Comments like that are markers that welcome improvement, not an indication of lack of developer confidence.

Re:What I don't like about BSD

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

If this were a windows fanboy thread, you'd have 20 dozen MCSE bootcamp graduates screaming that you should spend the next 6 months using regmon to figure out which keys are for the app, which aren't. You're also supposed to sacrifice a chicken or something during the folly.

Give me txt file configs any day of the week.

Overstatement

[chrispolarized]

From the article, De Raadt states:

"Linux has never been about quality. There are so many parts of the system that are just these cheap little hacks, and it happens to run."

If Linux just "happens to run", how come it knocks out OpenBSD when it comes to performance? I very much doubt that Linux would win tests like these if "many parts" of its code were low quality and badly designed.

Granted, the test linked to above is soon two years old, and De Raadt refers to style of coding or general code quality rather than raw performance -- which other prominent people also have commented (in a perhaps more balanced way), but the fact that Linux runs is not merely a coincidence, as De Raadt seems to insinuate.

Re:Overstatement

[argent]

If Linux just "happens to run", how come it knocks out OpenBSD when it comes to performance?

Taking shortcuts is often a very effective way to get better performance. OpenBSD is particularly notorious for NOT taking shortcuts even in the BSD world.

Re:BSDs=good stuff, De Raadt=nuts, it's the licens

[Trix]

Whereas, the GPL offers a little more protection.

I think that points up one of the basic philosophical differences between the GPL crowd and the BSD crowd;

• GPL people see the source as something that must be protected from "pirates." (to paraphrase the parent post) If someone makes an improvent to a piece of code, they are required to share with others as they were shared with.
• BSD people seem to believe that any one can use the code however they want (in exchange for due credit). If someone makes an improvement to a piece of code - - and that improvement is not made available - - the BSD folks will just implement something better.

To me, the BSD position is more in line with natural selection; if you write better stuff, you win.

<disclaimer>

• I was a staunch GPL-booster before GNU/Linux was a going concern.
• I am now a happy BSD User.
• I also acknowledge that there is no fanatic like a convert.

</disclaimer>

Re:BSD = fragmented, Linux = unified

[uofitorn]

I can't tell if you're trolling or not.

"However, the difference with linux comes from the unified community behind it: Thousands of distros, hundreds of companies, one kernel."

Thousands of distros, all with their different quirks and slight incompatabilities. I wouldn't call that unified. In FreeBSD, the kernel is quite unified with the userland.

"Maybe its just my perseption but I don't see the same kind of unity from BSD"

From the FreeBSD Handbook: The goals of the FreeBSD Project are to provide software that may be used for any purpose and without strings attached...We believe that our first and foremost "mission" is to provide code to any and all comers, and for whatever purpose, so that the code gets the widest possible use and provides the widest possible benefit. This is, I believe, one of the most fundamental goals of Free Software and one that we enthusiastically support

That seems pretty focused to me, does Linux have a corresponding mission statement or focus?

Programmer comment

[J.R. Random]

At the end of the article:

"You know what I found? Right in the kernel, in the heart of the operating system, I found a developer's comment that said, 'Does this belong here?' "Lok says. "What kind of confidence does that inspire? Right then I knew it was time to switch."

In other words, the Linux kernel had an honest hacker. Every substantial piece of code has some sections that a competent programmer can see should be better organized, factored out, rewritten, deleted as obselete, etc. That doesn't mean it's broken.

Let me quote Theo in a recent interview

[EdMcMan]

"I don't know. I've never used Linux"

Re:Let me quote Theo in a recent interview

[MikeBabcock]

I agree, and I'm a die-hard Linux fan. I'm also a die-hard OpenBSD fan, but for different things.

I love Linux, and as such, I feel pain every time someone says "just fix it yourself". I'm tired of people who know the code inside and out and can't be bothered to document it or help people do something with it or just do it themselves instead of playing with new features nobody cares much about.

Its just selfish, is what it is.

Did you write your software for you and then give it away? Great. Now its in use by a million people, do you care about their opinions? If not, you're a jerk. That's all there is to it. If you don't want the opinions, don't publish it. Period.

But Also...

[EXTomar]

It should also be noted that Torvalds isn't unduly harsh about Windows either. On a couple of occations he has claimed an apathetic view of Windows. Torvalds works on Linux because of Linux and not because of Windows.

Is this stuff really what TdR said or is it Forbes trying to generate click-through by scandal? I can let some of it slide but I would be worried if the leader of an OSS project has a lot of venom for another project. It clouds their decision making.

Theo's being a goober this time

[Roadkills-R-Us]

He blames Linux marketshare on the BSD lawsuit. I'm sorry, but in this case, he sounds foolish. The way BSD was developed and promoted a decade ago had far more to do with Linux' acceptance than the BSD lawsuit.

At the time, *very* few businesses used Linux. Well under 1%, probably more like 1% of 1% of 1%. At any rate, if you wanted to use a free *nix OS, you had three choices besides Linux:

1) Paying a commercial BSD license fee (BSDi). This was a bit expensive for an individual, and even the commercial version didn't have drivers for a lot of the better hardware (like reasonably new Dell servers).
2) Writing your own device drivers for anything unsupported.
3) Sending a BSD vendor equipment so they could write your driver.

I wish I could remember which prject was which for #2 and #3. Whichever group was #2, when I asked on the net about a SCSI driver for our server (a friend and I were starting a business on the side), I was flamed by a core BSD developer for not just writing a driver. HELLO! I need to run a business, not write drivers!

I tried really hard to make BSD work on our hardware. I finally gave up and tried Linux at another friend's suggestion. It just worked.

Linux caught on with individuals, then with startups and small projects in larger companies, and only in the past 3-4 years has started to matter in the corporate marketplace at large.

The BSD community chased people away (that's not an indictment of the community, it's just the effect of how things were handled).

There's an old adage that says, "Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door." Even if that were still true (it's generally not), when you start beating them in the head with the mousetrap, don't complain when tehy don't buy it.

I'm not sure if Theo is merely ignorant of history, or is simply choosing to ignore it. Either way, he's in trouble. Those who ignore or forget the lessons of history are doomed to what? Repeat it. Theo's helping screw up BSD's chances all over again.

Re:Theo's being a goober this time

[pohl]

Your recollection of that moment in history is accurate, and I find it interesting because the BSD license is ostensibly "more free" than the GPL, because it doesn't require you to do a damned thing...but the surprising emergent property of using the BSD license is that improvements to the codebase did not flow as freely as did the changes to the linux kernel. There seems to be a tradeoff between the two licenses, and this is how the BSD license can work against you.

less fluff, more meat

[Intrigued]

The sad thing is that for a interview with a brilliant man immersed in details, the article is complete fluff.

This could have been a very interesting article if a little detail was given concerning what issues he has with Linux.

Instead the article relies on vague opinions, sweeping accusations, a bit of bragging and a quote by a computer professor that he dropped Linux because of a single comment he saw in the code.

So much promise, too pathetic.

We need articles that can really generate interesting dialog and journalists that write better than Jerry Springer transcripts.

Good cop, bad cop

[peacefinder]

As Linus says, Theo is difficult. This is well known, and I salute Mr. Torvalds for saying it so succinctly. Linus leads by gentle methods, and he's apparently damn good at it.

Theo does not take that path. He's a zealot... but he's not just a zealot. He's a clear-eyed, effective zealot who manages a solid project that produces the result he intends: a highly secure OS. If you'll recall from that other interview:

Christos Zoulas: I think it goes both ways, especially when it comes to porting Linux to architectures where NetBSD is already ported to or vice versa. Due to the relative size of both projects and the wealth of drivers on Linux, I would say that it is more common that NetBSD developers refer to code in the Linux device drivers to find about specific device quirks and undocumented device programming information. This is necessary because hardware manufacturers do not always publish proper documentation for their products (with all the errata) and the only way to get functional device drivers is by trial and error, reverse engineering, or getting the necessary information informally from the vendors. The situation is getting worse because all open source products (with the exception of OpenBSD) tolerate the status quo of supporting products that provide no documentation, using vendor-provided -- sometimes binary-only -- drivers. I don't think that OpenBSD's abrasive campaign is the way to go, although it appears to be producing results. I believe that the hardware vendors can be convinced that it is advantageous to them to publish proper documentation, but all open source products need to work together for that to work. If a vendor cannot be convinced, we need to vote with our feet and exclude support from our products.

Here we have a NetBSD guy saying, essentially, "I don't agree with Theo's approach, but it does work better than ours and we may all need to adopt it one day."

CZ is saying that Theo may be forging the path that many will need to follow before long. Theo was a security fanatic a long time ago, and I think events have proven that he made a good call on that. Events have yet to say if his abrasive approach to documentation will turn out to be a good call. CZ clearly recognizes that Theo may be ahead of the curve again, although it's too soon to say.

It seems to me that there exists a diversity of approaches to driving open-source and free software forward. At one extreme is Good Cop Linus, at the other is Bad Cop Theo, and everyone else is arrayed somewhere in the middle. A company being asked to provide documentation hears "It's in your best interest to get broad support from Linux" and on the other "Give me the goods or support for this device will be dropped." This is an effective combination, and the two together work better than either alone.

Theo is abrasive, yes... but the collective endeavor of free and open software needs someone abrasive, just as much as it needs a benevolent dictator.

One step from calling Linux coders "Stupid heads"

[Ximok]

Man this guy sounds bitter and angry. How big of an ego do you have to have to say that your product is better, even when you admit considerably fewer vendors support your product? Buddy, if you happen to read this (which I know you won't because you probably wouldn't touch Slashdot with a ten foot pole cause it runs on a Linux box) do some growing up. Code doesn't get accepted by users because its uber-secure. If that were the case I'd put 'Hello World' on a CD and sell it for ten bucks a pop. People buy code for usability, plain and simple. Even hardcore Unix (yes, UNIX) admins like a little usability.

Re:Also remember the tremendous debt...

[dougmc]

...that Linux owes to Theo.

And don't forget the tremendous debt that OpenBSD (and FreeBSD, NetBSD) owes to the GNU project.

The GNU project also produces gcc, which is used by all of the free *nixes to compile their code.

Theo can run his systems free of all code produced by Linus.

Linus, yes, perhaps. GNU/GPL, no. Well, he could remove his compiler entirely, but then it wouldn't be a very useful system. (And technically, some of the code in gcc ends up in the executables it creates ...)

Unless Linus wants to go back to telnet (or use an alternate, less tested sshd), he has no such option.

Perhaps we should talk about the history of ssh a bit here ...

ssh did not start with OpenSSH. ssh started as ssh, and it was good. But then they changed the license, and people did not like that, so they took the last release that was under the old license, and released it as OpenSSH. They then added ssh2 support and generally maintained it in parallel, and now OpenSSH is more used than the original ssh -- but the original ssh is still around. Perhaps Theo did contribute some code to the original ssh (it was open source, after all), but it still wasn't OpenSSH until rather late in the game.

As for using an `alternate, less tested sshd', are you sure you don't work for Microsoft's FUD department or something?

Theo's Missing The Point

[ubuntu]

From the article:

Sour grapes? Maybe. Linux is immensely more popular than all of the open source BSD versions.

De Raadt says that's partly because Linux gets support from big hardware makers like Hewlett-Packard and IBM, which he says have turned Linux hackers into an unpaid workforce.

The problem with BSD is not the technology, it's the license. The BSD license offers no protection for companies who want to work with them. The BSD license basically says "anything you give to us may be taken by your competitors, put under a closed-source proprietary license, extended to make it incompatible with your original version (a la MS Kerberos), and used against you." The GPL, on the other hand, encourages a culture of equality. What IBM donates under the GPL stays under the GPL, thus Microsoft can't close it up and use it against IBM. They have to keep it open, and release their improvements when they release their new code. GPL'ed code has got to stay as open as when the original author wrote it, and thus isn't a tool of unfair leverage for the mega-corporations of the world. The GPL at least offers companies who want to encourage openness some assurance that they are levelling the playing field; the BSD license offers them nothing in return for their work except the certainty that their generosity will fuel proprietary software which may compete with their own offerings.

I love OpenBSD, but I've never understood their addiction to their "weak" license. I've thought about it, and it's business suicide. They have no chance of ever getting a foothold in the market based on their featureset because anything they do can just be co-opted by Microsoft, Apple, and whoever else wants to take their code, close-source it, and sell it with a pretty front-end. To contribute through the GPL, however, is to make a capitalistic deal with the world: "I have created this product, and on these terms. If you want to deal fairly with me on these terms, and reciprocate, then good. We have a deal." The creator stipulates the terms that the code is to be used: open, free, fair, and transparent. The BSD guys stipulate pretty much nothing, save an ego stroke attribution line.

So, Theo, if anyone's an "unpaid workforce", it's the BSD guys. The GPL guys get code back when theirs is used. You get nothing. The GPL guys are expanding the size of the pool of GPLed software out there in proportion to the amount of proprietary software. For every piece of BSD licensed software, 10 corporations probably take their code and use it to strengthen the proprietary software world. So if I have my choice between the excellent technology of OpenBSD or the pretty good technology and the code freedom security that comes with GPL-licensed Linux, I'll contribute to Linux. At least I know my code won't strengthen my competitors -- unless they seek to become more open as well and accept the terms of the GPL.

Here's my take on how the licenses play out in "real life":

BSD Versus Proprietary
It's high noon on Bootable Hill. Tumbleweeds are floatin' by and the sun beats down. In the middle of the street, Chuck Berkeley faces off with his arch-enemy, Billy Proprietary (I know, I know. The names suck. So sue me). They stare off for a moment, then Chuck remembers his ideology. Chuck lowers his guns in true Gandhi style. BANG! Billy takes the opportunity Chuck offered, and shoots Chuck in the head. Yay. The bad guys win again. Our hero didn't think it was "ethical" to protect himself against the bad guy and is now dead. Evil reigns supreme and Cthulhu consumes the earth.

GPL Versus Proprietary
It's high noon on Bootable Hill. Tumbleweeds are floatin' by and the sun beats down. In the middle of the street, our hero, Richard M. Tuxman, Esquire faces off with his arch-enemy, Billy Proprietary. They stare off for a moment, then Tuxman remembers his ideology. Tuxman calls out: "Billy, I'll lower my guns if you lower your guns in return. It's your choice." Proprietary

No wonder they threw him out of NetBSD

[jusdisgi]

Hehe. This guy is obviously a great coder. Too bad he's such a total dickhead.

This article really highlights Theo's personality problems, and may shed some light on why NetBSD summarily kicked him out on the street. Here's the first email he got from the core developers after he complained that they shut down his CVS access:

Over the past year and a half, we have received a considerable number of complaints about the fact that you seem to harass and abuse both users and developers of NetBSD. At various times, some of us have suggested (with varying levels of severity) that you cease this behaviour, but this has been ineffective. Indeed, you have given us scant reason to believe that your behaviour is ever going to change for the better.

Your abusive actions have seriously impaired the success of the NetBSD project in several ways. Your actions have driven away developers or potential developers, and have alienated many users. They have also squandered much of the good will that various people have directed at the project.

Finally, it is clear that for the project to be a success, we must promote a positive environment for both users and developers. If we continue to allow you, an official representative of the NetBSD project, to behave in this manner, we create the perception that we approve of your behaviour. That perception is damaging to the project and cannot be allowed to persist.

Because of these things, we believe that it would be in the best interest of the NetBSD project if you were to resign all official association with the project. We request that you resign from the NetBSD core team, resign as the maintainer of the NetBSD SPARC port, and post a message to the "netbsd-users", "current-users", and "port-sparc" mailing lists announcing your resignation. If you choose not to post such an announcement within one day (by 9:00AM, 12/21/94), we will be forced to inform the public about your removal from the organization ourselves.

We regret having to do this, because you have done a significant amount of very good work for the project. In spite of that, we can no longer condone your behaviour. We wish for this parting to be as painless as possible; we have disabled your accounts on the NetBSD development machines and have removed you from the "core" and "port-masters" mailing lists, but have left your subscriptions to other NetBSD mailing lists untouched. We have no objection to your further participation in NetBSD, as long as you participate in a mature manner and make clear the fact that you no longer officially represent the NetBSD Project.

Of course, now no one can kick him out of OpenBSD, so I guess he's found the one role that'll work for him. Luckily, it's irrelevant during the 364 days this year when some idiot at Forbes didn't decide to upchuck a completely assinine, one-sided bullshit flame from a proven asshole, and then call it a news story.

Re:No wonder they threw him out of NetBSD

[jusdisgi]

See, you're missing the point. I didn't ever say Theo doesn't write great code. I didn't ever say that being an asshole has a negative effect on the quality of software one might produce. I just called him a dickhead.

Writing great software is nice. But it does not excuse being a total fucking dickhead. And when you go off spewing bullshit like this about how some rival software is "total crap" and how everybody who develops for said software must be an idiot who doesn't care about quality, you're a total fucking dickhead. And that's that.

And then of course, there's the fact that he's just wrong in so many ways. First this business of "Linux developers develop because they hate Microsoft." Horseshit. There might be a small percentage of people that feel that way, but I barely ever see it. I see some users talking that way, but the developer types are usually doing stuff because they love the system and want to make it better. Most of them don't even view this as a fight with Microsoft; Linux is just the natural system for so many things these days, it's just the place you want to develop. And as for Linux not being "high-quality" (subjective enough for everybody?) he's full of shit there too. Linux doesn't have the same absolute-security-is-all-that-matters mentality of OpenBSD, and most of us are glad. Because it'll whip the shit out of it in performance, functionality, ease-of-use/configuration, and a whole lot of other things.

Theo creates good software. But it's extremely single-minded in its purpose. The fact that he can't recognize that lots of people want other things from their software is a definite oversight. And the fact that he thinks he ought to go public with the kind of trash he spews is a major character flaw.

Re:No wonder they threw him out of NetBSD

[Cally]

Hehe. This guy is obviously a great coder. Too bad he's such a total dickhead.

Just as well that I run his code, not his personality. As the personality doesn't seem to affect the code - or if it does, the quality is inversely proportional to what you call 'dickheadedness' - why should I care? My firewall and fileservers keep ticking away on OpenBSD...

perfect is the enemy of good

[puzzled]

Theo is a paranoid, perfectionist, peckerhead. I say this in the most kind, loving manner possible, as I've got half a dozen OBSD boxes running on the internet right now, along with many more FreeBSD boxen and a few SuSe Linux machines that I'm learning to love.

BSD and Linux are different animals - on the development side BSD is like an American funeral home lawn - not a blade out of place, while Linux is more of an English garden, with all sorts of wild experiments happening.

I prefer BSD for server work because I like the discipline that exists in both development and maintenance, but I love the steady flow of GPL software that comes from Linux into the FreeBSD ports tree.

Both have an ecological niche to fill ... use Theo's software, but don't pay too much attention to the ranting.

There is an actual serious point here

[metamatic]

There is a genuine weakness to the open source world when it meets the mass market.

90% of computer users do not have the knowledge necessary to evaluate whether a piece of software is garbage or not. Because open source software can be forked and kept around by anyone, garbage often can't be removed. No matter how awful the code, someone will keep it alive.

This problem applies somewhat to the BSDs too; except that there aren't as many BSD distributions, so it's more likely that they'll all decide to remove a given piece of crap that should be removed. With Linux, there's practically no chance of getting something godawful removed from every distribution, because they all compete with each other for completeness. I mean, we still have sendmail, and RPM was even made part of the LSB. There are still IMAP servers that use mbox format, and one of them has such shitty code that it doesn't even check malloc return values for failure.

Actually, if we're talking about fundamental flaws in OSs, perhaps Theo could spend some of his time fixing BSD's syslog before he turns his attention to ranting about Linux.

BSDs vs Linux

[pavera]

I jumped ship from the windows camp in 2000, and when I did I evaluated FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and 3 Linux distros to decide which one I would run on my home systems, which ones I would recommend to clients for solutions, etc.

I had 3 spare x86 boxes, and tinkered with all three OSs for at least 6 months.

I'm sorry Theo but the reason I use Linux instead of BSD has nothing to do with hating MS. I needed a better solution that was cheaper, I went looking, and Linux ran on 99% of my available hardware. FreeBSD while better than OpenBSD in the hardware support regard only supported about 60-70% of what I had at the time, and I could only get OpenBSD to even install on 1 of my spare machines, of course without sound or USB and I had to try 4 different NICs before I found a supported one.

Sure, the BSDs have better design, I agree, and I would love to run them, but if I'm limited to 10% of the available hardware and every time I need a new NIC I have to snoop around the store looking for that one magic NIC with the right chipset revision well I consider that a larger burden freedom-wise than MS places on its users. Stop yapping Theo and go write some firewire drivers, or whatever technology came out 5 years ago that your system still doesn't support.

Re:How is BSD better?

[smash]

Been using Linux for 10 years, and FreebSD for 6.

What stands out in my mind: better documentation, cleaner code, more structured filesystem layout, less distribution fragmentation, more informative kernel/log/error messages, "base" OS seperated from packages better.

BSD gets some things first, Linux gets other things first. IMHO, more often than not, when the BSD stuff comes out later, its generally because it was done the "right way" rather than the "quick and dirty way" and then re-written with an incompatible interface 3 months later :D

smash.

i agree

[Flunitrazepam]

This article has really made me see the light. It is full of unwaivering logic and factual critique of the Linux OS. I am now switching to OpenBSD. In fact, I will now be switching the entire Datacenter to run OpenBSD, and find a picture of De Rat to use as my desktop background.

Thank you Forbes magazine, once again you proved to mold and shape the direction of my life.

And BSD is any different?

[Haeleth]

haeleth@guthlac$ uname -srpi
FreeBSD 5.4-RELEASE i386 GENERIC
haeleth@guthlac$ pwd
/usr/src/sys
haeleth@guthlac$ find . -name *.c -or -name *.h -exec grep "belong here" {} \;
* XXX doesn't really belong here I guess...
* This doesn't really belong here, but I can't think of a better
* XXX doesn't really belong here I guess...
* XXX FIXME: probably does not belong here
* XXX FIXME: probably does not belong here
/* XXX FIXME this does not belong here */
* XXX these don't really belong here; but for now they're

I'd say that's worse than the Linux sources, if one is judging quality by number of "doesn't belong here"s - all those FIXMEs and XXXes. Of course, it's a different BSD. I'm sure OpenBSD is perfect and entirely free of frivolous comments, unlike all these untrustworthy operating systems that are inexplicably more popular than it.

Re:And BSD is any different?

[chrysalis]

$ uname -a
OpenBSD ufo.orbus.fr 3.7 GENERIC.MP#0 i386

$ find /usr/src/sys -name '*.c' -or -name '*.h' -exec grep "belong here" {} \;
/* XXX: does not belong here */
* XXX FIXME: probably does not belong here
* XXX FIXME: probably does not belong here
/* XXX FIXME this does not belong here */
#define IEEEPROTO_802LLC 3 /* doesn't belong here */

That's better than FreeBSD.

Here's A Quote From The NetBSD Project

[Master of Transhuman]

which was quoted on another discussion of this article elsewhere on the Net:

"On December 20 [1994], Theo de Raadt was asked to resign from the NetBSD Project by the remaining members of 'core'. This was a very difficult decision to make, and resulted from Theo's long history of rudeness towards and abuse of users and developers of NetBSD. We believe that there is no place for that type of behaviour from representatives of the NetBSD Project, and that, overall, it has been damaging to the project.

This decision was difficult to make because Theo has a long history of positive contributions to the project. He was the principal caretaker of NetBSD's SPARC support, and has written too much code to mention.

We are certainly willing to accept (and would very much like to see) future contributions from Theo, but we believe that it is inappropriate for him to be an "official" representative of the project any longer."

I'd say that pretty well takes care of that. Theo is apparently an asshole. That he prostitutes himself to Daniel Lyons, a know anti-OSS/Linux FUD merchant, seems to make it clear that this rant is to be ignored by anybody with a brain, whether you like the BSDs or not.

Re:OpenSSL/OpenSSH is Linux as bad as that?

[Nimrangul]

OpenBSD has nothing to do with the developement of OpenSSL. Let me say it again as this seems to be brought up every OpenBSD story: nothing .

OpenSSH flaws are pretty much entirely in the portable version, which is done by a seperate team of people that add the so-called portability goop - things like PAM support are not in the OpenBSD version.

OpenSSL is done by other people under an apache-like license and OpenSSH is done by OpenBSD under a modern BSD license. If you want another SSL make your own, if you want another SSH use lsh.

And your true free comment is something that doesn't belong here, take it to a GNU discussion - BSD users don't care.

Lunix For Losers, from Dan Lyons a known shill.

[Erris]

Blame Zonk for the "Lunix For Losers" title.

Actually, I'd blame Dan Lyons for inventing "linux for losers," because he titled his article that way. Only a Microturd could even think that way.

The whole article is flamebait by a known shill. You might also note he describes BSD as "a rival OS," and tries to build up as much animosity as possible. Linux and BSD are both free software and the whole notion of "rivalry" makes no sense. I'd suggest that no one ever talk to the loser again. It's like being interviewed by SCO, you can't win.

It would be a real scream ...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

"Does this belong here?" is in OpenBSD too.

It would be a real scream if the comment that prompted the PHB to swtich from Linux to BSD was cloned from BSD to Linux. B-)

figured out my answer

[rotagivan]

I was having a hard time deciding between *BSD and *nix, but kissing girls sounds like so much fun I'm gonna have to choose *BSD.

Re:Dan Lyons....

[Knnniggit]

"Dan Lyons" is where I stopped reading. He's proven himself to be somewhat lacking in journalistic ethics before, and I won't give him the satisfaction of me reading his articles.

To be fair

[old-lady-whispering-]

Here is the link to Theo's archive on the matter:

Theo's side of the story

and a shorter commentary:

seems reasonable to me

DNFTT. Lyons is a TROLL.

[Anonymous Coward]

I made myself a bet before I ever clicked on the article. I thought "wow, sounds like a Lyons piece" then I clicked on it:

Is Linux For Losers?
By Dan Lyons

So the Linux is for Losers part is from Dan Lyons. That's no surprise. He's still smarting from the thorough debunking PJ of Groklaw did. Speaking of which, I'd advise checking over there to see if PJ has made any comment on this story.

Lyons has to know he could get some flamebait out of Theo (not to difficult, but try comparing this interview to the one Theo gave to NewsForge).

This is just a troll for hits. Nothing more, nothing less. Lyons has just been studying up on how to rile people up. Please ignore him.

I mean look: Lyons chose that headline, Lyons chose to interview Theo, Lyons helped Theo look bad (not hard, given Theo's reputation).

This is nothing more than a cynical bid to sell ads on Forbes. Just like when Dvorak said that Maureen O'Gara should've gotten a medal for increasing readership when she stalked PJ of Groklaw, this is flamebait from an idiot meant to rile you into mindlessly clicking a Forbes story and generating ad revenue.

Lyons is laughing at you all the way to the bank. Have the last laugh; blackhole Forbes and their advertisers in your DNS and tell others to do the same.

Hardware is More than the CPU

[EXTomar]

I had exactly the same ephimamy as the parent's parent. I was given a choice in 1995 on what to run on a spare machine. I went to the Uni's computer lab with a box full of floppys and started downloading BSD, went home and started installing.

Well part of the installation worked. Once I got past some of the quirky installation issues BSD (I don't recall why but partitioning hard drives seemed to be a bitch), some hardware simply didn't work the most glaring was the video card and network card. VESA was supported but it was clearly lacking in performance and without a network card what is the point? I poked around on Yahoo on another machine (what is Google?) for more information and even tried a BSD irc channel. I was basically told in so many words "if you aren't a hardcore coder, you don't deserve our help". That is just "great" since my interest was getting the machine working not coding and their elitist attitude finally caused me to give up.

So back to the lab to download another piece of software called Linux (Slackware I believe!). The rest is history because it just worked. When it came to configuration questions, for instance X had to be configured by hand, I found people willing to give me hints. I worked through it and ended up with a functional machine video, NIC, and all.

To this day I point to this initial impression of BSD as the reason why I shy away from BSD as my first choice in machine deployment. The attitude of the BSD community has probably changed a lot in 10 years but I still can't shake the feeling I'm going to be slapped with elitism again if I run into a problem with a BSD installation.

Re:Hardware is More than the CPU

[timmarhy]

you couldn't be more wrong. just subscribe to the freebsd-questions list and you will see 100's oh helpful answers to questions ever day from install problems to ports problems. by contrast many times i have asked questions on various linux channels and i was given the retort "we don't spoon feed". i have also found freebsd's install to be far suprior to any linux distro, it has a simple yet freindly ncurses menu system. it's handbook is also a major help, being kept well up to date and with relivant accurate information. i found openbsd to be the hardest of the 3 bsd's to use and install, and it's hardware support IS limited. i will also say that the user community is no where near as helpful, and often very painful. but on the whole it is still a worthy OS with many merits. but give freebsd another go i doubt it will disapoint

It would appear to be the opposite.

[Some Random Username]

OpenBSD was pretty obscure, despite everyone using openssh. As Theo has been more and more provocative, openbsd has gotten more and more publicity. The number of people using OpenBSD is WAY up in the last few years. Believe it or not, any publicity really is good publicity, and alot of people use products based on the product, not the person who made it, so people find out about openbsd because of this stuff, and then ignore this stuff and use openbsd because its good.

And did you notice how it didn't help netbsd?

[Some Random Username]

NetBSD kicked him out because they thought him being mean to users would scare away their userbase. OpenBSD long ago surpassed NetBSD for number of users, so maybe speaking your mind isn't the worst thing in the world huh?

Theo de Raadt, doing what he does best...

[drwho]

Theo is really good at making people angry. Sometimes, that's angry enough to get out and fix a problem (such as security issues) but just as often they'll tell him to fuck off.

But he's a good attack dog for the open source movement: He can yell and scream at vendors and make the Linux people look calm and collected by comparison.

Just for the record, I use both OpenBSD and Linux (and other OS as well). There's some really good stuff in OpenBSD. There's also some things that Linux does better. Or, I should say, operating system using the Linux kernel.

Theo says that the BSD lawsuit made people flock to Linux. Nope, that wasn't it for all of us: when I was getting involved back in '92, it was the fact that Linux would run on lesser hardware. Specifically, it was that I needed a math coprocessor to run BSD but Linux would run fine on my 80386SX at 16 mhz. I remember seeing somewhere that Alan Cox chose to work on Linux for the same reason. More broadly speaking, Linux was more egalitarian in its hardware support.

I think that Linux success has been largely due to the social impact of the GPL license.

Re:Theo de Raadt, doing what he does best...

[bruns]

A friend of mine just said to me (who happens to be a big FreeBSD user) - "think of him as a bsd manifestation of rms."

This is why the Debian camp and the FreeBSD camp turns me off of their distributions/OSs - the pig headed stuck up attitude of its leaders tends to cause friction with everyone else including people on the same side as them.

Point in case, from my experience, every Debian developer I've run across seems to be trained in the art of insulting and harassing RedHat users.

Now, thats just my experience, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who may have seen that.

Possible Theo response

[OmegaBlac]

Pulled from openbsd.misc:

From: Theo de Raadt cvs.openbsd.org>
Subject: Re: Theo gave an interview to Forbes Mag. about Linux
Newsgroups: gmane.os.openbsd.misc
Date: 2005-06-17 16:13:37 GMT (9 hours and 24 minutes ago)
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:48:31PM +0200, J. Lievisse Adriaanse wrote:
> > Theo gave an interview to Forbes Magazine, in which he stated: "It's
> > terrible," De Raadt says. "Everyone is using it, and they don't
> > realize how bad it is. And the Linux people will just stick with it
> > and add to it rather than stepping back and saying, 'This is garbage
> > and we should fix it.'"
>
> Heh. Theo never did pull his punches. I suppose there's now a war going
> on in /. ? :)

If the Linux people actually cared about Quality, as we do, they would
not have had as many localhost kernel security holes in the last year.
How many is it... 20 so far?

It speaks for itself.

Re:This is exactly why I LIKE Linux.

[Metrol]

I want Xen support before BSD has anything like it

Funny thing of it, primary reason I use FreeBSD for my servers is that Linux doesn't have jail support. I am NOT talking about a chroot jail either.

The Xen stuff would be pretty cool too, but I personally don't have much interest in running a bunch of virtual OS machines.

Step 1: Convince the user he's a moron

[try_anything]

Convincing a bunch of satisfied users that they're actually miserable and need to switch to your product is a great strategy - if you can afford to spend millions of dollars on TV ads. One guy whining in a Forbes interview isn't going to get anywhere.

Linux users know what it's like to run Linux. Lecturing to them about what Linux is like, using OpenBSD as a standard, is

1. condescending, because they already know about Linux; and
2. self-centered, because it addresses the issue from your perspective, not theirs.

Tell people about what OpenBSD does right, using Linux as the standard, and maybe you'll get somewhere.

Re:Why do developers use BSD?

[tigga]

What *I* don't understand is why a bunch of *USERS* are so rabidly pro-GPL/anti-BSDL and worried about us poor developers and the evil corporations that "steal" our work ...

Those are LUSERS.
They have a two-bit wisdom, thinking that socialism is good, corporations are bad. Thinking is alien for LUSERS. The only source for morale they got are Ten Commendments. There is DO NOT STEAL commendment, so they don't know software might be shared...

Re:Why do developers use BSD?

[tigga]

One of differencies between BSD and GPL is freedom subject.

BSD understands Freedom as freedom for people to do anything with software.
GPL understands Freedom as freedom for the software.

Those points of view are SO different...

Re:Show Us The Code, Raadt

[Nimrangul]

Theo de Raadt (note the "de" son, it's part of the name) does not want something like Windows XP or Mac OS X Tiger.

Theo wants exactly what OpenBSD is; OpenBSD is an operating system that works how Theo says it is to work, thus it shall remain how he likes it.

Automatically? You mean you want it to come with a virus? Hmmm, OpenBSD already allows one to surf the web with it's default install and it's drivers are already installed as a part of the kernel. man ports if you want to watch videos, if you cannot read then that's not the fault of the programmers. Your nonsense about posting websites I do not understand, ftp, scp, and sftp are available, is there anything else you would ever need?

Theo has not worked on Linux for two reasons that I know of.

1. Because Theo started working with BSD code before there was a Linux and has not stopped since then.

2. Because he does not believe in the complete bullcrap that the Free Software Foundation touts to the masses - however, he is perfectly fine with Linux people using his code. So the question may be more like, "why hasn't Linus looked into OpenBSD to see the better solution in action?"

I think you needed to proof read your post Dave, cause you didn't come off making too much sense.

Re:Show Us The Code, Raadt

[Nimrangul]

Son, are you blind or stupid? I don't think you've been sharpened in a while cause you seem very dull indeed.

de Raadt has no interest what so ever in toadying up to idiots, if the person cannot understand how to use the operating system they are to learn or use another, hand holding leads to the idiocy that is the average Windows user.

Theo doesn't care about media plugins, which are a concern for the programme using the plugin, not the underlying operating system.

He doesn't care about the end user, the end user is nothing to Theo de Raadt, nothing . He also doesn't seem to really care about his status in the press or the public opinion - else he would not be so blunt and coarse with people who piss him off.

de Raadt could probably make Linux more secure, but that isn't something he cares about, he has his own operating system to work on. He doesn't propose to change Linux code, he proposes that Linux developers learn from the successes of OpenBSD and change the code based on those successes.