Slashdot Mirror
Clearing up FreeBSD confusion
Anonymous Coward writes "Daemon News has published an article that attempts to clear up misconceptions about FreeBSD. The article is primarily aimed at Slashdot readers based on the comments made in postings. " Well written, informative, and makes things much more clear.
Assuming for the moment that the ideology of the licenses doesn't concern you, let me say what I think the difference is to users such as yourself, and you can decide what you want to do. I will start out with very general statements which are not always true but which (I think) tend to get the idea across:
*BSD (any free variant) just gives you the basic tools, and expects you to get the system into the state you want it by the tried-and-true method of download-compile-install-run. For someone who really wants to understand the Un*x way of doing things, I think that this is the best way to go, because it will force you to get into the nitty-gritty of system administration. I started with NetBSD (because way back when, Linux didn't run on my old Macintoshes), and I have not regretted it. Nothing sysadmin-wise daunts me anymore.
Most Linux distributions try to come with everything preconfigured; instead of BSD's question, "which window manager do you want to download, compile, and run? The most basic one is all I have for starters, but you can do whatever you want", for example, Linux's statement is more along the lines of "I have 15 window managers right here, I already have one configured for you, and you are welcome to do whatever you want with them."
These days, thanks to *BSD's package system, it is very easy to download and run software; it takes longer than just getting the binary RPM's and DEB's, but it's often more likely to work because you're compiling it for _your_ system. But RPM's nearly always work for most of us, too. And the opposite is true, as well: Slackware (from what I recall, it's been awhile since I used it) has more of the "do-it-yourself" approach, similar to what I have identified as a BSD thing.
So, I guess the big difference is, FreeBSD comes in a simple, fast configuration, and you add things as you want them. Most Linux distro's default to big, bloated configurations, but you can pare those down as much as you want, and replace all the packages with things you compiled if you like.
Or perhaps you just want all the bells and whistles preconfigured, in which case Linux is probably what you want.
I don't know if you're a new Unix user or not, but if you are and you want to really learn the nitty-gritty stuff, I personally recommend starting with FreeBSD, get comfortable with configuring, compiling, etc., and then switch if you decide you want to switch. Then you'll know both ways of doing it. People who start with "user-friendly" Linux distro's sometimes never get past the user-friendly part (I've seen it happen, anyway).
Hope this helps. People, feel free to add or correct as needed. This is just my view.
Charlie (NetBSD user, 4 years; LinuxPPC/x86/Alpha user, 2 years)
"But many are simply curious about why a new user
;)
:)
would choose Linux over FreeBSD, despite FreeBSD's technical superiority."
Technical superiority.... ?
How? Because you have a more mature TCP/IP stack?
How does one define "Technical Superiority" without resorting to marketing-type hyperbole?
If you want to say "*BSD has been around longer, evolved from an existing, tested code base, has had more time to have its more traditional components tweaked, and is more tightly controlled" then please say that.
But don't say "Technically superior".
I remember checking out the *BSD platforms about a year ago and I could find *no* real SMP support to speak of. It was "in the works" as it went, and when I tried it (a dev. snapshot was all I could find...) I was greeted by a locked up box.
On the other hand I've been running Linux on that same box (updated processors recently) for well over a year and while the SMP performance has certainly improved recently, I've never had stability problems.
(And your claims for server support are rather thin if you can't support something that has been in mainstream use for years in other OS's... even under the dread NT
So which one is superior? Neither. *BSD is often more stable because of stricter controls on accepted code and a longer period of time to stabilize. Linux encourages innovation and new features (whiz-bang or otherwise) and often provides support for a broader range of hardware than other UN*X/*BSD OS's. (Notice I don't say "Superior Support" ?
The bottom line (as has been put often enough before..) is that both are excellent OS's (though both still have lots of things that can be improved). While loud-mouth advocacy may help sell cars and M$ products, I've always believed that those of us who run real Operating Systems should be mature enough not to fall into that trap. Have I been misled..?
Hello,
/. or LinuxToday that I can dig up if you are
While I applaud your effort to set some facts straight I believe your article on Daemon News probably did more to inflame any anti-*BSD sentiment by Linux supporters than anything else. I personally have never run BSD, although I have a CD for FreeBSD 3.1 CD and now have sufficient bandwidth via my cable modem to download any distribution over night. However, I do know a "little bit" more than your average Linux bigot about the development of *BSD and Linux. I'm not going to attack you or make you feel uncomfortable, rather I'd like to explain how some of your words are inflamitory to the Linux community. Hopefully this will help you in communicating with the Linux community in the future in a less inflamitory way (you honestly sound like a "BSD bigot" even to someone who is rather open-minded about alternative operating systems).
"And while calls of fragmentation of the BSD community run rampant throughout the Linux world,Linux is a far more fragmented operating system. With over a hundred distributions, Linux is often unable to provide compatibility with itself even though "there is only one Linux kernel." I was bitten by this several years ago when I wrote a set of scripts to manage the startup rc files on a Slackware system. When the system was moved to Red Hat, the scripts broke. Thousands of others had problems when the move to glibc was rushed by Red Hat while other distributions remained cautious."
This is common misconception that many people, including Linux users, believe and causes problems. Unlike the FreeBSD "current" code tree there is no globally accepted recommendation to upgrade to the latest kernel or distribution. It's also a mistake to consider the various Linux distributions as the same operating system. Much like the various BSD OSs, the various distributions of Linux are designed for specific purposes. Caldera is squarely aimed at the corporate market. RedHat is the "average Joe" version. Turbo Linux is aimed at the asian market (with specific Japanese and Chinese versions). Slackware is for the Unix "guru" who has no problem with recompiling programs by hand. Failure to understand this is just that, a failure to understand the Linux marketplace. Similarly, distributions don't generally follow the "latest" releases, even when if comes to the standard releases. For example, RedHat 6.0 is still on the 2.2.5 kernel release while the official kernel is at version 2.2.12. While this is not "tying," as anyone with enough knowledge can run any software on any system and upgrade the their hearts content (I'm running 2.2.12 right now on a RedHat 6.0 box with PPTP patches, XFree86 3.3.4, gcc 2.7.2.3 (to compile the kernel) and gcc 2.95.1) it reinforces the concept that each distribution can generally be considered a "different" operating system much like the various *BSDs are.
One would have to ask though, why did you upgrade between Slackware and RedHat without investigating the differences? That's not a "normal" administrative move. It's actually more like reinstalling an operating system than upgrading. The differences in package methods should have given you a huge clue that the OSs were not the "same." That the rc scripts are different in various OSs is well know to any administrator. Solaris, HP-UX, *BSD, Unixware, and practically everyone else does it slightly different. Linux gives you both common methods of doing it. It's much like the perl programming language, "there's more than one way to do it." I really don't mean to imply that you're not a competant administrator, but I'm really surprised that you had this issue. Perhaps it wasn't your choice to make the "leap" between Slackware and RedHat. If that's the case, then the administrator who made the choice, especially on a production box, is at fault and probably should have had disceplenary action.
Lastly, I think it's fairly unreasonable to imply that there are "hundreds" of viable Linux distributions. A vast majority of those are only used by a very small number of users and for specific reasons. They can almost be thought of in the same vein as embedded systems (such as the "distribution" meant to use Linux as the OS for a router). There are actually only a few "large" distributions that the vast majority of the Linux community use. The number, while slightly larger than the number of *BSD "distributions" comes no where near "hundreds."
"Many others have mentioned that FreeBSD should quit complaining about the GPL while using GCC and other GNU tools. While it is true that a number of GNU utilities are used in FreeBSD, they comprise fewer than 8% of the utilities and 15% of the libraries. "
My personal view, which I suspect is shared by the vast majority of GNU fans, is that if BSD continues to use the gcc compiler then the percentage of other GNU tools that comprise a BSD system is relatively irrelavent. Most people I know view the C compiler in a Unix system to be one of the most important aspects of the system, much like the kernel. It would kind of, but not exactly, be like BSD using a HURD or Linux kernel and still insisting that it's BSD. This is in contrast to the GNU camp, which I think believes that the tools define the name of the OS and not necessarily the kernel (hence the GNU/Linux debate). It could still be argued that it shouldn't be called GNU/Linux in this case, but that's a side issue. I personally consider the kernel, C compiler, and C library as the main determining factors as far as what "kind" of system an OS is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's definately possible to grab the source for FreeBSD and recomile everything on a RedHat Linux system right? If so, does that transform the system into a BSD system, with the C library, compiler, and kernel based on RedHat Linux? I didn't think so.
"The Linux mindset can often be characterized as "code exists, throw it into the distribution.""
This is mildly offensive. I'm assuming that you are specifically talking about specific distributions instead of the kernel itself. If you're talking about the kernel then you are sadly mistaken. First, Linus has the ultimate say in what goes in the kernel. Second, there is a distinct development and stable kernel. The development kernel is NOT for your casual users and is expected to fail on a regular basis. Yes, code is often thrown into the development kernel so that it can be tested on "live" systems of the developers. This code is either tested to the point that it is considered stable or yanked out of the kernel before it is moved over to a stable version. To imply that untested code is "thrown into the distribution" is the offensive part. For example, I've been trying to get the new RAID code into the stable kernel but it was yanked at the last moment, even though it has been available and in test kernels for months, because a developer found what could have been a bug. While this was disappointing on my part, it shows that code is not "thrown into the distribution."
If you're talking about non-kernel parts of the distribution then I think you are mistaken also. As I mentioned, there are only a few different distributions that are used by the vast majority of the community. One of the reasons for the "fringe" distributions is the fact that the main distributions don't always update their code often enough for some on the leading (not bleeding) edge. That's why, for example, SGI Linux is basically RedHat with some updates. I belive another popular "fringe" distribution may be Mandrake, which is also based on RedHat with the latest updates for various packages. So, to claim that main distributions are just "throwing [code] into the distribution" is patently false. The fact that most Linux distributions make it extreamly easy for any old user with some experience to create a custom distribution is probably more of an example of the openness of Linux development than "fragmentation" or "code instability."
"Linux was developed by an undergraduate student at the University of Helsinki to correct the flaws of Minix. However, FreeBSD is based on the 4.4BSD distribution of Unix from the University of California at Berkeley released in 1994."
Here you imply that FreeBSD is somehow better because it was released by the high and mighty "University of California at Berkeley" while Linux development was started by a poor "undergraduate student" at the lowly University of Helsinki. While I don't believe that was your intention, at least I hope not, that's the way it comes off. I could care less about the University of California at Berkeley, much like I could care less about the University of Helsinki. They are both "institutions of higher learning." I don't think it's fair or logical to rate an OS on what University it blosomed out of. One can always ask the questions "what have you done for me lately!" In that regard, I suspect that the University of Helsinki gets my "vote" for the most innovative.
"The first widely used TCP/IP stack was included in 4.2BSD and was reused in dozens of other operating systems."
Here you imply that the Berkeley TCP/IP stack is used in Linux. Although I'm no expert on the matter, I believe this has been discussed ad infinitum and shown that the Linux stack is a "new" implementation. A comment I would also like to make is that you seem to imply that, since BSD has a long heritage that it is somehow "better." I, for one, don't believe that just because something has been around for so long that it's necessarily better. I'm not saying that everything must be constantly rearchitected, but has been shown that it is often necessary to rewrite from scratch from time to time instead of holding on to old code for the comfort factor. I believe there was an article referenced on
interested...
"There are No Applications for FreeBSD"
I completely agree with you here as that statement makes as much sense as saying that there are no applications for Linux. I do think that the comment about performance improvements by running Linux applications under FreeBSD was unnecessary, even if true. I thought your article was supposed to be about correcting misinformation about FreeBSD rather than comparing FreeBSD and Linux and showing that FreeBSD was somehow "better."
"FreeBSD is a Dead End"
I liked this part, it was informative and didn't include any jabs at Linux users. I didn't know about PicoBSD and would be interested in learning more... (This is the tone that your whole article should have taken).
"The majority of FreeBSD is owned by the Regents of the University of California, where it was originally developed. Removing the existing license without the permission of the Regents would be no different that releasing a version of GCC with a BSD copyright in place of the GPL."
I think everyone knows this. So why not petition the Regents to release the original code under the GPL? That would seem to solve all problems, would it not. You CAN release code under multiple licenses. I don't see why, with the release of the license by the Regents, that FreeBSD could not be released under both the GPL and the BSD license, do you? Besides, I would think that much if not the vast majority of code that was released by the Regents has been modified to the extent of being all but replaced, no? (And please don't take this opportunity to say "no, because the BSD code has such a strong history that there was no need to modify the original code." Everyone know that there are bugs in almost all software, including FreeBSD and Linux. While there are probably areas of FreeBSD that have not been touched since the original release I'd find it hard to believe that it's in the majority. If so, I'd have to ask "what have you guys been doing since 1994?").
FreeBSD SHOULD GPL itself if it wants to use GPL code. I though that that's just obeying the law. If you're telling me that FreeBSD uses GPL code and does not release under the GPL then I think that's a surprise to a LOT of people. I don't think "we" are trying to convert "you" to GPL bigots (well some are but...), however, I don't think that the various factions (BSD/OS, Free, Open, Net) petitioning the Regents to release their code as GPL SO THAT YOU CAN INCLUDE other GPL CODE into your distributions would be viewed as a "victory" by the GNU camp. Sure, we would "get" the Regents code under the GPL, but you could STILL release FreeBSD under a non-GPL "Regents" BSD license as long as you didn't include any GPL code.
This would not split the code tree, as the only differences would be in the license attached to any distributions. The base code would be available in both BSD and GPL licenses. Any additions to the code would have to be released under the GPL license if it included GPL code. But, you stated that the reason you don't do this is because of the license from the Regents. You imply that you would have no problem releasing under a GPL license if only you could. If that's NOT the case, and you simply don't agree with the GPL license, then don't use our code. You have no "right" to use our code, and complaining about it will do you no good. It's like us wanting to use BSD code but making the decision to not because of the license. Some code, like X, is under a non-GPL license, but we, like everyone else, have the right to pick and choose what we decide to use. I don't see any inconsistancy of GNU folk insisting that you release under the GPL if you use GPL copyrighted works.
I really don't understand what the issue is. I think it's kind of like an ego trip for the Regents and "advertisement" by the University of California at Berkeley. That's honestly the only reason why I can think that they don't release under the GPL. I mean they don't get any money for derrived works, right? They only get the free advertising.
"Some FreeBSD users may indeed be jealous. But many are simply curious about why a new user would choose Linux over FreeBSD, despite FreeBSD's technical superiority."
Why the reason for this insult? A new user would choose Linux because it's more in the news. A new user would choose Linux if they wanted an OS that was under blazingly fast development. May be a hacker who wanted to check out some esoteric hardware. Or, may be a "average" user who would probably stick with a major distribution and not compile applications or the kernel themselves (instead waiting for bug fixes and enhancements from the distribution vendor, much like the BSD twice yearly release cycle with security fixes in between). Or may be because "official" support from a variety of vendors (such as database vendors) has been announced for Linux but not BSD (much like user who wanted to run a particular database would most likely choose RedHat instead of a "niche" distribution because "official" support is pretty much RedHat's domain right now) [Side Note: I may be wrong here, but I certainly am not aware of any press releases by any major database vendor, for instance, about official FreeBSD support. To say that the application could run under FreeBSD may be true, but then why worry about official support. Might as well run some custom kernel and compile all programs yourself if that's what you want.]
"In many ways, this is how Linux proponents view Windows users. Others do not care."
Oh, no, more insults. I honestly can't believe you made this comment. After explaining above that both BSD and Linux have as a common goal to provide a free Unix environment to users they you imply that Linux is SO far behind BSD that it's more like Windows!?! How, then can BSD be so much better if it's striving for the same goal? No, Windows has a fundamentally different goal in mind and I belive the vast majority of Linux and BSD supporters agree that it's a "BAD" thing. To take fundamental control away from even system administrators and try to "dumb down" the administrative skills required is just a bad thing to do. It puts too much responsibility on the correctness of OS code that can have devastating results. Given the industry track record, not even Microsoft's specifically, on software bugs I'd say this is a humongous mistake (just as integrating the GUI into the kernel was). I really don't know what to say here other than I hope you didn't mean what was so plainly implied.
"Unlike Linux advocates, FreeBSD advocates do not believe FreeBSD should be running on every microchip. Most FreeBSD advocates merely wish it see it perform best where it does best: Internet servers and high end workstations."
No, but you have OpenBSD, NetBSD, BSD/OS, and at least PicoBSD, which are designed to run in various situations. I think this statement comes from the misinformation you have about Linux and the assumption that there is only "one" Linux operating system. There are multiple. The main distributions, like RedHat, only run on "popular" "internet server and high end workstation" architectures such as PPC, Alpha, SPARC, HP-PA and Intel (RedHat may not even run on all of those). Smaller, niche distributions run on the Palm Pilot, and other embedded devices. Hey, that's kinda like the embedded PicoBSD, right?
Conclusion:
May be I'm reading way too much into the statements in your article and if I am then I appologize in advance. However, I obviously don't think this is the case. Hopefully I have provided some constructive criticism that you can use to hone your ability to "deal" with us wild Linux bigots. It would have been much more useful, IMHO, to do as your article was stated was it's goal and "clear up many of the misconceptions" instead of trying to pit Linux against BSD. If it was only focused on providing information to the Linux community about *BSD then that would have accomplished the goals set forth. I realize that Linux would have to be mentioned in some of the topics you chose to address. However, I don't think the confrontational tone was constructive at all. More information on the new features coming out in *BSD, such as PicoBSD, would have been helpful. Less "hauty" attitude about the origins of Linux and *BSD would have helped (like I said, most people just don't care that *BSD came out of Berkeley).
I would be interested in a reply to let me know how you took my email. As stated numberous times, the goal of this email was to inform you about how your statements could have been more inflamitory than you intended. Hopefully I accomplished my goal.
Sincerely,
fwr
I was looking forward to a piece that cleared up myths about FreeBSD. I've had extensive experience and know better than to buy into most of the false statements directed at the OS.
While the author does a good job of outlining what those myths are, he does a terrible job of debunking them. If you want people to stop thinking false things, you don't go and try to convince them by telling them a bunch of other false things.
It's also not very smart to write an article aimed at misguided Linux users and spend about as much time trying to clear up some misconceptions about FreeBSD as you do exposing your own cluelessness about Linux.
eg: "FreeBSD is not a Linux clone" - This is quite true.
"Linux is a FreeBSD clone" - Please. Not even a little bit.
Neither OS is a clone of the other, but both operating systems have strived to become better, sometimes with enhancements inspired by the other OS. This happens every bit as regularly in BOTH camps.
Anyway...
--- Tao
I also know that my workstation will not crash after my next upgrade.
The only time Linux has ever, ever crashed on me was due to faulty memory. Once it was replaced, it was all systems go. The article is just as offensive to Linux as it says Linux users are to BSD. What a big pile of bullpats.
The probability of your scenario is so remote that it's not worth pondering. However, philosophy is about pondering the improbable, so...
This instead classifies as willful negligence leading to death. This is what makes it evil. The non-act of non-sharing has nothing to do with it.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I was using BSD UNIX for more than a decade, since before it even had TCP/IP networking, and have been using Linux for a few years. Both seem to be good, solid systems, good enough for most server and desktop applications.
Given the momentum behind Linux, however, I see little reason to switch back to BSD. The technical differences seem academic to me (and I'm not convinced BSD always made the better choices). And most of the cutting-edge software that I care about seems to be coming out for Linux first.
I think for FreeBSD to attract more users, it needs to carve out a different niche from the one Linux is successful in. What that niche is, I don't know. What would pull me over to FreeBSD would be if it provided a rock-solid Java 2 implementation for client and server applications (something Linux currently lacks), and perhaps standardized on a desktop built around that.
"GPL gets you this. There is no reason why GPL software can't be used in a commercial setting."
:-)
In this case then, there are many proprietary licenses that count as freely redistributable as well
I could care less which license you choose to use. I'm all for freedom of choice. The key word here is "choice". How can a choice of licenses be called non-free?
By the way, I didn't mention communism at all in my post. Where did you get this?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
And are you saying that GNU users have any less disrespect for BSD? From your own post it appears that you have none, using words like "bizarre" and "fringe".
The fact is, GNU tools are not 100% redistributable. This was intentional on RMS's part. BSD wants their tools to be 100% redistributable, to anyone, anywhere, including commercial and proprietary uses.
If you believe that proprietary software is epitome of evil and pestilence, fine. But some people don't feel that way. The don't hold to the religious tenet. It doesn't bother them that proprietary developers use and re-release their software. BSD developers want to share the software with no strings attached.
This is why a non GNU grep is important, so that the core FreeBSD distro can be 100% redistributable, not 99% or 98%.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
After I got past the fact that the CD-ROM drive that worked with FreeBSD did NOT work with RH Linux. The CDROM was a 1xspeed Apple
I don't know what you were doing wrong, but the 1x speed Apple (CD-150) has worked flawlessly with every Linux kernel I've tried since 0.99pl7, and with at least three different types of SCSI card (Adaptec, Future Domain and NCR/Symbios). I don't know how could it not work, its a pretty bog simple SCSI-1 Sony mechanism.
As for 3Com support, the 3C905 is most definitely supported under Linux, and has been for a long time. I know of quite a number of people who use that type of card with Linux in machines that are running 24x7. Personally I prefer the Bay Networks NetGear FA310TX (especially at 1/2 the price), but the 3C905 is in general a reliable if not stellar performer with Linux. Are you sure that the card didn't just fail? If so, its kinda a stretch to blame that on Linux.
Intel EtherExpress Pro's on the other hand, I have heard of more problems with (bus mastering arbitration problems mostly) -- and those problems affect even MS-DOS/Windows.
I've not tried FreeBSD recently, but I tried NetBSD recently only to find it difficult to get a WD8013 card to work that autodetects fine under Linux. The supported hardware lists for the *BSD's are also much shorter than Linux and I don't know how you can dispute that. I'm not saying that Linux's hardware support is perfect, but it seems to be more comprehensive than the *BSDs right now.
Jay Maynard wrote:
[in theory BSD license gives users more permissions than the GNU license] Ain't no theory. It's real fact. BSD code can be freely reused even if you don't buy into the GNU communist utopia. GPV-licensed code can't.
Um, wrong. Here where I work we have a BSDI server, it comes with source code for a BSD kernel. The source code is covered under a BSD license. It is not freely redistributable, and cannot be freely reused. The BSD license does not prevent BSDI from adding restrictions to the license for their distribution, making it completely non-Free.
Also, watch with the flamebait there, GNU has nothing to do with communism.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Um, please don't use they. I'm tired of these stereotypes and general comments. Advocacy like that, is just stupid. He should have either backed up his comments or kept them to himself. And yes, I am a FreeBSD user who also happens to use Linux, aix, solaris, irix, netbsd, windows 95, windows nt, and even a little Mac OS X. Operating systems are just tools, get over it.
.
----------
gas wrote:
... must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
BSD:
Redistributions
You are not allowed to change the license.
No, that means that any new license must also include those restrictions. People change BSD licenses all the time. Sun's done it, BSDI's done it, even Microsoft has done it for some of the NT TCP/IP Networking tools if I recall.
GPL:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
You are not allowed to use GPL'd code with other licenses.
No, that is saying the GPL'ed code must be distributed under the GPL. If a license is trivial enough (or GPLey enough) that it's terms do not add or remove from the terms of the GPL, the code can have that license too.
If I remember correctly, the XConsortium license is sufficiently trivial, and Jordy makes a good argument that BSD might be too. I suspect there might be a flaw in his argument, but I can't see it. He should run it by the FSF, just in case.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
- A big part of why communism fails for material goods is that one cannot distribute material goods to one person without taking them away from another person. Software does not have this problem: it is infinitely copiable. Therefore, although the communist philosophy fails miserably for material goods, it may well be ideal for software.
- Communism with a Capital C advocates the use of government force to compel sharing of material goods. Tellingly, that is not what happens in the free software movement: authors use the GPL or BSD licenses out of their own free will, and any author is free to choose any license they wish for their code, without government interference.
You might argue that authors who use the GPL are using government force (via copyright) to enforce their philosophy. This is true. However, it cuts both ways. Authors of proprietary software are using the same government force for their own ends. If you really are a laissez-faire capitalist, you would chafe at the thought of any government regulation of the software market, and let's face it: Software copyrights are a form of government regulation of the software market.It is for these and other reasons that I maintain that the failure of communism has nothing to do with the free software movement, and that the current system of software copyright is not one that anyone with a capitalist philosophy can support.
"But why would you, if you were the author of free software, want to permit someone to take your software which you have contributed to the community, and make a proprietary product out of it?"
Because I don't believe in the tenet that proprietary developers are evil. If they proprietarize my work I still have my source code.
"I'd prefer that if someone were going to improve or use something I had contributed, that they should be required to return their changes to the community."
They can do whatever they want to with their code. My code still exists. Their improvements are theirs, and my original is still mine. I have no desire to tell other people what to do with their code. Sharing is good, stealing is evil, non-sharing is neither good nor evil since it is not an act. This is not kindergarten where you are forced under pain of confiscation to share your cookies.
They fact that proprieatry developers are not part of the community is inconsequential. Community involvement is not necessary for freedom. "The Public Good" is just an excuse used by the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Towards the end of an article that's desperately
trying to sound unbiased, this leaks out:
"But many are simply curious about why a new user
would choose Linux over FreeBSD, despite
FreeBSD's technical superiority."
I was unaware that it is generally accepted that
FreeBSD is technically superior. I'll have to
go and rebuild the 80 machines we have in our
production system right now.
Primarily aimed at slashdot readers. Hey! We're a demographic!
Go ahead, define the problem away. Do you think we'll believe you? BSDI is commercial. Fine, so is Redhat, but Redhat still sells Linux. FreeBSD runs on PC's. Fine, so does NetBSD and OpenBSD. OpenBSD is secure -- does that mean FreeBSD and NetBSD don't care about security?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I have read some, but not all of the works of Marx. I know full well the Cold War propaganda has nothing to do with communism. I also know that at least 90% of the people who use the "GNU/FSF/RMS is communist" line are trying to slander the target by associating them with the propaganda.
Here are some of the key points of theoretical, Marxist communism, and how they fit or don't fit with the GNU Philosophy (note, some are quotes of a translation of the Communist Manifesto, others are paraphrases of concepts):
the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles
The GNU Philosophy does not divide things along class lines. With GNU, the starving shareware author is as much in the wrong as the Microsoft Millionare, and the rich hardware manufacturer with Free specifications and driver source code is as much in the right as the poor amateur Free Software developer. The people too poor to be able to access computers are not even addressed in the GNU Philosophy. This is not an oversight on GNU's part, it's just Communism is a Social, Economic and Political system, GNU is a information and development system.
The bourgeoisie have developed substantial means of production, economic exchange and wealth, dependant on the proletariat. The proletariat, once it has gotten strong enough, will use its power over these tools to overthrow the bourguoisie.
The proprietary programmers wealth is dependant on rampant consumption, it's not dependant on the GNU developers. The tools the GNU developers are using to overthrow the proprietary system are not the proprietary programmers works, but works made by GNU for GNU, or by non-GNU Free software developers.
The proletariat are being oppressed and kept propertyless by the bourguoise. The proletariat will fight back.
The GNU developers are claiming the proprietary vendors are oppressing the consumers, not GNU. GNU is offering a way out, not a conflict.
The communists want to put total political power in the hands of the proletariat
The GNU philosophy wants enough political power to reform IP law. More might be desired by some individuals, but it is completely outside the scope of the project or the philosophy.
Private property, and its corrolary, personal wealth are oppressive evils and should be abolished.
The GNU project considers intellectual property to be a flawed concept, but physical property is perfectly valid. As for personal wealth, the GNU project encourages developers to charge as much for their services as they can get away with. It creates a system where people can focus on paying for tangible services rendered, rather than intangible IP licenses.
In bourgeois society, living labor is but a means to increase accumulated labor [and therefore create capital]. In communist society, accumulated labor is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the laborer.
So people working creates Capital (or code in the case of the GNU project). The bad society keeps the capital for the people at the top, the good society uses it to enrich the people making it. I'd say that's a match.
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations.
I'd say that's a match there.
To create the communist state, you have to tranform the capitalist state. Among the many changes suggested to get the ball rolling are state centralized communications and trade
The GNU project stresses dispersed, decentralized communications and "trade".
Equal obligation of all to work.
The GNU project does not obligate anyone to help it. People do so because they want to, not because they have to obligation.
To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities.
The GNU project pays no attention to your needs (avoiding the "Tyranny of Need" as Ayn Rand puts it) you use what you want to use. It's software, there's always more. You put in what you want to put in. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and saying "contribute more, we know you can". Thus the GNU project might go slower sometimes, and faster others, but it always continues, because someone always wants to contribute something.
Basically, it's a very incomplete match. I'd say that the GNU Philosophy shares a few scattered ideals with the Communist Movement, disagrees on others (irreconcilably so when it comes to work and property), and shares none of its ideas on how to acheive the ideal society. The GNU Philosophy is no more Communist than the Libertarian movement is. They are all idealistic philosophies, that doesn't make them the same.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
I think it's time you figured out was libertarianism is before you make further bizarre and irrational statements like that
Having freedom over one's own body in no way, in any philosophy, leads to a conclusion that murder is okay. (Well okay, a pro-lifer would disagree, but the pro-choicer does not view a fetus as a human being).
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I totally agree with you that communism applied to material goods is an utter failure. The USSR proved as much.
The first point of my post is that since software, unlike material goods, can be infinitely redistributed, one cannot conclude point blank, as you did, that the communist philosophy will also fail on software.
I am not interested in hearing about how miserably communism fails on material goods. We all know it fails. I am only interested in hearing about how well communism works with software. Please do not introduce material goods into the discussion. It is totally irrelevant to our topic.
Well it was an interesting article in any case ;) From my experience I've noticed that FreeBSD users tend to look down at Linux users, viewing them as immature unix children of sorts. Of course if anyone is offended by this then look no further then the way Linux Zealots view Windows, MacOS, or any other operating system ;) The GPL vs BSD license idea does present an interesting point, it seems that Linux users tend to "shove" the GPL licensing into people's mouths, if it's not GPL then it can't be allowed to live. An example would be the recent QT war. However I've yet to see BSD advocates do a similar thing. Luckily I've switched to BeOS where the Be fanatics just poke jokes instead of screaming and biting other operating systems ;)
There really is no reason to buy a 3C509 anything today unless you find one in a used parts bin for $10 or something, at least not if you want to put it in a machine adequate for running NT. For any decent machine, something like a Bay Networks NetGear FA310TX, which is PCI, 10/100 and fast, can be had in quantity one at local computer retailers for $30. I've got three of those cards, and I'm very happy with all of them. I can't personally vouch for how well they do under NT as I don't use any Microsoft OSes at home, but Linux finds and runs happily with them.
And if you believe that this is slavery then you're an idiot.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
The most important question is not which kernel is superior, but whether all the Unix-like systems will run the same applications with no change other than a possible recompilation.
I use Linux, but I want to be able to share code with any and all Unix-like systems, free or commercial. I want all of them to be completely compatible so that I can choose whichever one gives me the best price, performance, or reliability for a particular application.
For all of you people that still think not sharing something is an evil act, please graduate out of your kindergarten sharing mentality.
Before you confuse hoarding with non-sharing, take a look at your own covetousness. I have seen hundreds of AC comments on the order of "XYZ needs to GPL their software so I can get to use it." You folks aren't interested in sharing, you're interested in the forceable redistribution of wealth.
WILFULL negligence is an act. It is an evil act. But it is not the same thing as not sharing.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Many BSD contributors and users are quite happy with the GPL, and see no need to replace GPL'd programs. Much GNU software was and is still developed on BSD systems.
This article seems to contain just as much prejudice and ill-judgement as the rantings it criticises. To quote:
When the system was moved to Red Hat, the scripts broke. Thousands of others had problems when the move to glibc was rushed by Red Hat while other distributions remained cautious.
In many ways, Linux is a FreeBSD clone
But many are simply curious about why a new user would choose Linux over FreeBSD, despite FreeBSD's technical superiority.
Unlike Linux advocates, FreeBSD advocates do not believe FreeBSD should be running on every microchip.
Most negative talk about FreeBSD is baseless and intended to destroy, scare, or subvert potential users
All of these statements say or imply things about Linux or Linux users that are not generally true. Most ranting by Linux zealots about FreeBSD is based on prejudice and misinformation. Repeating the same mistake in the other direction doesn't help.
The BSDs and Linux are all excellent, and very similar, operating systems. The only way to compare them is with strict technical or legal comparisons. Rhetoric doesn't help anyone to make decisions.
I fell into FreeBSD thanks to some hacking I did years back on NetBSD-VAXstation 2000. I have never encountered something I cannot do (aside from RealAudio, but I'm pretty sure I have a fix for that now). I'm sure that if I had started off with Linux, I'd be a Linux user today. They're both great. I don't think either is so much more wonderful than the other to justify a switch, at least not on my home computer.
Meanwhile, my friend scoured the net for the appropriate RPM's. Then found out he had to find RPM's for the libraries, etc.
not all distros were created equal. Those of us who use debian feel sorry for our little brothers who can't just type apt-get install and have apt d/l the app and all dependancies and set it up.
seriously, though, I've never actually used the FreeBSD package manager, but it is hard to imagine anything nicer than debian's apt/dpkg system.
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles scream and shout.
I use Linux all day, and all night. I have used it exclusively for years.
The main resons I switched to linux:
-I got bored with OS/2
-I wanted a more stable and robust OS
-I wasn't learning anything new in OS/2
-Windows was not an option
-The Linux 'headspace' seemed a better academic endeavour, and I looked forward to expanding my horizons.
One other main reson why I joined the linux bandwagon was becasue The crowd was technically good, reason and logical thinking seemed to be the aura of the community. I'm not so sure that this is the case anymore.
The surge in linux popularity is bitter-sweet for me. While attention is always nice, I would rather ATTRACT users by exaple of a solid implementation, and sound thinking than PROMOTE the OS into the mainstream.
Lately I find myself saddened by the sheer ignorance of some Linux advocates, and I feel dirty by assiciation.
It may be time for me to move on to BSD for this very reason. It seems serene over there, and I get the impression that their development model may be superior to Linux's.
Linus and Alan maintain tight control over kernel development. The best code floats to the top and get implemented. This allows for the kernel to be as robust and as solid as it has proven itself to be.
BSD's approach encompases the entire OS, not just the kernel. I would have to assume that having tight control over the entire distrubution ensures that the tools are solid, and most bugs have been worked out before something is added, as the author points out. Surely this is where BSD's legendary stability must stem from.
Another point is the package management. RedHat and Debian both have good efforts under way, and I'm sure many days could be spent debating which is superior. I think they're probably both equally crippled because both distributions depend on the development cycles of developers that are not necessarily affiliated with one distribution or an other. Control is lost. The Linux distributions are placed at the mercy of seperate development teams, with different goals.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but by FreeBSD having tight control over the inclusion of core tools into the distribution, they can build a secure and stable distribution much more easily than can be done for Linux. Also, the issues of package dependancies, upgrades etc become exponentially more simple to handle. In this regard, I doubt FreeBSD can be touched by any Linux distro.
Obviously contributed software or applications is a different matter. I'm speaking of the core tools that form a distribution.
Hopefully the LSB can and will solve this problem. I really hope it's sooner than later.
I like Linux. More and more I dislike the self-devouring and ignorant behaviour of the ill-informed Linux advocate that spews propaganda which they detest in the 'other faction'.
Try as many Linux distros as you can, and try FreeBSD as well, and decide for yourself which you prefer. I'll be trying BSD real soon now, then I'll make my own decisions.
Just because the article didn't rant, rave or curse, doesn't make it "Well written". It's just more of the usual FUD (yes, I do mean FUD).
I don't think the author made a point or claim (true or otherwise) that hadn't been made dozens of times before.
His claim that NetBSD runs on more architectures than any other OS may be true, but only just, and unless I am much mistaken, Linux is roughly at parity on CPUs.
Linux has real, portable SMP. I don't believe that the SMP in NetBSD or FreeBSD comes even close, for performance or platform support. I'm willing to be proved wrong, but I don't believe that any free BSD even has kernel threading support. The people who know about such things freely admit that Linux' networking is better (if not by much).
NetBSD rocks. OpenBSD rocks. FreeBSD probably rocks though, unlike the others, it doesn't fill a niche that Linux doesn't (for me).
I don't feel the need to slag off their work. I don't even abuse BSD users :-). Should rants like this article really be acceptable just because they come from a minority standpoint?
Matthew.
Could this be the real load test of the new setup?
I've used both FreeBSD and Linux, and I ran into an unfortunate reality. If you want to use common everyday hardware and still get the newest feature sets, short of using Windows 98, Linux is really your only choice.
Prior to my Linux days and prior to my FreeBSD days, I used OS/2. I was constantly driven nuts by the fact that OS/2 didn't support most of my hardware. If you have used OS/2 in the past, you know what I'm talking about. You buy a computer you can afford that is chock full 'o cheap hardware that OS/2 can't even guess at. When I gave up the ghost on OS/2, I tried FreeBSD, only to run into the same problem. Meanwhile, my buddy keeps trying to help me out ... "What do you mean that card isn't supported. I know Linux supports it ..."
Now I want to tip my hat to the FreeBSD folks. It is a GREAT operating system. Really, it is. No amount of FUD or stupidity on either side can change that. I'm sure they have even fixed some of the hardware support issues I initially had. But here is the cold, hard reality that every BSD developer knows deep down: there are simply *more* linux developers. More. More by a factor of 2 at least, if not more. More software is available for Linux and not for FreeBSD because of this. More hardware is supported and newer technology is in the kernel or on its way. Not because Linux is any "better". Not because it is "better" at marketing. But because there are more developers.
The reasons why there are more linux developers than are FreeBSD developers is the subject of a flame war that I do not wish to be involved in. Sorry :-) Maybe it could be AskSlashdot question? Or would that just be asking for clan wars?
That being said, a final hats off to the FreeBSD people. The Ports system is just too incredibly cool. If you have never used it, it is very much like the debian package system (or so I have heard). I have missed that feature set very much, and I have almost switched to Debian a couple of times just to see if it might work like ports did (sorry, too much RH inertia at this point--but there is still hope ;-).
"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs."
"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs." -- Switchfoot, Ode to Chin
BSDI does not "own the BSD code". BSDI distributes modified BSD code, under the BSD license (since you cannot remove a license from code without the approval of the copyright holder). In order to "protect their investment" they have added their own licensing restrictions on top of the BSD license, which prevents free redistribution, and distribution of modifications. Therefore BSDI is BSD-licensed, but not even close to Free (or Open Source, or even Sun's favorite "Community Licensed"). BSDI's BSD code is proprietary.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
That article was biased, almost to the point of flamebait with a couple of the jabs in there. Not great advocacy on either sides part. Especially considering that this article seems to be aimed at dispelling FreeBSD myths to Linux users. But there is truth in there if you get past the jabs.
Does it really matter how FreeBSD licenses their code? If you don't use it or contibute to it why should you care? Personally I like the diversity. And as far as the GNU/GPL issues I don't understand the complaints. The GPL gives them every right to use those programs. It is kind of the point of the GPL. The free distribution of software. Sure the resources of the "free" community may be streched thin, but it is a "free" community. People are free to work on what they want. Bashing somebody because their goals are different from yours is much less productive then actually getting something done.
The linux community and the *BSD communities used to have a great relationship. I seriously hope bridges aren't being burned by some people's religous quest to make everything linux or GPL. I also hope the FreeBSD community realize not everybody in the linux community feels the same way. Some of us even greatly admire and respect their work and hope they continue long into the future.
Xamot "hoping to install FreeBSD for the first time as soon as I can get a bigger harddrive."
--
?
hmm .. the other day I wanted to install squid:
/etc/squid.conf
root@gateway # apt-get install squid
root@gateway # vi
all done
this was debian slink.
This article was no better than the FUD it aimed to dispell. BSD is fragmented in the same sense UNIX is fragmented. UNIX started as one OS, and people began writing their own versions. *BSD began as one OS, and people began writing their own versions. Linux is fragmented as well, but to a lesser extent. There is only one Linux kernel, but there are many distributions. There are problems with libraries, file locations, and rc scripts, but the LSB (or whatever it's called right now) aims to remove these incompatibilites. Do all of the BSDs have common rc scripts, common libraries, common file locations? I don't know, but I'm fairly certain the answer is no. Is there any work underway to resolve these problems if they exist? There are far more Linux distributions than BSD, however, so IMHO they come up about equal for fragmentedness.
Also, the bit about FreeBSD being a technically superior OS was pure FUD. Why is FreeBSD technically superior? I don't think being derived from the original UNIX source (which IIRC is no longer true because of a law suit that forced them to remove all AT&T source from *BSD) qualifies as making a "technically superior" OS. I also don't think the cathedral-ish developement model makes any difference either. The author fails to mention is that Linux kernel patches go through much of the same procedure that *BSD patches do. People submit the patch to Linus, who then reviews and decides if the patch should become part of the official kernel.
I'm not going to go into the license issues as I feel they are a matter of personal choice and have nothing to do with one OS being superior than the other. Some people like the GPL, others like the BSD license, others still might prefer the MPL, QPL, or any one of the growing list of free licenses.
Finally, Linux is not a clone of FreeBSD anymore than FreeBSD is a clone of Linux. They are entirely different OSes with different goals started by different people. They are both UNIX clones. FreeBSD may be more closely tied to UNIX, but that does not make Linux a FreeBSD clone.
-matt
I've been a FreeBSD user from the very beginning (back when it was 386bsd). It kicks ass as a high-end Internet/Intranet server. I run my business on it and have no regrets. I've started using Linux in recent years. As a desktop workstation, it rocks. I've had no problems getting the two OS's to play together. I'm glad they both exist.
The way I see it, a little conflict and competition between the camps will only spur us on... It is not like defeating Windows offers much of a *technical* challange.
Thad
The Bolachek Journals
We played with all the mount options. No matter how we looked at it, Linux as significantly faster than FreeBSD.
I've heard this argument a lot that the BSD license is fundementally incompatible with the GPL. I can't find why that would be a case. The only restriction on compatibility that GPL maintains is that you are not allowed to infringe upon the rights given to you by the GPL. Placing a restriction on copyright notices, which the GPL already does in two seperate clauses doesn't seem to make this incompatible.
The actual clause for restriction is:Nowhere does the GPL state that you are given the right not to distribute the source without a copyright, in fact, the GPL makes it's own copyright restrictions in two places before this:
and
If I've made a mistake interpretting the GPL, please explain what I'm missing.
--
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
There's nothing stopping anyone from using GNU tools in *BSD. However, the aim is to make it a clear option so that those who don't agree with the GPL can choose to avoid GNU code.
The idea is "Give people the choice". It's better than the choice of "Either accept the GPL or don't use *any* of the software."
You must admit, the GPL is controversial. Whether you agree with them or not, I hope you can see that some people have a valid reason not to like it. The first page or two of the GPL (the preamble) is effectively a political manifesto. How 'free' is software licensed such that you have to accept a particular political belief?
Anyway, I digress. The fact is, I've worked at companies where the GPL has prohibited them for use in certain products/services. The BSD license didn't. Nothing I could do about it, but there you are. So there *is* a practicality to it.
This guy just didn't state it very well (or at all).
Quotes like these make me wonder about the mindset of those who favor the BSD license. James Howard is saying that GNU code is not freely re-distributable, and BSD code is. I disagree vehemently. Maybe in theory the BSD license gives users more permissions than the GNU license, but in practice BSD code is often made proprietary, and thus is not freely re-distributable.
From the software author's point of view, BSD code is easier to distribute, because its licensing is so liberal. However, from the software user's point of view, GPL code is more distributable, because unlike BSD code it is never proprietarized. As a software user myself, I think that James Howard (and all BSD license advocates) do software users like us a great disservice by focusing on the freedom of authors at the expense of freedom of users.
In conclusion, if you really do want to dispel the notion that "FreeBSD is an Old Boy's Network and Too Closed", please start paying more attention to the needs of software users instead of your own selfish interests as software authors. And please don't give me the "authors need money to eat" drivel. The success of Linux proves quite convincingly that authors can eat and serve their users at the same time.
So then why do so many of them buy Quake and Civ:CTP?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Yeah, FreeBSD took a while to get SMP working (although I was using it two years ago in production.)
That's because they chose to engineer it carefully rather than just throwing in the first implementation sent to them.
Agreed.. Linux tends to have better support for whizzy new gadgets. FreeBSD tends to concentrate on good stable support for good stable hardware. Since FreeBSD aims more at the server market than the home market, you tend to engineer a new machine specifically for FreeBSD, rather than throwing one together. (Not that you *can't* just throw one together)
Only in their current models. The major distributions work on a smorgasbord model, trying to include any application the end user might want or need in the distribution. The BSDs take an alternate--and perhaps enlightened--approach, clearly distinguishing the "core" from the rest. From the BSD perspective, I would argue that nearly all the major distributions share the same core, even without the LSB. Where the Linux camps and BSD camps differ is in the definition of the core.
Ask and ye shall receive. Again, you're thinking of distributions like Red Hat, where any project of note is included in the distribution. One could easily create a secure distribution (such as Khaos is working on) simply by taking a more conservative stance on what the core should be.
Increasingly, it doesn't matter whether you run Linux or a BSD, if you check your favorite software it usually compiles for anything remotely Unix-like. Even commercial software, such as Netscape, can be installed, but there is a clear distinction in the BSD camp that it is not part of the "core"--though that courtesy isn't often given to Linux distributions. BSDers might point out Netscape as a potential security flaw in the distribution. Linux users would say,"Duh. You don't install that crap on your production machines."
Again, only in the current form. The sheer number of permutations of system libraries under Linux can make for installation nightmares, but it also makes for unbelievable flexibility. Yes, it's possible to run KDE and GNOME apps side by side, and a Caldera user might have to do some hunting to install gnumeric correctly, but those issues are still possible under the BSDs. Anything that's not part of the core will cause the same headaches, and for all the problems with .debs and .rpms the BSDs are eventually going to face the same problems in user-interface-land. Wait until the BSD UI Core Wars come, and all of a sudden Red Hat starts looking good.
In reality, users in both camps know the best way to handle userland software is './configure ; make ; make install', and it'll probably be that way for a very long time. That's how Unix got us here in the first place.
The problem is that some people now consider GNOME and KDE as core tools, much the way most distributions consider X a core tool. What the BSD camp sees as a detriment, the Linux camp sees as a unifying theme of freedom. Yes, it does cause it's share of headaches, but just as there are projects targetted specifically at FreeBSD, there are projects targetted specifically at glibc2.1 systems, or Debian systems. Just as the article's author pointed out, that it's not fragmentation, but differing market niches. The lines are blurry, but they definitely exist. Red Hat isn't for everyone.
Don't we all.