BSD: "The Net's stealth operating system"

conio writes "MSNBC has an excellent article about BSD titled "The Net's stealth operating system." It gives a brief history of BSD and discusses why it's not as mainstream as Linux. It also delves into the BSDL vs. GPL holy war, and talks about how BSD will soon work its way into the workstation market. It's both accurate and well-written. "

Comments

Linux's popularity due to GPL?

[tig]

I wanted to ask the question: what did the move of putting Linux under the GPL do for attracting developers? it would be great to get the response of kernel coders on this. I would speculate that the fact that the kernel belonged to the "community" at large thanks to the GPL and could not be co-opted into another proprietary OS(tcp stacks in NT for example) played a part in assuring developers about the ownership, rightful use, and legacy of their code.

Re:freeBSD

[drdink]

I think that is what happens when a news(?) site begins to decay... The moderators and operators who are supposed to treat people and opinions equally begin to take sides based on their feelings and beliefs. Just because the moderator had a beef against FreeBSD, which a good majority of the Linux community appears to have, the article gets marked down. I do not understand what is with the BSD and Linux wars. People are entitled to their opinions and freedom to use whatever they want. I, myself, prefer FreeBSD as a server because some of its features such as saving system cores in kernel panics, its fast and efficent networking, its stability and ease of admining, and its logical layout. Unlike Linux, all the sources are nicely put before the operator in /usr/src, so you can find the source to ANYTHING on your system. Before people start bashing on Linux, BSD, and *even* Windows, I would hope they would at least have the decency to try it for a long enough period of time that they get a good opinion. The Linux community has dissappointed me lately because of behavior like this. I've even found myself branding things before I fully try them, such as Enlightenment, GNOME, and KDE. Would you try it before you rate it? I'm also tired of hearing about licenses. It doesn't matter if soemthing is put under the GPL or BSDL. Both licenses allow distribution. It should be the programmer's choice as to which he uses. I'm even okay with commercial licenses, if the software is good enough (such as WordPerfect). For those of you who claimed this story was Microsoft FUD to confuse the Linux community, I have not much to say to you. If you really think Microsoft would use one opensource operating system as a sword against another to defend their commercial box of exploding blue monkeys, you need help. Even if they did, we should not fall for such stupid things. For gods sakes, read the BSD license and then the GPL license, they have the same goals. They just have different guidelines in the way they reach the goals. Basicly, before you start replying with random crap to a story, think about what the hell the story is about and think about what you are saying. The Linux and BSD community could work together if the two sides would just quit picking fights with petty words like the comments I see attached to this article.

Programmerese/Userese Dictionary

[Tom Christiansen]

What's an "app"?

Here's a translation table to help techies programmer types and consumerist non-computer types talk to each other. Yes, I know that there's a many-to-many mapping here. That's always true when translating one language to another. Oh, some of these are slightly less than serious, and occasionally even slightly less than accurate. I also intentionally de-alphabetized them so you could have more fun.

• open source = source code
• manpage = documentation
• Enterprise = that spaceship from Star Trek
• binary edit = patch
• physical disk = hard drive
• box = computer
• mount point = hard drive
• file = binary file
• open source = shareware
• binaries = programs
• alpha = beta
• CGI scripts = CGIs
• partition = drive letter
• off the net = offline
• obvious = subtle
• MS-ASCII = text
• alpha = new technology
• computer secretary = admin
• logical disk = hard drive
• Evil One = Bill Gates
• program = script
• criminal = hacker
• bug fix = upgrade
• commonplace = ubiquitous
• programmer = software engineer
• floppy disk = disk
• luser = surfer
• network = web
• hide = protect
• computer scientist = mathematician
• net = web
• daemon = server
• legal extortion = per-seat licensing
• diskette = disk
• hacker = coder
• physical disk = drive letter
• secretary = HTML programmer
• sysadmin = sysop
• cracker = hacker
• IRC client = IRC browser
• computer = server
• memory = RAM
• logical disk = drive letter
• programmer = scripter
• mail messages = e-mails
• flexible = difficult
• beggarware = shareware
• paid bug fixes = updates
• disk drive = hard drive
• Internet Exploder = Internet Explorer
• eye trash = banner ads
• shell command = system call
• couldn't care less = could care less
• drive = hard drive
• greatest common factor = least common denominator
• Unix = UNIX
• Microsoft's mistakes = virii
• copy = upload
• competence = elitism
• monolithic program = application
• programming = scripting
• computer scientist = engineer
• fleeceware = software
• lying = marketing
• file system = hard drive
• controller = hard drive
• PC = home computer
• coredump = blue screen
• offline = away from the computer
• millennium = millenium
• partition = hard drive
• beginner = newbie
• business = enterprise
• competent = elite
• bloatware = apps
• fleeceware = commercial software
• function = command
• configurable = confusing
• Mordor = Redmond
• mail = e-mail
• challenging = impossible
• kernel = kernal
• disk controller = hard drive
• mails = sends e-mails
• executables = programs
• binaries = shareware
• crippleware = shareware
• buggy = beta
• mark-up language = programming language
• system call = command
• internal network = Intranet
• beta = production
• open source = freeware
• system call = operating system function
• copy = download
• fix = hire a consultant for
• luser = user
• disk space = memory
• code = software
• MS-HTML = HTML
• netiquette = useless manners
• newsreader = news browser
• IRC channel = chat room
• disk = hard drive
• Evil Empire = Microsoft
• GUI annoyance = wizard
• operating system = kernel
• kernel = operating system
• newsgroup = chat room
• editor = text editor
• bloatware = application
• patch = source edit
• file = text file
• file system = drive letter
• expert-hostile = user-friendly
• login = shell account
• mount point = drive letter
• connect to http://www.foo.com/ = logon to foo.com
• access the web = surf the net

Your job now is to write a program than converts from one lingo to the other, or vice versa.

Re:BSD as a server?

[dcs]

Sure. The Gartner Group had a test with NT, Linux and FreeBSD. NT sucked, of course. FreeBSD was first, with Linux a somewhat close second. The test, unfortunately, is not available on the web anymore.

What they benchmarked was the ability of the system to degrade gracefully underload. In other words, forget how fast your system is when everything is cached in RAM... when things get ugly, you have a lot of processes, and swap is heavy, during the "peaks" of your workload, how well does the system handle that? FreeBSD showed the best scores by far under the heavier loads, with the scores (err, FreeBSD and Linux) getting closer under lighter loads, and both NT and Linux surpassing FreeBSD under no load to speak of.

As it goes, they somehow reached the conclusion that Linux was the prefered server under a number of environments analysed, even though FreeBSD performed better and had none of the drawnbacks they found in Linux. Go figure.

Then, there is the Mindcraft benchmark. I'm told Linux performed significantly better than FreeBSD, with NT performed way better, and Solaris beating everyone. Alas, this test measured the perfomance of the system under very few processes, and everything cached. At least, as far as NT went. Gartner results say that if the environment of the test changed so that number of processes increased and swapping became necessary, NT would soon find itself trailing everyone.

Here we go agian.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can just feel a flamewar coming on.

Flames can sometimes be useful. Most flamewars however, aren't constructive. They tend to be destructive, that's why they're named after a "destructive force."

And in this instance a flamewar would be pretty stupid. This isn't a case of who's better. The BSD's cover different areas, as does Linux. Is there a point to fighting? Its like saying, "My boat is faster than your car" or "My orange is sweeter than your apple."

The OSes in question are very powerful. What they do well they excell in. Its not like we're comparing Solaris (yay) to NT (boo!).

Before jumping into the BSD/GPL debate, think about it. We're all on the same side! We like solid OSes. We can have a few beers and start scoffing at the NT folk together.

Together. That is a word that both the BSD and Linux worlds should be using more often. Or at least we can hope.

BSD -- Wiser users?

[Disco Stu]

This article certainly carries the attitude that many BSD users seem to have -- that BSD of for real users, users with experience, users who care more about a robust, secure OS than what's currently hip; and that Linux users are "hackers" who jumped on the Linux bandwagon because it's the hip thing to do among hackers, rather than because Linux carries any advantages as an OS.

The truth is, Linux carries with it several advantages that the article only hints at. The article mentions the splits in BSD, but it doesn't discuss the problems these splits carry with them. It's nice to know that with Linux, when a new feature or better security is added to the kernel, that feature will be available to every users on many different platforms. I am certainly not an expert on BSD, so I'd appreciate it if someone who is more knowledgeable than I would tell me how often developments in FreeBSD are integrated into the development tree of NetBSD, for example.

Personally, I prefer Linux. As a student at a large university, I'm surrounded by Linux experts. I couldn't say the same about BSD. The other main advantage that Linux has for me is the applications that are being ported to Linux more and more. However, I would be willing to switch to BSD if I saw clear advantages. Unfortunately, this article seemed to be more interested in cashing in on the Linux hype by subtly bashing Linux rather than presenting the real advantages.

Accurate?

[pb]

This wasn't accurate, it was just as uninformed as most articles. At least it's publicity, though.

I know that at least FreeBSD should be able to run linux binaries without too much trouble, just like Linux should be able to run, say, SCO binaries without too much work, etc. So it shouldn't really have fewer applications. Also, a lot of the same UNIX apps should be source-compatible anyhow, and some are released under the BSD license.

Since the owner of the source code can release it under multiple licenses anyhow, there's nothing wrong with making a kernel submission GPL'ed, and also releasing it to the *BSD's under their license, so I don't really see the argument there. The other arguments have been dealt with. Remember, the BSD license lets your competitors freely use your code too, and also lets people take that code and incorporate it into closed projects, which I don't think is necessarily a feature.

Past that, at least it's press. I don't believe that 70% of all ISP's figure, either. A lot of ISP's use Linux. Maybe if he meant the number, it would only take a few major ISP's to skew that figure. Still... that doesn't jive.

Re:BSD

[drwiii]

It shouldn't be too hard.. Lots of the unique features of FreeBSD may seem "different" when compared to analogous Linux techniques, but once you get the hang of how (and why) things work on FreeBSD, I think you'll find it to be a pleasant experience.

Probably the best advice I can give is to review the FreeBSD Web Site and especially the FreeBSD Handbook. Remember, you can always search the FreeBSD mailing list archives if you have problems.

Another excellent resource is the Complete FreeBSD Book, which costs about $40, but is well worth it. If you decide to go with FreeBSD, an Internet-based installation will work, but all the hard-core FreeBSD users have FreeBSD Disc Sets from Walnut Creek CDROM.

In the end, I guess it took me about a week of normal use to get accustomed to FreeBSD's way of the world. After a few days you'll start to notice that, in the ways that FreeBSD differs from Linux, those ways will make total sense from an implementation or an overall-system standpoint.

That sums it up, actually..

[Stone99]

That article summed things up pretty well for me, though unwittingly, I think. I've toyed with *nix off and on for the last 6 years, only just a few months ago gone full-Linux, using RH. I played with FreeBSD 2.2.2 through that, and while it was nice, and stable, and easier to configure than I expected...no apps!

Maybe this has changed with the FreeBSD 3.x series, but for those of us out there who don't know how to mod our Linux apps (no matter how easy true hackers claim it to be) *BSD isn't worth it. No matter how stable an OS is, if it doesn't DO anything, it's useless.

Linux has the larger share of the publicity and market not because of the 'young hackers' but because it is the only *nix that Joe Average User has a change of understanding and _using_.

this article hit the point.

[Crass Spektakel]

Funny, it describes the situation quite clear:

BSD crumpled under the struggle of copyright in 1993 (thats was right when I switched from BSD to Linux).

BSD is rockstable (I don`t say that linux isn`t stable, but maybe a little bit less).

But now the point: BSD is boring.

Simply said I don`t run a webserver all day and I don`t type "uptime" all day.

I actually try to work (to some extend :-) and play at my machine. And here we go, the linux-folks is much more "innovative", got the straight target "world domination" instead of "high uptimes".

Beside of that both are very equal - it`s yet another *nix-lookalike. *nix is a tool, like toiletpaper. You use it, but you don`t arguee about it. But you may still prefer the pink one with funny penguins on it :-)

Right tool for the job.

[D3]

I really wish some of these articles would focus on the concept of using the best OS for a particular function. When we decided to get some network sniffers running for Intrusion Detection we went with OpenBSD for their security and top notch packet filter that tells an accurate assesment of the number of packets dropped. Linux will tell you it never drops any packets because it doesn't really know. Solaris is the same way.

However, when we needed a logging box running RAID and SMP, the documentation for *BSD (free versions) was not clear. Linux OTOH had both RAID and SMP support that was clean and ready to go.

To me, any ISP or serious admin will not restrict themselves to one OS as the solution to all their problems. Add free to functional as being the two biggest factors for a server OS to be implemented and your choices are Linux and *BSD. Do your research on what you need and then go with what fits.