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. "

Comments

Chip on sholuder? Plus a question

[A nonymous Coward]

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".

--