Slashdot Mirror
Yet Another BSD vs Linux article
Lazaru5 writes "Technology writer Simson L. Garfinkel wrote this article for the Boston Globe Online Business section. " It's something of an incendiary article, but I think it's great to see the amount of press that *BSD has been getting lately.
CVSup for FreeBSD is so easy anyone can use it. You can update the diffs for your source whenever you like and remake your world.
So what he's saying is that you need 3 different *BSDs when you could just use one version of Linux
Ever notice how the *BSD mascots have a weapon and tux doesn't?
.38 ppk.
C'mon, let's get the lil feller appropriate armament. Seeing as he's wearing a tuxedo, I think he should have a Walther
dave
Why would anyone attach any merit to this writer's opinion on UNIX systems? He's the same co-author who edited the "UNIX Sucks" book that came out a couple of years ago.
(I remember getting it for a VAX administrator's birthday gift...)
Thanks for your educational input and also branding me with your stereotypes. Godwin's law wasn't quite invoked here but very close. The truth is, Linux (and FreeBSD), have forged an entirely new economy. To embrace vendors like IBM and Intel (ugh twice!) is to undermine those advances. We have the opportunity to make the rules and perhaps even ensure that the trash marketing which has invaded mainstream computing doesn't proliferate here. The crass commercialism I referred to was mostly a result of observing the poor, sad "Linux Pavilion" I saw at Interop yesterday. Windows desktops were present there two-to-one over Linux and there wasn't a single cluebie to be found. It's better not to make a showing than to be made a laughing-stock (as this example certainly was). That's what premature entry into the commercial arena is doing to Linux. In our haste to fight Microsoft do we risk making damaging alliances? From what I've seen so far I believe that ground is being lost, not gained.
Um, you just did a pretty poor job of ignoring, flameboy.
I am very tired of the Cathederal and the Bizzarre stuff.
/etc is not full of cleverness foisted onto the user by the creator of a 'distribution.'
When people go to visit Europe, they make special trips to see the great Cathederals. They may stop off at a Bazaar to buy some trinkets for friends and relatives, but the smelly peasants, dirty canvas booths, and shysters trying to sell 'real gold' to them are a rather non-aesthetic experience.
Mr. Raymond's whole message is peppered with his neo-Pagan ideology, and his disdain for greatness. One of the things I like about the BSDs (I use NetBSD/i386) is the lack of a homespun kludge-ridden structure.
Linux just has the scent of mediocrity all over it, and has from it's beginning. Like a finely crafted footstool your fifth-grade brother brought home from wood shop.
Tssssss. I am a cracker and indeed Linux is a cracker OS. What do you think. Don't whine if somebody tells you your ferrari is a racer car. accept the facts.
This is interesting. Could you post benchmarks or measurements ? What version of Linux were you using ?
Well, guess what. It's the same as with, let's say Debian Linux. If you use a lousy Distro and install all kinds of untested crap on your System, it's your fault.
Everyone has to decide where their priorities lie.
Couldn't have set it better. If you want a reasonably secure Linux System, please do yourself a favor and install Debian or Slackware. But stop the Linux security myth!
I don't wonder why, because it's such an uninteresting thing to wonder about.
Have you ever seen a remote root exploit for Windows 95? A poorly secured Linux machine (and there are *lots* out there) is much more attractive to crackers than a Windows box. Unless you get BackOrifice onto someone's machine, the most you can do with a cracked Windows system is browse the hard drive. Get root on Linux, and you can pretty much do anything.
So what? Read what is stated: NetBSD runs on over 22 architectures, Linux runs on less than that. Period. He does not say anything similar to "NetBSD runs on every platform Linux does, plus many more." He says "Count the number of supported platforms for each of the two OSs and NetBSD supports lots more."
If there isnt Linux, all the BSD will start to bad mouth each other until it really stinks. Why? Because these zeadiots have no idea about marketing and presentation at all.
...when it wasn't so hot. they never went back.
Is anyone else fed up with the boring and irrelevant stories that get posted on Slashdot? These petty OS wars between prepubescent, socially-inept retards usually fail to provide me with any new and tangible insights. It has all kind of settled into a mind-numbing Linux advocacy routine that no longer interests me.
jacking out...
For many purposes (such as office productivity tools), Windows (NT/2000 or 9x) is better than Linux.
For other purposes (such as traditional UNIX development), a *BSD system is better than most Linux distributions (Debian GNU/Linux is probably comparable to the *BSD systems here).
If you don't want to program, your best bet is probably Windows. If you do, you might want to consider *BSD or Debian GNU/Linux.
At the end of the day, no one system is best for everything, or for everyone. Nevertheless, for most users, Windows is the best choice.
Umm, okay. Please look up the word "paraphrase." If you can't pull "Linux runs on less than that" out of "While Linux can only run on a few kinds of computers, NetBSD can run on more than 22" then there is no hope.
This isn't meant as a personal thrash, but you seem to have a fundamental problem understanding EXACTLY what is stated. I'm actually not saying whether or not he's correct, but what he states is BSD runs on n types of computers (and lists a few) and Linux runs on fewer than that NUMBER. That's all. Period. He does not say anything similar to "BSD runs on this or these platform(s), Linux does not" nor does he say anything similar to "BSD runs on every system Linux does, plus more." So when someone says "I know a platform Linux runs on that BSD doesn't", it's completely irrelevant and does not refute his point even slightly.
Anyhow, I have to agree that the article was a little hard on Linux, at the same time the author may have a point. Keep in mind that Linux is a very young os compared to *BSD, and therefore hasn't had the time to become as refined.
All the same, I'm glad that this article came about. I'm currently looking for an os to run on my pc and I've been looking into both Linux and BSD. I've found a lot of information, but what I would like to see is a direct, and fair comparison of the different Linux flavours (umm...strawberry....) and BSD flavours. This is probably inpractical, but still it's on my Christmas Wishlist. :)
So? Bruce Schneier is a Cryptologist. Being one, is a far cry from being a systems security person. The experts in this field would be people like Chez, Spaf, Bishop, Marcus Ranum.
Sorry to disappoint you, but Linux runs on just about everything NetBSD does plus Palm Pilots!
Just what does it mean to run Linux on a Palm Pilot?? Do I get a full /bin and /usr/bin? That's Unix to me. Oh, wait, you want the pureist definition of Unix -- the interface of the kernel. Ok, does Linux on the Palm Pilot have virtual memory? Does it have the normal Unix security model with UID==0? Does it have a normal tty interface? If I look at section 2 of the Linux manual, will everything there be present? If I looked at section 9 of the Linux manual (internal kernel interfaces) would I find all those interfaces available???
I think you said it all right there. You have an opinion, but no information, facts, or even hunches.
The fact is that I can not see one reason to install BSD on one of my computers. Not one single reason!
Given your tenor, you would probably be happier with Win98 than either of linux or *BSD.
I have to wonder if all the *BSD anger is steming from the fact that Now they are trying to Port Linux Utils to *BSD. That Might not be the reason. (Because I think it is easier to port from linux to other *nix then the other way around).
This statement is so misinformed is denies a response. Just in case you were wondering, FreeBSD runs linux binaries without recompiling.
Erm, do you know what FUD means? A criticism which you happen to disagree with hardly constitutes an attempt to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt.
An example of a `FUDdy' comment would be to claim that, while *BSD may be faster, stabler and/or more secure than Linux now, Linux will eventually catch up with and surpass it. The implication, of course, is that you're better off using Linux now, even if it isn't as fast/stable/secure.
Incidentally, I chose this example because it's something I've read quite often on Slashdot (from Linux users attempting to spread anti-BSD FUD).
Running the Linux kernel on a given piece of hardware is not the same as Red Hat providing a complete distribution for that platform.
I believe Red Hat Linux is currently distributed in x86, SPARC and Alpha versions. Other distributions may offer wider support, but Red Hat is seen as the standard (even though SuSE is much more popular in some areas).
NetBSD is a complete system on all the platforms supported by the formal release (which is 16, not 22, although some of the remaining 6 are reasonably good ports). Moreover, NetBSD's excellent support of legacy hardware is much more useful to many people than support for SPARC or Alpha (which already run SunOS/Solaris and Tru64, respectively).
And co-wrote _Practical Unix Security_ And ran a small ISP. A love-hate relationship to be sure.
In this case FUD is a problem... I agree with Steinar. Did you install NetBSD ? Linux is available for for some architectures that NetBSD are also. I could be wrong... so what do you think of the information available at URL ? http://www.cynic.net/~cjs/computer/os-ports.html
Erm, I think you're agreeing with me.
My comment was that Windows is probably better for those who don't program, where as a *BSD or Debian system is probably better for those who do (at least in a non-commercial environment).
It is much easier to write something when you've got source code for all of the APIs you use.
> Garfinkel phrased his statement in such a way
> as to make it difficult to tell if he meant
> that Linux was a favorite target of crackers or
> a favorite *tool* of crackers.
`Linux is the favored operating system for most of the attackers on the Internet, which is another reason I don't use it.'
It seems reasonably clear to me Mr Garfinkel is claiming most attackers on the Internet use Linux. It follows from this that they're more familiar with it (including its weaknesses), hence a Linux system is more vulnerable to them. That's one reason he doesn't use it. This is simply straightforward reasoning, and if the initial claim (Linux is the favored operating system for most of the attackers on the Internet) is true, it's very sound reasoning.
Simon Garfinkel has rather good credentials in the area of UNIX security, so I'm inclined to accept that his initial claim isn't an error (or a lie). A criticism based on correct data is not FUD. A criticism based on incorrect data (believed to be correct) is not FUD. A deliberate lie intended to scare people away from something is FUD. If you have any evidence that Mr Garfinkel is deliberatly lying about this (bearing in mind that there are laws against libel), you've got a case. If not, you haven't.
As to opinions, they're neither here nor there. Mr Garfinkel has either got his facts right, or he hasn't. If he hasn't, tell him so, and suggest he publish a retraction.
People who whinge about `FUD' at the sight of any comment with which they disagree tend to come across as ignorant, malicious or just stupid.
AIX has got quite a bit of BSD code in it as well, including code from the official CSRG BSD releases, as well as from NetBSD. HP-UX and Tru64 contain a lot of BSD code too.
Solaris (SunOS5) contains BSD code which it inherited from SunOS4. I expect there's even some BSD code in UNIX System V R5 (SCO UnixWare), at least in the userland tools which were introduced in BSD.
You can theoretically create other *BSD distributions, there's just no reason to do so.
I think the important factor with Linux is that it started out as simply a kernel, so there was a great rush to put together complete system distributions. This created a lot of marketing competition between the distributions, and the ones with the best marketing (primarily Red Hat and SuSE) have largely won out (and gained a lot of publicity/users in the process).
With *BSD, the whole thing has been there all along (ignoring the replacement of the encumbered code), so there was no need for a Red Hat to come along and put a distribution together. From a media perspective, it's rather boring compared to Linux.
It looks to me that when someone is not praising Linux as in "linux is THE operating system", "Linux is the best" etc , Linux zealots scream "FUD". It's really getting annoying to see 13 year old kiddies that don't even know the meaning of FUD scream "FUD FUD" whenever someone doesn't advocate linux as the "OS of gods". Get real people. I am a passionate linux user myself but this really has to stop. The "it's not linux so it sux" attitude only shows the immaturity of the linux community, and frankly i am quite ashamed to consider myself part of it right now. *BSD's are GREAT alternatives. I personally use Linux Mandrake as my development desktop, and FreeBSD as the firewall/Gateway box. I like moth operating systems for what thy are good at and that's that. Why is it that if it's NOT linux it sux???
BSD predates GNU, but the free *BSD projects, which continued non-commercial BSD development after the UC Berkeley CSRG was disbanded, were inspired, at least in part, by the GNU project.
Alternatively, we could all run V6 UNIX on PDP-11 emulators. :-P
It's a nice idea (runlevels), but I don't like the way it was implemented in System V.
If the BSD groups ever decide to implement a similar scheme, perhaps theirs will be less hideous.
It always amazes me to hear this argument... yes, I think that Linux is catching up on the "ports" that are working, but I still think NetBSD is in the lead.
To equate "m68k" as being *any* 68k based machine is ludicrous. The atari is 68k, the old apollo workstations, the hp300/400 series machines, I have an old Perkin-Elmer 7350 workstation that is 68k based, Sun 3's are 68k based, the older macs are 68k based... need I go on? And what do these machines have in common between them except that they use the 68k CPU/MMU combo? Virtually *NOTHING*.
So, Linux supports the m68k processor... will it run on my Perkin-Elmer 7350? No? Neither does NetBSD... so what good does that m68k "port" do me? To consider a "port" being support for all machines of that processor type is worthless.
Does Linux/m68k run on the amiga, atari, mac68k, sun 3's, and the hp300/400 series? One kernel supports all the 68k's? Hmmm...
Running on the NetBSD assumption that a "port" consists of a kernel with interface support for a particular platform, NetBSD would still have more ports. Yes, the atari, hp300, sun3, and mac68k ports all use basically the same userland (from the m68k tree)... but the kernel-level support is different (68k mac's are NuBus, support for NuBus would be worthless in a kernel for atari/hp300's). To say that Linux supports "m68k" in the same way as NetBSD, even if it doesn't support as many platforms using that processor is shortchanging NetBSD big time... just FUD.
I always hear this argument... I do notice that Linux/Vax is getting better, but people have been touting it as a Linux "port" for over a year and its only lately that it could actually do anything even remotely useful. NetBSD has worked on Vaxen for years, and supports (or is actively working on support) for just about every Vax in existence.
Linux/hppa had a wonderful web site the last time I looked... lots of linked pages with tons of useful info, very nicely formatted pages... a well done web site. Of course, then you read the "current status" of the "port" and they didn't even have a bootloader working at the time. But we've got a "port"!! Yeah, right... let me know when your "port" actually boots and can run even a single-user shell on my hppa machine.
Now, before I get beat up too bad... Linux is progressing, and it *is* catching up. I don't think Linux is inferior *or* superior to *BSD's, its just another free OS.
The one place, for now anyways, that I think NetBSD has the advantage over Linux *and* FreeBSD is that they concentrated from the start on keeping it divided into Machine-Dependent (MD) and Machine-Independant (MI) code, and trying not to put optimizations into the MI code for a specific platform. NetBSD's goal was to support many platforms, and so they kept their design around that goal. Linux is catching up, but being a primarily x86 platform initially they have to progress towards platform independance, while NetBSD is already there.
Which platform is "better"?? Thats purely up to your own way of thinking. I primarily stick to NetBSD because I have a slew of old CPU's and it runs on all of them, and supports them very well right *now*. I *do* have an x86 Linux box, and have been thinking about putting Linux on one of my 68k mac's... maybe when they get the hppa port working I'll install it in place of HPUX on my HP735 system. Until then, I don't really consider it a "port"... just a work in progress...
Why is it that most of the people accusing this article of being little more than FUD and downplay the robustness of *BSD also happen to have *barely* ever used a *BSD system?
I have been using Linux since 1994, and OpenBSD since late 1998, and I must say that even though linux is simpler to install, has more hardware support, etc, I would *NEVER* trust it as my firewall/gateway/webserver. My linux box is safely behind a OpenBSD firewall, and there it will stay.
How many linux distributions have done a line-by-line source code security audit? There are a few new linux distributions doing it, but they're far from being close to usable.
I dare any of you close-minded linux users to do the following test:
Take 2 boxes. Same hardware for both. Nothing fancy. Install Redhat/Debian/Slack/Suse on one, and OpenBSD on the other, no special tweaks or security enhancements, just the default base install with the necessary configuration steps to allow them to be networked. Put them both online. Advertise their existence. Now sit back and wait, and let's see which gets rooted first.
Happy? Now, stop accusing every *BSD user of being a fanatic, and look at the linux community in general... and see who cries "FUD!" at the slightest cheap-shot to the "holy OS". Each flavor of a particular OS has its strengths and weaknesses. Whatever you choose to use depends on your needs and what you intend to do with the box. Who cares what someone else who may not be the most informed person has to say? You're the one that ultimately will make the decision and live with it.
Live and let live, people.> The *BSD's aren't really descended from the
> original anymore, all of that code that
> was 'officially' from the original was taken
> out and rewritten, giving Linux the opportunity
> to appear and get popular.
The thing of it is, a lot of what defines UNIX was developed in BSD UNIX, not AT&T UNIX. Defining characteristics of UNIX, such TCP/IP and VM, along with lesser features and many userland tools, were first developed in BSD UNIX, and later included in, or reimplemented in, other UNIXes.
The point is, BSD is not an offshoot of the main UNIX branch; for a long time, it was the main UNIX branch, even if System V UNIX eventually implemented most of the same features (bearing in mind that most commercial UNIXes contain a lot of code from both BSD UNIX and System V UNIX).
The fact that the features provided by BSD UNIX were implemented in commercial versions of UNIX is actually one of the main reasons the CSRG was disbanded.
The reason there are separate *BSD systems is because the groups have different goals.
Code which is optimised for performance will almost never be as portable as code which is optimised for portability, and vice-versa.
OpenBSD has led the way in many areas of security, but this distinction is less clear-cut than portability (NetBSD) versus performance on volume hardware (FreeBSD). At some point, it might perhaps be nice to see OpenBSD folded back into NetBSD. On the other hand, it may be better to keep it separate. The future will ultimately be determined by events.
Finally, there are differences in the implementations of the *BSD kernels (they're derived from the same code, there have been many changes), but the system-call interfaces are very close, and I believe there is binary compatibility between all three (though FreeBSD users don't generally need to run NetBSD/OpenBSD binaries).
I prefer FreeBSD to Linux because I've found it's better suited to my needs. The standard FreeBSD userland includes most of what I use, without a lot of fluff. It provides a standard UNIX-like environment of the sort that I'm used to.
The Linux distributions I've used (Red Hat and SuSE) have tended to be geared more towards Windows users than traditional UNIX users (e.g. installing a Windows-like GUI by default), hence they're less useful to me. I don't want to spend hours (or even minutes, actually) tailoring a Linux system when a standard FreeBSD (or NetBSD) configuration provides exactly what I want.
In view of the fact that most PC users use Windows, Red Hat or SuSE may be better for them than FreeBSD. For others (such as myself), FreeBSD is a better choice.
This guy doesn't even know what he is advocating! He also says "...businesses are now the driving force in the Linux community." well, we all know he is wrong....
he always reminded me of simon and garfunkel...
gee... i wonder why...
Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
i think he's violating his agreement with mediaone. anyone care to check? instead of tilting at the linux vs. *bsd windmill, why doesn't he exercise his mouth in battling annoying cable company policies?
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
If you're going to quote T.S. Eliot in your sig,
you should at least spell the man's name correctly. One 'l'.
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
Linux && *BSD are both Free Unices for the x86 class of processers, what is the big deal.
Sure Linux and *BSD both have there advantages, they both all have there down falls, what is the debait?
I can see someone advocating their OS, but I get the impression that this journlaist was "looking" down on Linux.
I'm not trying to start a flame war, but what is this about?
They are both stable, they both run on cheap hardware, they are both open source, they are both free (in speech and in beer) and they are both unix (or enough like unix that one can't tell the differance).
Amen brother. God forbid if Slackware ever develops into SlackHat. rpm --uninstall slackhat* (laff)
For the record, I run linux on several systems and *bsd on none. But the fact of the matter is, netbsd runs on *far* more hardware than linux. Linux is very portable, and it's getting better, but on most non x86 platforms, when you don't have a driver for something, you download the netbsd driver and try to port it.
Sheesh... every box I have here can run Linux... including 5 major processor architectures. And what about those machines, like the Deskstation 164UX/Ruffian, that run Linux but won't run any *BSD?
Personally, I'm glad NetBSD/FreeBSD/OpenBSD are such great systems, but I'm tired of seeing them positioned as "superior to Linux" without hard evidence or proof.
Linux doesn't differentiate ports like this, so it would appear that Linux is ported to far less machines than NetBSD.
Linux doesn't differentiate ports like this, because in some cases all that's been ported is the kernel to a particular CPU. The rest you have to come up with in bits and pieces, and heaven help you if you weren't expecting a Frankenstein-like mix of pieces and parts.
When someone refers to a NetBSD port, it's a complete system. Not just a kernel.
This is pure BS. Please take another look at the Linux Distros security bulletins and compare the *kernel* v2.0.3x (and kernel tools an C lib) related holes to the security problems of, let's say, FBSD 3.X. At least 95% of the security problems are caused by userland programs which just happen to be in the Distros supplied set of binaries and cause the same Problems when installed under any BSD.
Additional Question: Does a security problem of a program in the ports collection count as a BSD security problem?
Brilliant and insightful refutation. "Uhhh, no, you're wrong!"
Please, people, think before you click on the pretty selection boxes. BSD and Linux aren't that different, except for their philosophies. You shouldn't have an 'interesting' post for not liking SysV init scripts, and you shouldn't be 'overrated' for expressing your opinions, or highlighting the differences. An interesting post should have maybe a new idea in it, and not an opinion, and an overrated post should be just as good as another post with a lower rating. (although you might want to moderate *that* post up instead, or score the later one as redundant.) I have seen some lousy moderation on this thread, I got marked down for having karma, therefore I'm posting anonymously. Hopefully metamoderation will clear up some of the abuse. (Could we flag the 'flamewar' topics, and perhaps only let the users who have been here for a while, or let those who have shown some restraint do the moderation?) Linux is a kernel. People who like GNU tools install and use them. BSD is an entire system. Its license allows companies to use it too. Everything else is your opinion.
I disagree. two free Unices is a good thing. it creates competition. Now, random flame wars is not good, because that just creates random hate and such. But when different distributions are competing in a good natured fashion, good things come, as it causes them to work faster (and I think I could argue that that happens without any loss in quality, and maybe even an increase). Look at what competition with M$ has done for Linux. It's gained by leaps and bounds. I bet that if Windows wasn't there, then linux wouldn't have developed nearly so fast.
-V
Making the blithe assumption that "this OS is more secure than that one" and using that as an excuse for poor administration and auditing of the OS you've chosen is a great way to set yourself up to be hacked.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
It's fully possible to praise BSD without (rather dubiously) citing the flaws in another operating system. The article itself seemed to be rather bereft of factual information both for the BSDs and against Linux, instead relying on the gullibility of the intended audience in believing everything the author said without any concrete evidence.
Not really a fair article, IMO.
-A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Unfortunately, with many corporate buyers, if it's not an officially supported platform, they won't touch it. The MIS types aren't interested in hearing about binary compatibility. They want the OS name on the side of the box, on the web site, etc.
So don't use Red Hat. Slackware has BSDish init scripts...
First off. I was not impressed with the story. Even though I have never used BSD (Other then a couple of passing hours at a Terminal), I don't agree with the authors tone that *BSD is better. What defines Better? The thing that keeps coming to mind is the rate at which Linux is improving. There seems to be more angry *BSD People around saying why are you playing with Linux when you could be using *BSD. The fact is that I can not see one reason to install BSD on one of my computers. Not one single reason! I use Linux for everything now. My reason is that the type of applications and utils that I use and download are coming out for Linux first now. Then it gets ported to other *nix's. This is a big turn around from when I first started using Linux. I can remember some pretty late nights trying to get other *nix source code to compile on Linux. I have to wonder if all the *BSD anger is steming from the fact that Now they are trying to Port Linux Utils to *BSD. That Might not be the reason. (Because I think it is easier to port from linux to other *nix then the other way around).
Still.... The Cold Hard Fact is that I'm going to use what I want. If I want to use NT because I can't find any good people to admin Unix then I will. If I want to use Linux because half my help desk staff is running it at home then I will. If I wanted to use A amiga because I'm some kinda of freak trying to punish myself then I will.
I can't tell you why Linux is more popular then *BSD.. Hell, I'm not even sure if it is. It seems to me that more people like Linux. Just get used to it.
Now if you'll excuse me I have to go to my brothers house and tell him he's a loser for using a Mac.
Last one in jail is a fascist.
I think you said it all right there. You have an opinion, but no information, facts, or even hunches.
Yep.
Given your tenor, you would probably be happier with Win98 than either of linux or *BSD.
Hmm... Nope, Been getting paid to program in *nix for over 3 years now. Been using linux for over 4. I don't even have any MS software.( Okay I have some Driver disks that came with Some hardware ).
This statement is so misinformed is denies a response. Just in case you were wondering, FreeBSD runs linux binaries without recompiling.
Well. I meant *nix not *BSD but Oh well Can't post with out some AC getting on your case.
Last one in jail is a fascist.
Stick to the facts, entitle your article "Even better than x86 Solaris and SCO Unix"... More *BSD press is good, but better *BSD Advocacy would be much better. So I'm going to nitpick the other side for a while.
:)
The *BSD's aren't really descended from the original anymore, all of that code that was 'officially' from the original was taken out and rewritten, giving Linux the opportunity to appear and get popular. (Just like the Hurd took a long time to even get into development) Linux filled a void, deal with it. None of these free x86 UN*X clones are really *that* different.
Linux has iBCS "too", and UN*X is fairly well source-compatible. Big deal.
I'm not sure how much of an advantage having three concurrent versions of *BSD is, it sounds much like having different distributions of Linux... hmm.
Also, are we comparing kernels or distributions here? If not, then let me mention that I've always found the GNU versions of the standard UNIX utilities to be *much* more useful, but YMMV. (I hate blocks! I love kilobytes!
Most of what I hate about *BSD isn't even the operating system: it's the culture, the license, the attitude, the huge 'I am 31337!' chip on many of their shoulders that stops them from helping their users, and makes them flame people and piss people off, and cause them to ban developers from discussion groups a la OpenBSD... (it isn't hard to find references to this, do research before you flame...)
Other than that, I'm sure both sides could share the few minor innovations that the other has, (barring the licensing issue, which may be moot without the advertising clause in one direction, and I'm sure some authors will contribute changes under both licenses in the other direction), and everyone would be happy from a technical perspective. This has basically already happened. From an advocacy perspective, we need more articles like "BSD really worked for me", and less like "I think BSD kicks the penguin in the @$$!"
Linux has an advocacy HOWTO. Read it, and run 'sed s/Linux/BSD/g', and try to understand.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
ftp ftp.proxy.box
Login: MyID
Password: MyPass
ftp> user ftp@ftp.freebsd.org
Password: user@
Then I'm in.. but this doesn't work with sysinstall. And, I haven't seen any way to make it work with a web (http) proxy, i.e., connecting to port 1080 of a box and saying GET ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/
No big deal, though. I just finished grabbing 3.3-RELEASE the 'hard' way (with some ncftp2 get -R's) and doing a filesystem install. :)
What you say is exactly how I got in using the unauthenticated ftp proxy (which has been gotten rid of). The authenticated ftp proxy works differently - requires more lines be entered to work, which sysinstall doesn't grok. And, the web proxy isn't supported by sysinstall at all. If I were the one running the proxy, it would be easy, but this is at a large corporation, you see.
;)
But, now I have a suggestion for them.
Second assumption: If it has the tool that you need to do the job, and they are tight (hard to crack) use it.
I run a 'site' that has over 170 FreeBSD severs. We process over 120 MILLION hits a day on just one of the products that we manage. I was a Linux geek before this job. Now I run FreeBSD. It rocks! Show me a linux site that moves 482Mb/s and I'll look at linux again. Can linux really handle 1024 spawns of apache? Not from what I've seen.
"Show me the proc table."
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
YOU KNOW NOT OF WHAT YOU TALK ABOUT.
You site his arrogance. Yet you don't even see your own. Linux is ok, I use it on desktops because the WM I like works better on SuSE than BSD. (openwin if you must know, and I use to have suse.org until I gave it to a friend).
"Immature flamers or arrogant snobs (Betcha can't guess which is which)"
Yep, I can, you are the hallmark.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
Ok, let's assume for the sake of argument that *BSD kernels really are somewhat superior to the Linux kernel for high-end network programs. Why should I bother replacing Linux? Here are the reasons usually given..
:) But if I want to play with other kernels I'll take the Hurd, thank you.
-> BSD is more secure.
How secure is secure enough, and how much of this has to do with BSD? The kernel itself is (AFAIK) almost meaningless in this equation in the case of my computer, on which I'm pretty much the only account-holder. All potential vulnerabilities (barring nasty remote-crash surprises, in which case I'll patch against them anyway) will be in userland programs. Everything I have listening on any port is--surprise, surprise--also available for BSD: Apache, Exim, and ssh.
-> BSD is more robust.
Again, *assuming* that this is true, Linux is plenty robust for me. It *does not crash*. Period. Next...
-> BSD has this nifty 'ports' thing...
apt-get install. apt-get source.
-> Linux people aren't True God-Designated Computer Gurus!
And there was much rejoicing...
-> BSD's not GNU!
The vitriol I've seen from just about every BSD user whenever GNU is mentioned is amazing. It in itself is enough to convince me that I'd rather avoid BSD. Unfortunately, this and the next objection seem to be the primary arguments of most "switch to BSD people".
-> Linux Sucks!
No comment.
Listen: Linux and BSD are, for all intents and purposes, identical systems in userland (except that Linux distros usually build on the more featureful GNU libraries and utilities). Anything I can do on Linux I can also do on BSD. I don't serve massive volumes of Web pages or high-traffic mailing lists. Even if I did, I doubt BSD would be that helpful, but as it is I don't need it at all. Let me rephrase that: I have a UNIX system that works perfectly. Why should I switch to another kernel just because some guy was frightened by Richard Stallman as a young child or something?
Do what you like, I don't care as long as it looks like Unix
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
I should have said 'just about every BSD user I've discussed the topic with'. In my head the qualification was implied but I forgot to type it :-P
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
I'd be glad to see an article espousing the benfits of BSDs over Linux too, if it wasn't for the FUDish style, and cheap blows, he used in this.
We can all use 10 minutes to completely stomp another OS, but please people, let's be resonable, and base it on facts.
-- Andreas
Go through the freebsd 3.3 changelog.
:).
Notice the possible root exploits... wow looks just like the root exploits for newer linux kernels
p.s. most of the problems with 2.2.5 were very minor. as far as never running into problems with freebsd check the changelog for 3.3
-- You can be a geeklord too
I find this whole debate silly. Why do some *bsd users feel that they need to compare their OS to Linux? Because it's popular? Is it easier to compare Freebsd to linux then to say Windows?
We are on the same side guys.. Learn something about the linux of Sept 1999 and stop talking about urban legonds or problems that have not existed in 2/3 years.
For all the myths I hear from the *bsd community about how Linux is insecure. (a distro provides a version of ftpd that happens to have a buffer overflow) Or linux's networking stack is poorly written compared too *bsd or *bsd is more correct then linux because it is based on UNIX (BSDlite). Or freebsd scales better then linux for web servers or ftp servers.. it's all baseless and you will never see hard facts to support these claims because they are false.
ftp.cdrom.com doesn't use Freebsd because linux could not provide the same "record setting" performence. They use it because they have always used it. Because their admins like it, and because they make money selling Freebsd cds.
yahoo doesn't use Freebsd because linux wouldn't fit the bill, matter of fact they have been quoted as saying it would fit the bill, it is just not the OS they feel most comfterable with.
Security: Freebsd isn't fundamentally any more secure then any other operating system. Freebsd is subject to the same rules as all other software. It is commonly accepted that for every 1000 lines of code you will have 1 bug. The major differences between linux and freebsd in security is that a) freebsd has less eye balls looking at their code b) that freebsd's exploitable services tend to only receive updates when there is a "problem" with it.
This being the case it is much more likely that a new feature in wuftpd will lead to a "exploitable" hole then it is that a Freebsd "fix" will intrduce a new hole. It's always a balance between features/stability. Most of us accept the risk that our latest and greatest ftp server (wu-2.5.0(1)) might not be as secure as version (wu-2.0.9(23)) we either take that risk because the features are more important to us. Or we down grade to the latest PATCH level of the last stable version. This is common sense not rocket science.
Linux's TCP/IP STACK is of poor quality: This is rather funny because I was around when this legend was created, I say legend and not myth because it WAS true. Back in the 1.2.xx days Linux's tcp/ip stack was very immature and BETA. ALOT has changed since then. As some people might notice when they boot up Redhat 6.0 or latest debian or whatever it says:
Based upon Swansea University Computer Society NET3.039
NET4: Unix domain sockets 1.0 for Linux NET4.0.
NET4: Linux TCP/IP 1.0 for NET4.0
Try booting a 1.2 kernel sometime..
Linux isn't a true UNIX: This is of course correct, but it was never the stated intent of Linux to BEcome a UNIX. Linux's stated goals was to take the GOOD things from UNIX while leaving out as much of the BAD things as possible. Linux was also designed with the intent of creating the most "common sensed" and "generic" opereating system possible. Most people don't see common sense or "generic" as being that exciting.. However if you judge Linux based on its success as a operating system I would have to say it's paid off.
-- You can be a geeklord too
Along with Spaf, Garfinkel wrote "Practical Unix and Internet Security" and "Web Security & Commerce". If you are going to make a lame flame please at least get your facts straight.
Look, as much as I wish it were otherwise, those of use who are just users and not programmers (not from lack of effort, from lack of time) *need* good software for Linux. I don't care if it comes from an Open Source developer (thought that would be *much* preferable) or a company that only distributes binaries, so long as the program works for what I want it to do. Welcome to Real Life, where practicality is more important than blind screaming evangelism. The economy, believe it or not, really does run the world.
You can call this crass commercialism if you want, but all I care about is that the system I use works. Religious bigotry like you're displaying is what turned me off to using *BSD in the first place.
If you would try to argue the specific advantages of using any BSD over using Linux without resorting to arguments like this, I would definitely listen.
Simply running an OS that's used in servers doesn't mean you're running a server. Check the service agreement. They don't SUPPORT anything but Windows. But, if you're willing to do without techsupport, past telling you the cablemodem and connection are fine, you can run *nix, you can run Be, you can run anything you like.
Just don't run daemons. YES! It's that simple.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Wow! What color is the sky in *your* world, AC?
Garfinkel phrased his statement in such a way as to make it difficult to tell if he meant that Linux was a favorite target of crackers or a favorite *tool* of crackers. What part of that doesn't qualify as Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt? If this had been written by one of our beloved Ziff-Davis comlumnists, the answer would be assumed obvious.
BTW, you've just pushed another of my buttons, namely the whole 'opinion/critisism' defense. There is a common misunderstanding in forums such as this that 'everyone has a right to an opinion' and that 'any critisism is valid as long as it's protected by the 1st Amendment'. Balls to that! People only have a right to an INFORMED opinion, and critisism is valid ONLY to the extent that it can survive countering arguments. Neither Garfinkel nor you (nor I) can assume that we can express any old buggered-up idea and have it stand unchallenged.
---------------------
the SlashDot spellchecker:
---------------------
John 3:16 - God's Public License
The point with security is not that *BSD have no security flaws (although I'd imagine OpenBSD is getting pretty near that by now :-) ) it's that because there are more Linux systems out there crackers are more likely to try to exploit problems in Linux. A form of security through obscurity, perhaps - but it's a sensible enough point.
> Sorry to disappoint you, but Linux runs on just about everything NetBSD does plus Palm Pilots! And there were less-publicized ones for *BSD which means many users probably still don't know. Atleast the Linux developers can admit to
This is unfair. I see the security announcements for NetBSD and OpenBSD, and they seem to be reasonably prompt and full. It's another part of the "Linux gets more publicity" thing - there's not really much they can do beyond their own security announce list and places like bugtraq.
Now if rabid Linux advocates would stop deriding others in pushing *their* OS of choice, perhaps more would take them seriously. Don't start tossing rocks yet boys while you still have glass walls.
No, GNU has given a few tools. Most GNU tools are recreations of existing UCB or even AT&T tools just to put the GPL on them. Please work with facts if you're going to debate.
I sure hope not. Competition drives developers on to do greater and better things. Linux and FreeBSD continually play leapfrog; would you prefer to put that at an end?
I agree with the vi bit though.
-- Dirt Road
-- Dirt Road
Improvise - Adapt - Overcome (unofficial USMC motto)
Hey! Pass that glue bag over here when you're done...
The web side of Hotmail is FreeBSD, the mail side is Solaris.
I've never heard any claim that Yahoo uses Linux. Can you provide a reference?
Red Hat is now a know commodity. If I can get Linux installed and functioning, it will give me some ammunition when I suggest a different distro.
Red Hat is the foot in the door. I can't wait until that door is wide open.
Free Mac Mini. Yes, I'm
Don't forget the fact that Linux has booted on Merced (IA-64).
:)
That makes 11 chips. If I can count, which isn't necessarily a given
--
Peter
Actually, the Mac68k development group maintains a relatively loose connection to the parent m68k group, only occasionally feeding its changes upstream, with about the same frequency as m68k changes are in turn passed up to Linus.
And BTW, Linux on m68k has done a lot of catching up over the past year, and seems to be about dead-even with the corresponding NetBSD port, in terms of stability and completeness of features. Not that anyone actually cares much this architecture anymore as much other than a pet project, of course... =)
Simson is just being the same know-it-all prick-on-a-soapbox as usual.
--
"Merging into heavy traffic at near light speed!"
"Merging into heavy traffic at near light speed!"
"Our inertial mass ever increasing!"
Hehe, I think we'd better give that honor to Windows. I just downloaded another half a dozen security fixes to fix Windows 98 SE.
-Brent--
A number of people here have taken issue with the article's claim that "While Linux can only run on a few kinds of computers, NetBSD can run on more than 22". The point being pointed out is what the OS can run on NOW, rather than what it might run on in the future.
There are a lot of promises made in the open source world, many of which remain unfulfilled. Frankly, a lot of stuff does not work and may never work. So it is not enough to say that there is active work on platform XYZ. Good intentions must become reality, preferably in this millennium. It is more appropriate to count the number of mature ports of Linux vs ???BSD.
And since FreeBSD can run most Linux binaries (Word Perfect 8, Quake I, II, and III-test, Oracle 8, Netscape, etc.) along with being able to compile most source-based applications including KDE and GNOME apps out of the box, how much of an edge does Linux really have?
Except the title, "Even better than Linux", that article only use the word Linux, to "describe" a operation system which are not amiliar to the public. No negative description are added to both OS.
Comparing with comments in slashdot about BSD in the previous months, the "vs" in the title should be removed.
they don't have protected memory :)
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
>I have been an avid Linux user since 1990.
Impressive. Linus started writing it in 1991.
>does he mention that Linux is barely 10 years old
I make it more like eight. Advocacy with incorrect facts is a major disappointment for me.
>This article is by a guy who doesn't know enough >to make any real sense. It should be ignored. >He's new and making assumptions
> because of what the media (ie, ZDNet) says.
Now THAT's ironic! Go to google. Type in Unix and Garfinkel. Do some reading. Please.
In fact GNU was indeed mentioned:
The three BSD operating systems are all descended from the BSD version of Unix developed at the University of California at Berkeley during the 1980s (''BSD'' stands for Berkeley Standard Distribution). They're also the descendants of Project GNU, started by Richard Stallman at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
This isn't *exactly* correct, but they did mention it. BSD is older than the FSF and the GNU Project. It is true that alot of GNU tools are part of the BSD systems, they would still be complete Operating Systems even without them (just not as good.)
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
Or at least
some system of making sure that no matter what platform I'm using, I can run ANY software available with no compatibility issues.
Its called Java, you get it from SUN microsystems, its not perfect, but its what you are speaking of.
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
That works too :-)
I was thinking maybe everyone could run PC Native Oberon...
or maybe not
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
FYI: There's a port of Linux to VAX architecture being developed as well. Although it's not as far along as NetBSD's.
:o)
http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/~atp/linux-vax/
...and there's probably more out there as well
This piece just comes across as another sore *BSD user wondering why Linux is getting all the press. I might shed a little light as to why Linux is more popular.
OK so basically Linux is past the point of being a hacker OS and normal people are starting to use it. I've seen evidence of this as work mates (who use Linux at work) have started installing Linux at home. The major difference is then that Linux is damn easy to install now compared to a couple of years ago. I've got a FreeBSD installation at home because I wanted experience in installing it - and I must say that at several times I was pretty baffled during the installation process - and this after 7 years of Unix admin experience.
The conclusion *BSD's are still the domain of hackers/sysadmins - it's a great OS - but linux is making quicker inroads to the normal user market.
*BSDers will probably argue that the installation process is more powerful and that it's actually easy. But the fact is that it's just not that easy for Joe Public.
*Puts hand over forehead* every time someone seems to express there opinion in a article defending their personal preference they get nailed for it and another damned war breaks out on here... every operating system has its good AND bad points. we can bitch till the end of eternity on what they are exactly, but what it all boils down to is to use what you like, not what other people convince you to like, I started with freebsd simply because a friend was playing with minilinux (ran on dos like 5 years ago) and read a article mentioning freebsd, i decided to get it. used it ever since, and as soon as i switched to linux, teardrop was made... fucked my system.. went back to freebsd.. if i was more of a linux person i would have fixed it asap and moved on, but i didnt, i knew freebsd more and defaulted back to it... stop gripeing, its YOUR choice..
So what's wrong with Linux? Can you point out specific details? And, excuse me for cutting away the BS, but I don't care about how *BSD does it right or wrong (except to learn from it); I care about what's wrong with Linux so that I can fix it.
So, after much thought, I've decided that one of the major ways to cut out the credible allegations against Linux is to do a thorough audit of the code, starting with the kernel and working my way up, just like they did with OpenBSD. Although I'd like to focus primarily on security bugs, I would be open to fixing and improving (read: make more efficient) the code wherever possible.
I have been studying the security patches for OpenBSD for the past couple of months, but I am still not entirely clear on what to look for when doing security auditing. I am aware of Zero-Defect software design techniques, but in my opinion, these would not be easily applied considering that most of the code has already been written and we'd have to write specs to the code then check that the specs are correct. So, I guess basically what I'm asking is, can anyone help me? Can you point me to good documentation on code auditing and making code secure? Also, is there anyone interested in this like I am?
Nathan's blog
What I've seen from BSD supporters lately hasn't done much but push me away from that OS. It may be that it's better (in some cases) than Linux. But I haven't seen writers yet that can talk about BSD's good side without sounding as though BSD is The One True OS. Surely there is someone out there that can talk about BSD without trashing Linux!
/.?
This is completely understandable. The problem is that Slashdot posts even troll articles like this one. If they hadn't posted the WSJ and a few others in the past few weeks, I would have said they were trying to create FUD against BSD. Unortunately, its not Slashdot's FUD, its only there fault for accepting this as valid matterial for the site.
Here's how I view this stuff. For one, when I see an Anti-Linux BSD message (the short Daemon is better then Tux or other bs), I don't believe its even a zealot poster. I've never met one that... dumb. I also don't think its a Linux zealot trying to make BSD look bad by making useles FUD (before, Slashdotters always mad FUD on BSD).
I think its just some stupid kids who want to be 'cool' by being a zealot for whatever the underdog in computers are. Now that Linux is really popular in the press, they go to the next thing. These are the same zealots who pushed Linux because they hated Microsoft. They never, *ever*, have used any UNIX OS. You can tell who these people are by how they attack and promote, only using : 'M$ is a monopoly' or 'The Daemon will kick Tux's ass' in short messages.
Anyways.. that was just so Slashdotters wouldn't think it was BSD FUD. These are just idiots who attack whatever they're sure will get hot.
This article is by a guy who doesn't know enough to make any real sense. It should be ignored. He's new and making assumptions because of what the media (ie, ZDNet) says. We know ZdNet and the rest bs Linux (same who said UNIX would crumble under NT), so because your used to it and know its crap, others are not. He got pulled in, didn't think the media stuff made Linux look good, and then posted that. This is a new user, don't expect his arguments against Linux to be clear. Thus, why is it useful to even promote on
Now.. for the other part. Go to the BSD mailing lists / usenet for people who don't make FUD and are helpful. Many are fine with Linux, many use Linux, and many just want free UNIX to populate. So they prefer BSD, that doesn't make them anti-Linux and hate-mongrols. Hell, one guy on -newbies was giving away books and gave me about a dozen Linux ones (because Linux/UNIX info is relevent to BSD). In return, I sent out my copy of fbsd 3.1 to a guy who couldn't get it.. civilized.
PS. I like BSD better. But, I'd use it on my desktop (the next time I have one). I have a laptop I'm playing with to get xFree86 to work on it, and would always use Linux. For that, ease of use and packages such as OpenLinux are just nicer. I could do the same going over ports and such, but for a laptop, I wouldn't want to fuss around. So, I try to use BSD where I see it shines, and Linux where it shines. That's why I still have Windows98. In some ways, it doesn't get the credit it deserves.
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
not off hand.. You wont get a real responce on Slashdot. Ask freebsd-questions@freebsd.org and you'll get all the help you'd ever need. Remeber one thing, writing CDs on Unix has never been to fun.
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
heh, ok, good point. BUT, the top is Unix Hater's handbook. That's got to tell you something!
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
The only misinformation was your own message.
Yahoo doesn't run Linux.
Hotmail runs Solaris *and* FreeBSD (Solaris only being responsible for the database backends).
The greater availability of cracks for Linux in comparision to *BSD most surely does imply that there is a greater chance of a Linux box being compromised than a *BSD one. Simple mathematics.
So, the author was correct in all respects, and you were not.
(8-DCS)
Let's see how a *BSD partisan sees you.
"But I'm not rejoicing for the ascendancy of Linux or its penguin mascot."
In other words, if it's not BSD, he doesn't want it to succeed. We don't want users to have a choice. No, we just want them to have BSD.
He never said he was loathing the Linux ascendancy. He just doesn't care.
Observation 1: Linux zealots have a "if you are not with us, you are against us" mentality.
" If I had to pick out the single difference between the BSD community as a whole and the proponents of Linux, I would say it is something called ''correctness.''"
Ok...if that is true, then that is a very important point. But is it true? How can we know? Not from this article. It doesn't cite any ways in which BSD is more "correct" than Linux. I guess we're just supposed to trust Mr. Garfinkel.
Oh, but it does. He explains that the *BSD development teams are loath to accept code that "just works" but does not actually correct problems, but just get around them. Not in so many words, I admit, but I'm just translating the concept for you benefit.
I personally think this might be a biased view, but it is the same view that results in the "*BSD development is closed, Linux development is not" myth. If you do not accept the former, then you ought not to accept latter.
Alas, this is not relevant. He claimed *BSD development model is superior because it puts greater emphasis in getting it right instead of getting it working. If you are interested in this, then you should get off your ass and do further research for yourself. The development models are all documented, you just have to go and compare them. The article has no more obligation of explaining this sort of thing in details than it has of explaining what an Operating System is.
Observation 2: Whenever confronted with uncomfortable statements, Linux zealots will talk a lot to confuse the issue, and then state that nothing was really explained, and so it doesn't merit further investigation (or, at least, they try the very best to dismiss the issue without further investigation).
" This may be one reason proponents of Linux are frequently slow to admit the debt they owe to the Computer Science Research Group at Berkeley, which created BSD, and to the Free Software Foundation at MIT"
Oh, now I get it. I know Mr. Garfinkel's true identity. *wink* But why is he calling it Linux rather than GNU/Linux?
If you "get it", then why don't you share it with the rest of us?
He is calling it Linux because that's the name it is known by the public. This was not a slashdot article, it was a general press article directed to a wider public.
Observation 3: Whenever a chance comes by, Linux zealots will try to instigate suspicions that the "opponent" (ie, the one who is not "with us") has ulterior motives, instead of actually being objective/factual/honest.
Now, I can agree with this point. However, that "Linux is a fine operating system" is not the impression that I get from the rest of the article.
So? It is not an article about Linux, it's an article about *BSD. He is not talking about Linux strengths, he is talking about *BSD strengths. He is not even making a formal comparision about Linux and *BSD.
Observation 4: Linux zealots think the world revolves around them, and thus treat any comments as being in relation to Linux/Linuxen.
This could have been a really good article. It included some real meat, unlike most BSD articles in mainstream mags. However, it is ruined by the author's arrogance. An arrogance which unfortunately seems to be abundant among BSD users.
It only seems arrogant to those that fall into the "observation 4" category. "Hey, he is not talking good things about us! The arrogant bastard!".
Sigh.
(8-DCS)
Really what is the diff between *BSD and Linux
both have been built from a lot of GNU stuff
and user built stuff and as of recent linux has been getting commercial binaries and some of those can run on *BSD?
I am not trying for flame bait I just have been using Linux and I am thinking of trying to get
*BSD for my old macs (mac II VX, classic II) and for a bunch of 8088's and 286's
Elephant: a mouse built to government specs
Ok, Mr. Garfinkle, Linus didn't write Linux, he just wrote the kernel. ---- Side note, remind me to "just write a kernel" later tonight. Oh yeah, one that works and doesn't crash but once in a blue moon would be nice too. Oh yeah, send me a million bucks too.
PassiveRoot
BSD sounds pretty good. Which one should I install? If OpenBSD is secure, why don't the other two distro's merge the code into {Free,Net}BSD? Are each of the three really completely different kernels? NetBSD runs on tons of computers apparently, and FreeBSD has the best Intel/PC compatibility right? Do some things run on one BSD that don't run on another? If so why isn't there a best one? Are there different distributions of nBSD (for some reasonable value of n) like there are a ton of Linux distributions? If not, why not? I am asking these questions for information, not to make a point. Thanks!
I've written several times before. first to moderate flameage, then to 0 response. what i'm saying makes sense. 41thing, penguin needs a slightly more friendly gui user interface. developers (IBM) are writing ok stuff. too bad it takes out part of your system if you reject it. if stuff using the tools already available in most distributions were maid easier, there would be less need for use of overkill systems to manage small jobe. i don't know, it seems as though it was easier to make a small biz dbase system using lotus, or even foxpro.
.coms/.orgs to be used. we have heard from many re: advertising stuff, butt we feel it's less than high value. please do feel free to contact us re: use of linux/o-s related .coms, as they require genuinely long term value offerings/availabilities.
.coms that SHOULD NOT be absorbed by the borg. we have linus-torvalds.org. what are we supposed to do with that? thegreatestgood.org is earmarked 4sum nones in WI (Sisters of the Dominican Mother House). knot that thaid no watt 2 doo. they WILL when i'm dumb. i'll write to them tomorrow.
the off-topic part is: we still have several 10's of linux/o-s related
It sure looks like the OS is free now. so is the interface for dummys. give us some colabradornation at linuxville.com.
we've got some other nifty
flame on.
hareball
I think ment that Linux was a favorite target for crackers.
--Flam
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers - Pablo Picasso
By the way, don't flame me for having Windows on here... I don't use it anymore, but my parents can't understand Linux. I'm continually downsizing my Windows partition to accomodate new fun stuff
Patrick Barrett
Yebyen@adelphia.net
Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
Actually, as I see it, Gabriel's point is that you -cannot- get to "100% perfection" by hacking like mad on an inadequate design.
And this explains why design (Cathedral, if you will) is so important.
Thanks for posting a pointer to this classic article!
Actually FreeBSD runs both hotmail and yahoo.
... there are holes for any OS. There just always seem to be more holes in Linux than anywhere else.
As for security holes
-sirket
Well, maybe not incendiary...
But this article does conveniently leave out lots of little tidbits like how the GNU project has given a huge wealth of programs, knowledge, and experience to the BSD movement. The omission of GNU from the article and its affect of BSD is almost apalling. And last time I checked, linux ran on more than 'a few' platforms. Something like 10 or 11 I think. True, it's not quite the 22 NetBSD boasts, but it's a _LOT_ more than most can claim.
That may be the case with @Home, but I have received no such addendum to my MediaOne agreement. I know they are both owned by the same parent company (AT&T at least partially owns @Home and fully owns MediaOne as far as I am aware), but that does not mean they both have the same service agreements.
Also, @Home hasn't been known for having great service anyway. They recently (1 or 2 months ago) introduced an upload cap of 128k (it was 300k before) because people were using their connections to put up webservers and it "wasn't designed for that" as someone from the company stated (don't remember who, it was in Inter@ctive Week). They also said that they do offer services for running web servers (although they cost a lot more) and if people want to run web servers, they should be upgrading their service. They also had to split their nodes to cope with demand (something MediaOne hasn't had to do or at least hasn't said they've had to do).
In other words, @Home looked at the use of running Web and FTP servers as an abuse whereas MediaOne just deals with it. This may be because most people aren't running Web and FTP servers over their cable modems so it's not causing a lot of congestion or MediaOne expected it to happen and took steps in advance to handle it.
I do know that MediaOne does run Linux (and not very securely from what I've heard), so this is probably another reason why they may be unwilling to support it.
I have MediaOne and no, he isn't violating his agreement. Their agreement states that they don't support internal LANs (home networks), but it doesn't say you can't have them. I even talked to tech support one night about this and he told me that basically, they can't help you troubleshoot any connection problems past the cable modem. So if your brothers computer can't access the Internet through the cable modem on your computer, go through your configs and make sure everything's right and don't call them, because they will tell you that your connection is fine.
Also in the agreement is that if you set up so many computers in your home that your speed becomes intolerably slow, don't call them because they will not help you (in other words, they're not going to up your bandwidth just so you can get Internet access in every room in your house). A lot of people run internal LANs that run through a cable modem or DSL, nothing wrong with any of it.
And I don't see any problem with having this kind of policy. This keeps them from having someone setting up 20 computers on a LAN in their home and then complaining that they aren't getting the bandwidth MediaOne said they'd get.
Its very foolish to have two free projects with the same goals competing, and you can owe it all to the GPL.
Anyhow, there _isn't_ room for the both of them to survive well and its just a matter of time..
-bugg
Background... I run four operating systems in my apartment: Novell Netware 3.12, Win 98, Win NT, and RedHat Linux 6.0. The Linux box is the most recent; I set it up about a month ago and have been slowly teaching myself how to use it.
Why did I set up a Linux computer instead of a *BSD? Not because of any article telling me how much better Linux was than anything else. I chose Linux because I could find solid information on how to set it up and learn to use it. I chose Linux because there was a lot I could do with it, and because it was something I wanted to learn to use.
I'd heard about BSD... but, I didn't have the unbiased information about it that I had about Linux.
Now, I'm not a Linux zealot. I'm not a Linux Guru. Heck, I don't even consider myself a Linux user yet. And still, this article gave me the same, sick, "something's not quite right" feeling that emails about GoodTimes-style viruses give me.
What I've seen from BSD supporters lately hasn't done much but push me away from that OS. It may be that it's better (in some cases) than Linux. But I haven't seen writers yet that can talk about BSD's good side without sounding as though BSD is The One True OS. Surely there is someone out there that can talk about BSD without trashing Linux!
Um, for one. All of these boxes hotmail and yahoo are running are only going to have http ports open. So the only problem they are going to have to worry about is with the httpd. No one is going to root a box with userland programs if they can never log in.
----------
minor point. FreeBSD net install does support proxy install. Used it myself with squid and and inktomi traffic servers multiple times. I'd also like to chime in and say that I run FreeBSD, linux, windos 98, NT, bsdi, hp/ux and solaris.. all for different purposes. Some may overlap in certain categories, so i just evaluate whats best for me at the time. Note that I'm writing this on windows 98 with about 12 securecrt windows open to various boxes and a lil x server for when i feel like running stuff like openview or a choice irc client or something.
----------
I meant ftp and http. Both traffic server and squid support http and passive ftp methods. Anyway,
:).
"When the main installation window comes up, select the Options page. On the options page change the logon name from ftp to anonymous@ftp.freebsd.org and for the password use name@ or whatever. I use reggie@."
This was ripped from a message 2 years old for 2.2.2, so you may have to modify what it says slightly. It is possible -- and now I know also for some boxes i have running delegate
Anyway, whenever I have a problem i search the extremely large mailing list archives -- where ever conceivable newbie and expert questions are asked --at http://www.freebsd.org/search/search.html
----------
Well, I think folks are being unfair to the author's intent here. Leaving aside the number of crackers who _do_ prefer to use Linux (likely a large number, in proportion to Linux's general popularity), I feel sure most _target_ Linux to a greater extent than the BSD's, since there are more boxes out there that they can hope to break. A BSD box has the useful advantage of being immune to many Linux exploits, which is what I think the author was trying to say (yes, of course there are BSD-specific exploits too).
From http://kb.indiana.edu/data/agjx.html:
What is ULTRIX?
ULTRIX was Digital Equipment Corporation's Unix implementation for its PDP-11, VAX, DECstation, and Alpha computers. It is based on the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) of Unix, but also includes proprietary extensions such as DECwindows and DECnet.
You'd better wash your hands...
In other words, if it's not BSD, he doesn't want it to succeed. We don't want users to have a choice. No, we just want them to have BSD.
In a way Linux is good for Open Source in general, but the massive and one-sided attention for Linux is also destructive: For the UNIX world one used to see software available for a lot of variants, and usually it would be ported to other (more obscure) variants pretty easily and soon after there was demand.
Nowadays you see a lot of releases specifically for Linux because it is the biggest market (vmware, SO51, shockwave plugin to name a few examples), and also more and more often in binary-only form. This is the effect of the commercialisation of Linux. I have great doubts whether this is good for UNIX in general.
If Linux wasn't that more popular than other Unices (i.e. more balanced market shares) then chances of ports to most of the UNIX variants would be bigger. Thus, somehow Linux limits the choice you have.
Note that I use Linux, not FreeBSD at the moment because I need vmware. I deeply regret that I cannot run FreeBSD and really feel limited in my choice because of this.
Without Linux, maybe vmware as a commercial product (and others) wouldn't have existed one might say. But then open source alternatives would have had a chance. Now such alternatives lack developer interest because commercial products are available.
We would all get along if we could finally settle one ONE operating system to be used by ALL computers worldwide. Or at least some system of making sure that no matter what platform I'm using, I can run ANY software available with no compatibility issues. Hopefully, one of the current OSes will evolve into something usable and extensible and stable and configurable and portable enough that everyone will be more or less happy with it. Right now, it does look like Linux may be that OS. I sure hope so. Sean Delk
I'm getting tired of reading all these Linux vs *BSD articles. I haven't learned a single thing about either OS reading that crap. Although this article wasn't really so much Linux vs *BSD, but it still wasn't very informative.
I've heard of some of the advantages of *BSD over Linux, some performance issues etc... But what are Linux's advantages, technical advantages, performance, stability etc.(I don't care about which supports more hardware, which is cooler/more hip etc.)?
I find Linux has a much more interesting development model, and it is improving so rapidly... and it's doing great as my workstation and servers for our company, but I'm very curious about the technical advantages of each OS.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
It's exactly that.. another version of UNIX. What I don't understand is all this Linux vs BSD vs Solaris vs whatever other UNIX clones are out there. It's exactly like saying I eat oranges all the time (aka Micro$oft OS) that cost $95/orange. I found out that apples (UNIX clone) taste better and they're free. I tell all my friends, I tell my co-workers, etc that apples are better and free, some like them, some don't. Then, while I'm enjoying my apples, I get bombarded with granny smith apples, Washington apples, etc and I'm told that they all taste better. Well, an apple is an apple, and they're all free. So why write a book on something so insignificant anyway? BSD is UNIX. Linux is UNIX. I like UNIX. Problem solved.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
Personally, I couldn't because I'm more into free software for the developement model rather than the philosophy. I'm more partial to the GPL and Linux because, to me, they perfectly embody the bizaaar developement model. If I was coding (maybe someday), I'd release under the GPL because I'd want any and all improvements made to be available to the people who use my software. I believe in protecting the original writers of the software than protecting those who would wish to modify it.
So I guess I lied, huh? I do give a damn.
Not that I wouldn't/don't use software released under the BSD license. I just wouldn't write any.
This article contains a good overview of the various BSD incarnations, but its harsh, and often unwarranted, attacks agains Linux (crackers' OS, etc.) will have Simson sending email to /dev/null for weeks.
And you have to admit, Linux is the OS of choice for 13 year old script kiddies. Neither OS is the OS of choice. Divide usage by publicity and the number is about the same for both. As for using phrases like Cracker's OS, puhlease... you call that journalism.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
>Impressive. Linus started writing it in 1991.
My mistake entirely. I meant to write 1994. That is how long I have been using Linux. (Boy, is my face red.)
>I make it more like eight.
Well, since Linux is 8 years old, that would mean that 8 is 2 years less than 10 years, and so: barely 10 years old. I stand by that one. It was an approximation to indicate that Linux is not yet 10 years old.
>Advocacy with incorrect facts is a major disappointment for me.
I agree. I appreciate your pointing out my error, but I disagree with your tact and your tone.
You must have been really disappointed by the original article, right?
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
Tyler's words coming out of my mouth.
Sure. But we owe something to the fanatics - they do our marketing. *BSD may technically be better, but Linux is just bigger because it lets people create everything, even distributions, thus causing much more need to get yourself known. People attracted to pro-Linux-FUD will soon find out what Linux really is, and the stayers will try other Unixes too, in time. Seen in this light, Linux is the door to BSD.
If you like a system, fine, use it, and tell us all about what it can offer, but don't try to deride others in the process.
I agree, that would be the ideal. Unfortunatly, there are some who feel the need to build themselves up by tearing everyone around them down. These tend to be the people who are the loudest with thier opinions, which gives a false impression as to thier numbers.
Moral: You'll get more out of a reasonable discussion, but only if you can hear each other.
"The obvious is that which is least understood and most difficult to prove." -- A fortune cookie
This has made the system popular at places like MIT and NASA, both of which have large menageries of computer systems from a multitude of vendors.
The author provides very little evidence of how much more widely used BSD is (or is thought to be), and the one claim he makes is probably false.
A previous poster wrote that linux is more prevalent at NASA, as is it here at MIT (I'm a student). All personal computers not running windows or MacOS are most certainly running linux (a slightly modified red hat distro to interface with our network environment). all the public machines are solaris sparcstations or SGI machines (running IRIX), with perhaps a handful of linux machines. all of the industrial servers i believe to be sparcs, but i'm not certain. the author of the article appears to be confusing GNU being founded at MIT with MIT embracing all technologies coming out of it. considering he's a boston columnist, it shouldn't have been too hard to find out the truth instead of making broad assumptions after talking to maybe the one person who uses *BSD
Seems you don't get out of the *BSD camp enough to get your facts
straight about Linux. Here are some clues...
> While Linux can only run on a few kinds of computers,
> NetBSD can run on more than 22, including Intel-compatible PCs, Amigas, old
> 68000-based Macs, Digital VAXes, and even those sleek but defunct NeXT
> workstations
Sorry to disappoint you, but Linux runs on just about everything NetBSD
does plus Palm Pilots!
> This has made the system popular at places like MIT and NASA,
> both of which have large menageries of computer systems from a multitude of
> vendors.
I don't know about MIT, but Linux has a stronger presence in NASA.
> Earlier this year there were a number of well-publicized security problems
> involving the Linux operating system. During that time my computer was
> frequently attacked. However, since I wasn't running Linux, I wasn't
> vulnerable.
And there were less-publicized ones for *BSD which means many users
probably still don't know. Atleast the Linux developers can admit to
their mistakes. BTW, their TCP/IP stacks are different and most attacks
aren't portable across platforms. You know, Solaris had a hole once,
however, since I wasn't running it, I wasn't vulnerable. That's so weak.
> Linux is the favored operating system for most of the
> attackers on the Internet, which is another reason I don't use it.
Right. And now that you're promoting *BSD, they'll switch. Going to have
to move to something else then, eh?
> Linux developers, overall, are more interested in just putting
> together something that works.
BS.
> Where the BSD projects are largely the work of individuals, businesses
> are now the driving force in the Linux community.
BS.
> This may be one reason proponents of Linux are frequently slow to
> admit the debt they owe to the Computer Science Research Group at Berkeley,
> which created BSD, and to the Free Software Foundation at MIT, the charitable
> organization that raised money for Project GNU
This is complete BS. Everyone knows who the FSF is. Everyone knows Linux
is just the kernel and all the software on top is GNU. In fact, since you
don't seem to know this, people have been fighting to call it GNU/Linux!
> although Linux is a fine operating system, I would encourage businesses
> as well as advanced enthusiasts to take a serious look at the other choices.
How nice of you to say that after you rubs it's face in the dirt.
I didn't see anything incendiary in the article.
Of course, I am not a religious follower of any of the freenix creeds. I run several of them.
And Windows 98 as well. All have their uses.
Almost anything is incendiary on Slashdot these days.
My impression of this article was that the author was just trying to spread the word of BSD 'nixs.
:)
Every OS has its advantages/disavantages. That's why the real computer professional knows when and where to use each OS.
Slashdot has a tendency to Defend Linux no matter what is said.. Even if it is not "slamming" content.
And you have to admit, Linux is the OS of choice for 13 year old script kiddies.
At any rate, let's keep up the good work on the fight to get OpenSource OS's on top!
Signed,
Avid OpenSource User.
What?!? This is sheer idiocy. All modern UNIXes use SysV init, because it's hands-down better. You have the ability to use the backwards, old-fashioned BSD way by lazily sticking stuff into rc.local, rc.sysinit, etc.
How can you seriously argue that the flexibility that runlevels provide is somehow a disadvantage?
Sheesh. It's stuff like this that makes me think less of BSD advocates. Crabby old men, indeed.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
Since people seem to be interested in a comparison of some aspects of Linux & *BSD, I'll post my experiences & knowledge on the subject. I've been using Linux for nearly 4 years (mostly Debian), FreeBSD for about 1 year and NetBSD for about 4 months, and I enjoy all of them. Also, note that I have these OS's on different machines, not all on the same box. I'm using all 3 on production servers.
/usr/pkgsrc and /usr/ports, respectively, as well as precompiled packages. The /usr/ports and /usr/pkgsrc directories contain directories such as /usr/ports/net/ncftp .. To download the source & compile it, you enter that directory & type make. To install, make install. Any packages the tool you're compiling depends on will be downloaded, compiled & installed automatically as part of the process. 1 caveat here, though. At least on FreeBSD, if you use this for things that require X, it will want to download, compile & install X, even if you've got the "base distro" X installed. I use the precompiled versions of this type of stuff instead. The command-line tool 'fetch', which is the backend for file retrieval works nicely through web proxies, also. :)
/etc/passwd in-place, leaving a networked machine's root account open until copied back (which it does automatically, but, make sure to disable incoming connections during this time) Neither of these methods fetch through web proxies, so you'll have to manually download the files in that case.
;)
;)
:)
I'll start off with installation & package selection. I've exclusively done network installations, so that's what I'm comparing. In this area I've found Debian to be the most robust. For instance, installing on a corporate intranet where only a web proxy is available is no problem as Debian's installation and upgrade tools understand web proxies. If you lose a connection in the process of downloading, Debian will resume at the byte it left off. Also, it allows you to select the primary function of the machine so a corresponding set of packages can be installed.
FreeBSD has a user-friendly (full screen curses) install tool, but it doesn't grok web proxies, so it's a bit more difficult to install onto an intranet. Also, the packages selection tool is nicely hierarchically laid out so you can, for instance, select net -> ncftp to get the ncftp package - instead of having 1 huge screen like Debian's dselect does.
NetBSD's install is more spartan, but still gets the job done with a direct internet connection (I haven't tried it through a firewall/proxy) There was a fullscreen curses install tool last time I installed on sparc, though, so it seems to be getting "easier" on this front.
Neither of the BSD's seem to have an installation-type download recovery mechanism as robust as Debian's in case of a lost connection.
Getting packages after install:
NetBSD & FreeBSD have
Debian is about as easy - apt-get install packagename does the trick.
OS Upgrades: Debian is nice here, as it has friendly package scripts that try to (and mostly succeed in) making upgrades smooth & integrating changes well. Upgrades through web proxies work fine. apt-get update ; apt-get dist-upgrade does the trick.
For FreeBSD the most "correct" method seems to be CVS, but I haven't tried it yet. I've used sysinstall, which still could use a bit of improvement. My biggest gripe is that it downloads
Haven't upgraded NetBSD yet.
Regarding the actual systems, some quick comparisons:
Linux & FreeBSD utilize multiple processors in a machine, NetBSD does not.
NetBSD & FreeBSD both currently support NFSv3 in stable releases. Linux is supposed to RSN...
NetBSD uses 32 bit UID's, Linux is supposed to in 2.4 (as of 2.2.x, it's 16 bit), FreeBSD 3.2 is still on 16 bit, but I'm unsure of their future plans.
FreeBSD can do host-based (i.e., pci controller) hardware raid on the Alpha architecture, Linux & NetBSD cannot.
The BSD's support very large files (don't have the #'s), the largest file size on ext2 is 2gb. (Which is being worked on).
On Alpha, Linux supports quite a few vga video cards. NetBSD only supports TGA. (haven't looked at FreeBSD here)
Documentation:
FreeBSD & NetBSD both have their documentation more centralized, but there tends to be less task-oriented stuff than for Linux. NetBSD's task-oriented stuff tends to be a bit sparse. The mailing list archives are searchable, though, and often already have the answer you're after.
Stability: I've achieved > 100 day uptimes achieved with each of them.
The features overlap and tend to leapfrog quite a bit. Proposing one of the systems is "best" reminds me of the perl camel book's definition of binary: "Some people think in binary. You can tell by the questions they ask. 'Should we program everything in perl or C'".
I think that some people in the BSD community need to recognize that Linux is not Red Hat, btw. A good amount of the negative BSD advocacy I've seen has been pointed at Red Hat problems, not Linux problems.
If anything I've said here is wrong, I welcome corrections.
Garfinkel took a few FUDdy cheap shots (Linux as 'a cracker's OS', too commercial, etc.) but the article was pretty good when he stuck to discussing the merits of the BSD's. In a way, he does everyone a favor by pointing out in a mainstream publication that Linux is a kernel, and that the components of a Linux distribution also come from GNU, BSD, et al. To listen to other articles in mundane media, one might think that Linus wrote the entire OS himself.
---------------------
the SlashDot spellchecker:
---------------------
John 3:16 - God's Public License
The Yahoo! founders are reputed to have had a look at Linux around the time of the 1.x.x kernels, but FreeBSD was a far more suitable option at the time.
This far down the line, FreeBSD is pretty much entrenched at Yahoo! - they have people there who can hack the kernel for specialised requirements, and a huge codebase that would be a nightmare to port.
Chris Wareham
Huh? I though hotmail was based on Solaris (or SunOS?) servers. And doesn't Yahoo use Linux as well as *BSD?
:)
He mentioned that some Linux security holes were found and people were hammering his box, but there are plenty of *BSD holes too. Just because Linux exploits didn't work on a *BSD box, doesn't mean that BSD is any more (or less) secure. Most NT/Solaris/Irix/AIX/HP-UX/etc. exploits won't work on *BSD boxes either
Why does the good OS have to be Unix?
Don't get me wrong, I use Linux Mandrake on my home computer, FreeBSD on my firewall and I'm trying to get some Red Hat boxen installed at work.
but. . . (and it's a big butt) I believe the crucial element is the "goodness" of the OS, not the heritage or design philosophy. If an OS is good, use it. If it isn't, don't. The Palm OS is currently my favorite OS. It's not Unix but it does its job admirably. Let's not ignore any OS based on its "Unixness".
Free Mac Mini. Yes, I'm
Good idea. Windows 2000, right? What, you don't want that? That's what happens when you don't have competition. That's why we need Apple, and BeOS, and Sun, and SCO, and Linux and the BSD's.
That's why having Gnome and KDE exist as seperate projects is so important. They stimulate each other into creating a better and better tool. Think of Windows. It has a window manager into the OS. What innovation takes place? Only that which is needed to sucker innocent users into thinking it's better. But that's what we'll get if we don't have two Window managers being developed in parallel. The market *needs* competition, even if it is Open Source.
Or at least some system of making sure that no matter what platform I'm using, I can run ANY software available with no compatibility issues.A noble desire, but again one that isn't desirable. Sure, Java provides binary compatibility, and POSIX.1 provides source compatibility. These are fine for general type applications. But for optimized applications you need to take advantage of the hardware you're running on. Sun hardware, IBM hardware, SGI hardware. Yes, you can run the same apps on them, but you're not getting all the power you can out of them that way.
If I run a server on specific hardware and OS, I want it to be the best possible. If I run my Database on Sun's and Solaris, then I don't care how it runs on Alpha and Linux. However, easily being able to get it to run on different platforms if needed is a plus. For instance, say I'm a consultant and I develop a database for Sun and Solaris. If the next customer comes along and needs it on Alpha and Linux, then I need to be able to be responsive to my customer. Need I mention that if I'd developed my product on Windows, I'd have to completely rewrite it? Not so with the current Server OS's. That's the way I think it should be. Not fragmented, just optimisable.
-Brent--
Garfinkel discussed several issues in his article. On the niggling technical points he's correct, or at least not provably incorrect. Some things are simply a matter of taste.
However, he failed to mention at least two Big Things in his article, even though he was touching on the periphery of one of them.
Garfinkel characterizes the difference between the philosophies of *BSD and Linux as one of "correctness". The snottiness of this distinction aside, he's not quite accurate. The distinction is between old-fashioned release engineering as represented by *BSD, and a strange model of free contribution used by the GNU project and, more recently, Linux. While BSD's release engineering might make some system architects happier, it's not necessarily better, any more than tight government control of the economy is necessarily going to result in a stronger economy. The free-software approach may have flaws, but Garfinkel can't plausibly state which approach is more "correct".
The other, bigger problem he entirely avoids: The general suckiness of Un*x. I firmly believe that Un*x is the best thing going, but IT STILL SUCKS. There is no system-wide abstraction, and a lot less conformance to standards than most people think. NeXT was an interesting attempt to remove some of the suckiness from Un*x, and it may yet prevail under Apple's aegis, but I'll be more impressed when I see it win.
Given that there is no really good OS out there, dwelling on the differences between two fairly similar flavors of Un*x seems stupid and pointless. Let's work instead on making something that doesn't suck so much. That might derive from BSD (as Mac OS X does), or from Linux, or from any other damn thing -- it really doesn't matter that much. Just make sure it doesn't suck!
--
Some keywords for the NSA in the Lord of the Rings universe: One Ring bind find Sauron quest Nazgul freedom
What a pithy summary of the bazaar. It reeks of elitism and arrogance. It was very clever to attack ESR and his religion, did you think of that all by yourself? Thanks, but I prefer foul-mouthed Linux zealots.
The bazaar is important because it's surprising that it works at all. It suggests that people can usefully collaborate in a self organizing fashion, which is something *new* in the software world. Some of us think that this concept has importance in terms of promoting freedom and escaping corporate development nightmares. You don't need to agree, but please, don't come off like some aristocrat too good for the peasants. Your envy is showing.
It's really a shame both OSs have to put up with people who are more interested in being thought elite and correct than doing something to improve their OS. Both OSs deserve far better advocacy.
Why does it seem that every time an article about BSD or Linux or Microsoft or Be or anything shows up, the author takes up a militant stance against who ever he or she thinks is the the competition? It seems that most operating systems have good points to them, and although the need for propoganda is great for any operating system, open sourced or not, it becomes a slugfest, of us against them, and we must prevail.
If you like a system, fine, use it, and tell us all about what it can offer, but don't try to deride others in the process. In the end, it's all about choice and freedom, and that's what we all want, right?
Saw it written and I saw it say, pink moon is on its way. None of you will stand so tall, pink moon is gonna get ye al
There is a fairly recent effort to port Linux to HP's PA/RISC architecture.
The Power (not PowerPC) port is being worked on by Cort Dougan and supported by IBM. (Any URL ?)
The port to Hitachi's SuperH architecture (sh3, sh3e, sh4, as earlier models have no MMU) was done by Yutaka Niibe and is included in the 2.3 development kernel series.
There are rumours about the 64-bit MIPS and PPC ports being worked on.
Well,
I work for an ISP that has presence in 45 states(and a good bit of Europe) and I would say that 75 percent of our business are on *BSD boxes. Free and BSDI. With the leaning towards Free-BSD all around.
Of course we will rent you whatever box including Linux BUT our tech time is spent more on Linux and NT. The BSD boxes chug along quietly.
I run win98, Linux, and BSD at home. Linux has been a primer for Unix and me to enter the BSD world.
I think BSD is a corporate choice. But it is only chosen by corporations that have the in house skills to implement.
The first is the assumption that "the media equals reality". Linux exploits announced in the media and they don't affect NetBSD? Conclusion: NetBSD has no security weaknesses! Hah to you, Penguin! "Linux is the favorite tool of crackers [sic]" I suppose because criminals prefer the automobile we should all stick to mini-vans. Lots of companies announce Linux support and products? Obviously corporations are now driving Linux development! Boy, won't the developers themselves be surprised to hear that.
The second is the assumption that "correctness is superior to functionality". When it's correctness at the expense of functionality (as is arguably the case with certain of the *BSD lines, in certain cases), I take exception to being told "cope".
I do consider this article to be FUD. If you can't argue something's merits without falling back on attacking the perceived competition, you discredit yourself and the subject of your article.
Nothing worth doing is worth doing today.
> This has made the system popular at places like MIT and NASA,
> both of which have large menageries of computer systems from a multitude of
> vendors.
Umm, after spending 5 years at MIT, I can only recall seeing 1 *BSD box, although there certainly might be more....
The campus computers these days are almost entirely Sun's and SGI's (running their respective commercial unices). Over the last five years, the campus computers that have been phased out have been IBM RS6000's (AIX), Sparc Classics (Solaris), DEC 5000's (ultrix), and VAX Station 3100's (ultrix). None of them *BSD.
I worked in both CS and EE labs, the CS lab was a SUN shop, the EE lab used Linux for the main server, and a combo of Solaris/Linux/95 for everything else.
Residential computers are a mix of 95/98/NT/and Linux, with a couple macs thrown in for good measure. Most of the technically orientated people I knew, if they weren't running Linux, had a second box running Linux under there desk. (The place I lived at had ~1.3 computers/person, which was fairly common).
If anyone had a different experience, pipe in.
Stop the holy wars now - you can't argue which philosophy is better than another - only which implimentation is better.
--
"But I'm not rejoicing for the ascendancy of Linux or its penguin mascot."
In other words, if it's not BSD, he doesn't want it to succeed. We don't want users to have a choice. No, we just want them to have BSD.
" If I had to pick out the single difference between the BSD community as a whole and the proponents of Linux, I would say it is something called ''correctness.''"
Ok...if that is true, then that is a very important point. But is it true? How can we know? Not from this article. It doesn't cite any ways in which BSD is more "correct" than Linux. I guess we're just supposed to trust Mr. Garfinkel.
" This may be one reason proponents of Linux are frequently slow to admit the debt they owe to the Computer Science Research Group at Berkeley, which created BSD, and to the Free Software Foundation at MIT"
Oh, now I get it. I know Mr. Garfinkel's true identity. *wink* But why is he calling it Linux rather than GNU/Linux?
"Although Linux is a fine operating system, I would encourage businesses as well as advanced enthusiasts to take a serious look at the other choices."
Now, I can agree with this point. However, that "Linux is a fine operating system" is not the impression that I get from the rest of the article.
This could have been a really good article. It included some real meat, unlike most BSD articles in mainstream mags. However, it is ruined by the author's arrogance. An arrogance which unfortunately seems to be abundant among BSD users.
In some ways, I think the biggest (certainly in the mainstream world's eyes) difference between Linux and BSD are the types of users you encounter. Immature flamers or arrogant snobs. (Betcha can't guess which is which). Most of the people I know who run either OS are really cool people, who I'm glad to know. But those types of people aren't as loud as the stereotypes. Possibly the biggest advantage of Linux over BSD is that it's most stereotypical users (immature, foul-mouthed flamers) don't get published in the mainstream press.
...article. One that the article is complete FUD and the other is that the guy is doing some kind of service to the community.
/is/ tightly controlled by Linus Tovalds and it is a very *pragmatic* design. There are always tradeoffs to be made in the design of any architecure, and Linux is simply one approach. One that, IMHO, works very well.
I fall in the middle... I think an article espousing the virtues of the *BSD systems over Linux is good...there aren't many that I've seen in the mainstream press.
however, the article does contain a LOT of FUD.
The bit about "correctness" really struck me. While Linux is by no means designed to be the ultimately correct perfect academic example of operating system design (for instance, Linux is a monolithic design [the kernel is one big program], vs. the "correct" academic microkernel architecture [small, independent components with tightly-controlled communications linking them]), the design and architecture
The bit about Linux being very much a subject of attack for 'crackers': sure, Linux gets more attacks. But its probably because there are more Linux boxes than *BSD boxes. Windows is attacked far more than Linux (witness recent developments such as Melissa and ExploreZip). Why? Because there are more Windows boxes than Linux boxes. If BSD were more popular than Linux, I'm sure it would be the subject of more attacks.
But some of the things about OpenBSDs strong security vs. FreeBSDs excellent support for threads are very good points. But the guy definitely is spreading FUD: if you can't build up support for your operating system by pointing out its virtues, I guess you're left to attacking your competition. Of course, this tactic is simply tasteless, disgusting and simply downright childish.
My journal has hot
I've never used *BSD extensively, but I respect it (I'm much more accustomed to both Linux and Solaris). And I'm glad to see an article espousing the benefits of *BSD over Linux (gasp! shock! horror!)
This is because the whole goal of Linux is choice, which having a viable *BSD option provides. One more good Unix OS is always a good thing.
So, fellow Linux users/admins, please don't flame the dude. Respect him as a colleague.
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
I just don't see much behind the advantages the author claims. Still, I'd usually rather have a FreeBSD 2.2.8 box than a RH6.0 . I simple cannot abide SysV /etc/rc.d .
As for `correct` vs `working`, I don't want to get into the old sync debate. It boils down to a choice you make. Linux certainly has more hardware supported, even if `less correctly'.
As for "less commercial", I beg to differ. The BSD licence is wide open for source being taken private. The GPL virus prevents this in Linux.
-- Robert
I have been an avid Linux user since 1990. I think my first ISP used FreeBSD, so I had a shell account on that server. That is the limit of my experience with any sort of BSD. However, as much as I am devoted to Linux, I am still open-minded about BSD. I just really have not had any reason to dual/triple/quad boot my machine.
But I digress. BSD has been around a long time. So of course it is going to be stabler and more robust than Linux in certain applications. I have no problem with that. It is nice that the BSD's are getting more press. More power to us all, I say. But I think the quality of that press is as important as the recognition that BSD (or Linux) gets.
My problem is with articles like these. Aside from a couple token points of recognition to Linux, he lavishes disputable credits to BSD.
For instance, BSD is ported to more architectures. The author sites 22. But I also know for a fact that if you go to the Linux Documentation Project you will see that Linux is ported or being ported to *at least* 22 other architectures, more if you count the various subsets.
His "argument" that BSD developers are more concerned with "correctness" than Linux developers is pure flamebait and unsupported. That is a slap in the face. If this were true, Linus would never have started coding a new kernel nearly a decade ago and it would not have gotten the support it did.
"Businesses are now the driving force in the Linux community." I think this statement is a combination of jealousy over Linux's success and a statement of ignorance of Linux's roots. Ever hear of Debian: one of the stablest distributions with arguably the most advanced package management tools around, owing *nothing* to business? Is he trying to tell me that if IBM and Oracle decided tomorrow to drop their support of Linux and switch to one of the BSD's that the BSD developers would say "no thanks"?
I think the author also tries to capitalize on the whole GNU/Linux debacle by stating that Linux users neglect what Linux owes to BSD and GNU and that Linus "cobbled" the OS together. I think this is a diversionary tactic. What do you think GNU is for? GNU was envisioned as a non-Unix unix. How could it be inappropriate that the Linux kernel work with GNU software? Or BSD software for that matter? I may not *say* GNU/Linux or GNU/Linux-with-BSD-utilities, but I know where Linux came from, and I support GNU and BSD. I don't appreciate the author labeling Linux users/developers as essentially code thieves and ingrateful hacks.
Finally, the author gives no attention to how old Linux is compared to BSD. Sure, he sites a book proclaiming BSD's 20 year vintage. But does he mention that Linux is barely 10 years old? He seems to neglect the astonishing rate at which Linux has developed, with or without the support of business. Let's wait another 10 years and see how mature and stable and secure Linux is then.
If he wants to caution businesses about implementing Linux, that is fine. Any business *should* weight all the alternatives. Linux does have a long way to go, but it has also come a long way in a short time. It can *only* get better.
I think the author himself should have weighed all the evidence before writing such a flagrantly biased piece.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
Tyler's words coming out of my mouth.
Interestingly, another major security expert, Bruce Schneier, in his Sept. 15 CRYPTOGRAM , praises Linux for its relative security over Solaris. (Schneier declines even to compare Linux to Windows.)
Schneier attributes Linux's enhanced security to its being open source.
So to say that Linux is insecure gives rise to the question, "Insecure as compared to what?".
Of the three BSD's, OpenBSD is the most secure. It is also Canadian, free from US export restrictions.
Since, as Schneier suggests, open source enhances security and since OpenBSD is the most secure, we might conclude that in some broad sense the term "open source" extends to freedom from export controls as well as freedom from various intellectual property restraints.
Not too bad an article. There's nothing wrong with advocacy, or saying you like something. A couple points though:
-- BSD is not a decendant of the GNU Project. It uses some GNU tools such as gcc, but largely it has an independent lineage.
-- Stability and security. This is the same thing Linux partisans talked about for a long time. The reply was always, "but what about applications and support". Now with the commericalization of Linux, it's the Linux camp bragging about apps and support. This is really where Linux has an edge today.
The contrast between BSD and Linux is the contrast between the Cathedral and the Bazaar. Clearly, Linux development is more anarchic, and one might expect that BSD would have some temporary advantages because of that. However, Richard Gabriel wrote an interesting essay, Worse is Better, explaining why C and Unix had overtaken Lisp, etc. The title is somewhat facetious but the observation is a fine one. The key point (missed, I think, by Gabriel), is not that the weaknesses of C vs. Lisp contributed to its success, but that the "get it working, then get it right" nature, and the openness of C and Unix let it evolve and reach perfection faster than striving for absolute perfection right off would have.
Both approaches have a good deal of merit, and one is not more right than the other. However, I would suspect that Linux will advance at a faster rate than BSD. Perhaps not always in useful directions, perhaps not always doing the One Right Thing, but over time, it will get there.
Currently Linux is actively developed for Alpha, ARM, IA64, x86 (IA32), PPC, MIPS, m68k, and sparc(64). There is also a sh3 port, but I'm not sure how active it is (9 architectures).
NetBSD currently runs on Alpha, m68k, ARM, PPC, ix86 (IA32), MIPS, ns32k, sh3, sparc(64), and vax (10 architectures).
Note these are chip architectures, the "kinds of computers" is much larger. Under NetBSD there are explicit ports to different computers running the same chip, for instance a macppc port and a ofppc port even though they both use PowerPC chips. Linux doesn't differentiate ports like this, so it would appear that Linux is ported to far less machines than NetBSD.
99.5% (give or take) of all exploits for the Linux OS are distribution binary exploits, not kernel exploits.
This means that if you had SSH installed on your box and a security announcement regarding SSH on Linux was put out, chances are you would be vulnerable as well. The real difference is that exploit code examples for Linux are far more common than for *BSD.
I would almost say though that a lot of the daemons *BSD uses are typically higher quality than what the Linux world uses, but nothing really stops someone from packaging say an OpenBSD FTP server with a Linux distribution (I believe Debian does now).
I've seen this argument a lot, but I have yet to see a benchmark performed on any modern kernel. The last benchmark I saw as for a 1.2.x kernel which was quite a while ago.
Linus Torvalds is one of the most anal retentive people on this planet (no offense Linus). You see him all the time rejecting patches because of poor architecture design. Of course, he only handles (for the most part) the intel port & generic linux system, but the other subsystem heads are just as bad.
Really, unless you are a kernel developer (ie, you've had patches accepted), you really can't begin to understand the pain and torture that one has to go through to get a patch accepted, especially when they implement new features
Really, when it all comes down to it, how different is Linux from *BSD? I mean, if you took a *BSD system and stuck a Linux kernel instead of a *BSD kernel and changed any type of incompatibilities... would you think it still inferior?
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong
--
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.