Slashdot Mirror
A Tale of Two Systems, Linux, xBSD
The monkey flying around in my butt writes "
In what has got to be one of the
better pieces
on the Linux vs. BSD debate
Wes Peters
talks about both OS's, the strengths and
weakness of each, and how they live
together to form a symbiotic circle. "
This article, while vainly attempting to sound even-handed, comes off as Linux bashing. He trivializes Linux developers for writing drivers (though, he not-so-deftly attempts to take it back) and he passes Linux off as a 'mini-BSD.' He fails to address most of the strengths of Linux other than Hardware support. (What about software? I didn't see a Code Warrior for xBSD)
Since when is supporting affordable hardware an unimportant goal? I don't feel like buying the most expensive, and only supported device X, when I can have full support under Linux.
If anything, this article is thinly veiled Linux-bashing by a holier-than-thou BSD user, and as much as I like FreeBSD for running Apache, I've found xBSD users to have an air of distain for all things non-BSD.
Linux is not xBSD on training wheels. It's an alternative, original implementation of classic UNIX concepts. It happens to run Quake3 accelerated on my Voodoo3? Does that make it less valid? I can run it on my desktop, and run a web server, sshd, and ftp.
I've read more unbiased opinions from NT supporters, and that's really sad.
----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
This article failed to answer the question that I've had for a while: if the two communities have so much in common, why is there a need for one or the other? According to the author, the Linux community handles the "newbies" and the oddball hardware, and the BSDers concern is security, portability, and stability. Why can't we combine the forces we have and come up with a platform that is secure, portable, stable, and well-supported (not to say that any one of the mentioned platforms does not yet fit this description)? To me, it seems as if the only thing that separates Linux advocates from *BSD advocates is the philosophy of software and the respective licenses that the platforms have been placed under; nothing more, nothing less.
The other thing that troubles me is the common thread that I saw running through the article and that I also see in some of the comments made so far here on Slashdot. That thread is the idea that Linux exists for new users to learn UNIX on, and if they want to actually do anything serious with their hardware, they need to "move on" to the *BSDs. This, to me, says that the common image of Linux in the UNIX community is that it is nothing more than "UNIX on training wheels." Does no one take Linux seriously outside of the Linux community?
He characterizes Linux as non-BSD non-UNIX. Now it might be "historically" accurate to classify any BSD system as "UNIX", but I thought UNIX was a trademark of somebody, and an OS had to be certified before using that trademark. Have any of the free BSDs, or BSDI, been so certified? In general terms though, only quibblers would call Linux non-UNIX; seems to me like a chip on his shoulder.
In another annoying poke at Linux, he says BSD systems shine at this, with their ability to provide a usable email server for numerous users on a castoff 486 PC. Uh, pardon me, Linux too, excuse me. Chip on his shoulder again?
I'm also annoyed at the somewhat patronizing attitude that Linux is our most fertile recruiting ground, and When they move on to BSD, as if Linux is merely a step in the path to true enlightenment with BSD.
Well, well, not bad overall for a BSD fanatic. I suppose Linux has raving Anonymous Cowards, and BSD has patronizing snobs. Not sure which is worse. Wouldn't it be a nice world without both?
For what it's worth, I chose Linux because the development seemed more open, so to speak. Not so tightly controlled. Plus, there are 3 BSDs, and I often wonder how well BSD-specific code ports from one to the other. I imagine that if I settled on one of them, it wouldn't really matter much at all, but I want my system for exploration, not production, so it changes all the time, and I am not interested in monolithic upgrades. I expect I would be perfectly happy with the "UNIX-ness" of any them. But a choice had to be made, and I am not interested in remaking that decision for "just another UNIX system".
--
Infuriate left and right
This was a pretty good artical - although I felt it implied that Linux wasn't as good a server. They both have their good and bad aspects and I look forward to more sharing of code from both camps. So far, my experiance has shown me (caution, opinions start here):
Linux
-NFS server: not so good (is there any work being done on this?)
-SMB client: good
-SMP: good (could be better)
-Portability: good
-Ease of configuration: good (I love System V and kernel modules)
-RAID: never tried
-TCP/IP: good (I add this just because the older Linux kernel didn't do TCP/IP near as well as FreeBSD)
FreeBSD
-NFS server: good
-SMB client: not so good (I don't think kernel level support exists - ie smbmount. does it?)
-SMP: not so good
-Portability: not so good (use NetBSD - whole other topic)
-Ease of configuration: Ok (but I really wish they would move to System V - is it possible to make a disto that is System V?)
-RAID: good (I love vinum)
-TCP/IP: good
I know, I know - some of my opinions are probably ill formed, please correct me where I may be wrong.
\forall code \in C, \frac{\Delta readability(code)}{\Delta t} < 0
Here Here!
I was hoping to read about the real, nitty gritty differences between the two, like:
"Well, FreeBSD handles network configuration This Way and Linux does it This Way"
I have never used a BSD, or even seen one in action. I have been using Linux for a year now and was really hoping to learn what BSD was all about, specifically what it does better than Linux.
The author seems to have a attitude that Linux will train the newbies who will then "Step Up" to a BSD, but he really gives me no reason to, no hints as to why a BSD would be a step up from Linux.
Anyone want to post what the BSDs do better than Linux and vice-versa?
-geekd
I hesitate to post this because I know the author from his posts on FreeBSD mailing lists but I must question the obvious lack of technical details. I assume I am not alone in wanting to know more about things such as the differences in scheduling algorithms than the differences in userbases. It just seems to be spewing out the things most of us have known all along, gee there is a tendency for people to start with Linux only to move to Free or Open BSD. I would much prefer a discussion on the comparative technical strengths on each system.