Slashdot Mirror
Why is BSD Not As Popular As Linux?
hill writes "An article over on Economic Times explains why BSD is as not as popular as Linux. Both use an open-source model, but Linux demands the user community to disclose modifications on its source code, while BSD allows its users to make proprietary changes. The current size of the BSD community is estimated at 2 million, with Linux being around 10 million. This is definately worth the read for anyone interested in comparing the two operating systems. " I'm sure we have a few opinions on the subject.
...because penguins are cuter that daemons?
I think the reason for the awe inspiring sucess of Linux should be obvious. that darn penguin is much cuter than the little devil. that is the same reason imacs ar available in so many cute colors.
First, we should look at it this way: there are 12 million people that use a free unix-like operating system. Most if not all opensource applications run equally well on both. One (Linux) is an implementation from scratch, the other (Free/Net/OpenBSD) has royal blood as it is the direct descendant of 4.4BSD which itself descends from Unix. This should keep happy both the new army of coders that like to toy with new concepts, and the traditionalists for whom 30 year old code doesn't mean outdated, but proven and stable. Both points of view can be defended I think. We therefore have 12 million users and users-developers of free unixish applications, that's great and was absolutely unthinkable 10 years ago!
:). Same for NIC drivers usually (hello, donald becker, do comment weird things :-). But the linux kernel is full of good and new ideas.
:) Long and happy life to all the linux and free/open/netbsd hackers, be it kernel or office applications writers :)
As for the technical side, I keep having to look at both the linux and freebsd kernels as part of my work; they are good references. Both have very good parts. I have to say that usually, the solution adopted by FreeBSD is simpler and a lot more commented/documented (take the bogomips case for example; people are starting to wonder what will happen if the cpu speed changes at runtime, how to detect and recalculate it, etc; freebsd spins simply by looking at changes in the hardware clock counter. simpler
So we need both if we want to keep the high standards we are used to have in the free unices now. That was my original point
This discussion is already being held right here
---
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
What I am convinced of, however, is that the BSD's are each a solid piece of work, and each deserves as much attention as Linux has gained lately. It isn't that much work to write software that will run on the BSD's as well a Linux, and I think vendors should be encouraged to support them.
In the end I'll probably keep using Linux, I'm comfortable with it, but I don't want that choice to be based on a lack vendor support for BSD -- we've all had enough of the "one supported OS" syndrome, let's not continue it.
More people are interested in Linux simply because more people are interested in Linux. It's sort of like a rolling ball of snow; Linux is collecting more people as it goes. So are the BSDs but they are a little behind right now.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
There is no billion dollar IPO backing the hype about BSD.
The hype will come when:
1) There is a billion dollar BSD IPO.
2) When the BSD community starts explaining the biggest advantage of the BSD licence to Multinational corporations. That advantage is, you can choose to HIDE your own source code if you wish. (Get them to at least start supporting OpenSource. Once they find its not as bad as Microsoft says, they will keep coming back for more. Like drugs...the first hit, we'll give ya free.)
3) Some cleaver BSDers (Hi Pat!) start whispering in Wall Streets ears "Feel that you mised out on the Linux IPO frenzy? Take heart, here is BSD...the next big IPO launchpad. It runs Linux binaries, its OpenSourced, AND the licencing difference over Linux doesn't cause the heads of the lawyers in your IP departments to spin about."
When the first IPO of BSD is successful, then you will see the people who use Linux instead of the word OpenSource, refer to BSD as OpenSource...and Linux also. And, the more OpenSource is out there, the better for BSD, Linux, Apache, Sendmail, vi,
NO CARRIER
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
I think it also has something to with the name. Maybe not for the serious amongst us, but I remember some of the reactions against unpopular languages were driven by how hard it was to say the name, in the past. Even if we can't agree on how to pronounce Linux, it still is easy to say. BSD, on the other hand, is very staccatto and doesn't roll trippingly off the tongue on the way to Piccadilly.
Will in Seattle
my brother couldn't get a shiny clean install of redhat 6.1 to work properly, so i suggested he load the latest from OpenBSD (2.6). it properly detected and configured all of the devices. now he's happy about it 'cuz he gets to finally ditch M$.
unfortunately, there's nothing to prevent an Evil Empire (TM) from making proprietary changes to *BSD and selling, for instance, M$ BSD. the ability of proprietary companies to embrace and extinguish is what really scares me.
1. Time. BSD was held back by the ATT lawsuit and Linux already had so much mindshare when that was over.
2. The BSD license doesn't enforce the quid-pro-quo. This is a real sticking point for me personally. When I put a lot of work into something, I like to be a partner in a free software development, not someone's unpaid employee dupe. But I feel like a dupe when somebody takes that work private, makes proprietary modifications to my work and doesn't return their modifications to me or the other free software authors who gave him our work.
Unfortunately, history shows that without a license requirement the return of code doesn't happen. Most of the workstation Unix systems are BSD-derived (although these days there is more System V in there) and all of their X servers are derived from software under a very similar license to the BSD. Try to get the source code for those systems. Sun only released its modifications to the BSD system recently, 10 years late, and then under a license that would not allow their reincorporation into the BSD system as free software! Most other workstation manufacturers didn't bother to release source at all.
So, I am more likely to put work into a GPL project. It is possible to take the BSD system and GPL it. The new BSD license and the GPL are compatible, and you can GPL all new work that you do, and in general establish a GPL source thread. But that would annoy a lot of the long-time BSD folks.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Yes, but we all have to agree that both camps are adequately staffed with a bunch of radicals who will give you one hundred reasons why their brand is superior.
When, for instance, they both run EMACS, VI, Apache, and loads of other GNU software.
I think that if you don't like the look of the "alternative alternative operating system", A)Your information is out of date B)Wait 6 months and see if it has what you want C)What, you're using a MAC!!!
I do what the voices on my console tell me to do.
FreeBSD and the other BSD's are not as popular as Linux because they don't have as many users. They also have fewer distributions. The BSD's have also been more server sided then desktop untill recently. Certainly the BSD's have become more popular due to the succes of Linux as Linux has brought a great many people to look at Unix-like OS's. Which is better. I don't think there is an answer to that. Both work well. I use FreeBSD. It fits me well so I have no reason to look at Linux. I'm sure the same is true for many Linux user's.
The answer is so obvious is isn't a wonder that we are missing it: Linux is more popular than BSD because Oreilly has published more books that pertain to Linux.
I mean, we all know that the only way we ever learn anything is by reading an Oreilly book.
This applies somewhat to users and to an extreme with developers. As a user, a question revealing that you don't know UNIX, not just *BSD, is enough to have you shouted out the door. As a developer, unless you're a 20 year BSD veteran, suggest an idea or ask where you can begin to help and you should be prepared to be stomped on. Hard and repeatedly. Largely by many of the project principals.
Review some of Matt Dillon's contributions to FreeBSD in the mailing lists. He's repeatedly helped to pull large portions of FreeBSD up to and even past their Linux equivalents. Then consider the rationale behind the community's treatment of him.
A similar type of treatment resulted in the split of NetBSD and OpenBSD. Again, reviewing their mailing list archives shows that this kind of childish animosity and cliquish cult behavior abounds.
To the contrary, it takes all of five minutes to find something to do for Linux and to find a mentor who will help you find your way to the in crowd the first few times you've got a core-level contribution to make. They give you the benefit of the doubt as a new contributor, reviewing and considering your contribution, not your credentials or your ability/willingness to pose as a BSD veteran long enough to be heard.
Frankly, it's surprising that this group exists outside of acedemia at all.
I suspect the real reasons for GNU/Linux's popularity over the BSDs are historical rather than technical. The BSDs were bogged down in legal battles at a critical time, a time when GNU/Linux systems were less mature but starting to take off. If not for that, 90% of the GNU/Linux geeks would probably be BSD geeks today.
Linux is more popular than *BSD for the same reason Windows is more popular than Linux...Marketing. There's no Linux, Inc. but the grassroots marketing for Linux, and the fact that so many companies are offering easyish to use installation CDs you can buy at CompUSA is far superior to the marketing and end-user distribution available for any of the BSD variants.
BSD has been around for a long time in the academic world, but it hasn't had the massive user-coder base that Linux developed fairily quickly (This is the true genious of Linus). So it has been maintained AFAIK by a small group of people. BSD isn't as userfriendly as Linux, because that small group of pelple is more interested in the development of BSD than in helping newbies.
Some BSD distros are really tough to install -- things like making your own boot disks from scratch for certain systems etc specifically because they want to discourage lusers from bugging them about it.
So in general BSD is smaller because it is smaller -- there is not as big a user/developer community as there is for Linux, hence less development and exposure...
As the OSS model starts to take more and more market share, BSD will develop a a strong competitor for Linux, especially in professionally administrated systems. This is a good thing -- competition provides for improvement. For example if this occurs we may see companies providing BSD service contracts, and improved security for linux.
As self-fufilling prophecies go, this is another one. BSD continues to be less known, because it is less known. Over half of those same college undergrads I knew in computer science and engineering got hands on experience with Linux before they graduated, myself included.
BSD continued to languish in the realms of unknown software.
Many of the undergrads went out into the work force and are now doing jobs where they can at least provide knowledgable input about Linux. Many of them went to find jobs specifically where they could work on Linux systems. There was no similarly large pool of individuals who knew BSD amongst the dozens of fellow students I knew, including the systems operators (I was one) for our UNIX systems, or much in the faculty. Perhaps a few people seemed knowledgable about BSD, but they didn't talk about it much, because people knew more about and were already interested in Linux.
For the most part, colleges provide the ground where our next generations of individuals in the computer industry learn UNIX-based OS's and determine what technologies they will bring to their initial workplaces. If BSD is as absent from most colleges as it was from mine, BSD won't catch on, because many of the people who would use it will not know about it.
B. Elgin
B. Elgin
"Read at your own risk; feel free to ignore."
The first free version of BSD (Networking Release 2) was distributed in June 1991, but got tied up in lawsuits from 1992 to 1994. By the time that was cleared up, early versions of Linux were already available.
--
"But, Mulder, the new millennium doesn't begin until January 2001."
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
It is "Berkeley Software Distribution", right? I've also heard "Berkeley Standard Distribution", but that makes less sense than "Berkeley Software Design". Maybe "Berkeley Standard Design"?
Whilst there are many historical reasons that
undoubtedly contribute to this including the
fragmentation of effort of open/free BSD etc....
and the original BSD licensing issues, I can't
help wondering if there is a key role played by
the association of BSD with a physical entity
namely Berkley rather with a global comunity of
"no fixed abode". Maybe people psychologicaly
don't feel an equal part of this thing, but more
like they are helping with someone elses project.
When will these people ever get it right?
I'll leave the comments about which kernel is better to the more knowledgable, but I have to wonder why you'd question some random suit about it just because his managers holds the Unix trademark this year.
I'm a little tired of the 'we'll start it out sounding neutral and informative and then switch to some unsubstantiated claims about BSD's superiority' articles posted here. This person claims that BSD's kernel is much more 'sophisticated' than linux's, in ways preferred by grad students and professors.. Sigh, and yerg.
So, responders, do us all a favor, if you wanna prove how, why, and where BSD is better than linux, post code and illustrate the difference - then explain why each OS does it a certain way.
My opinion: shut up and use whatever you feel like using. If popularity is important, go use windows.
--
Blue
i browse at -1 because they're funnier than you are.
Yes, I fully agree that *BSD has numerous merits and that this is something that could easially be flamebait. However, Linux is just a bit ahead of the game (most likely due to the ATT crap), and it has caught the media attention. Its one thing when something comes out of a university, but when "the young finnish student created his own operating system because he didn't like what was out there" grabs peoples' attention, it seems to be a more heartwarming story.
Ok, now let's look at this part about the "heartwarming". Yes, we as techies like to look at things for their technical merit, not their popularity. As I said above, they are both quite good and nitpicking is justified, but almost pointless. Wall Street knows about BSD, but they just don't really care. There are no Red Hats or VA Linux companies for *BSD, and Microsoft doesn't acknowledge *BSD (from what I've seen; tell me otherwise, please). I remember a few months back reading in the Wall Street Journal an article on how "If you thought Linux was the underdog, BSD is underground". People have read about it. They don't care.
I guess I could rant about this for a while, and I'm sure people will flame and argue with this. The point I'm getting to is that Linux just has the head start on the public eye, and it is simply the center of a lot of attention. *BSD may be better than Linux. Linux may be better than *BSD. However, they're both quite good and certainly much better than that software from Redmond. RedHat and VA have both brought Linux to the public attention. I fear, however, that if there is a 'Red Hat BSD', it will just confuse people; it could turn out to be a good thing, but it could also just bring us back to the 80s when there were 20 different platforms and little in the way of 'cross platform' standards.
Rant, rant, rant. I better stop before I talk in circles
--
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
In the not-so-distant past, O'Reilly published more generic Un*x books (e.g. Unix in a Nutshell), but as the popularity of Linux rose so did the number of Linux-specific books from O'Reilly.
Initially Linux is decipherable with IRC help, mailing lists and on-line docs. Whereas, BSD takes some previous understanding and the man pages on BSD assume Unix know-how. The LDP HOWTOs are written for the uninitiated and that is a major reason why Linux appeals to people more.
This whole Unix rebirth is very new. So people new to Unix will choose Linux first. Once they realize there is something objectively more mature for advanced purposes, they may consider a switch.
I started out learning Unix by trying out the various Linuxes. Now I've settled on OpenBSD b/c security a huge issue for my business. And my level of security must be high. That is not so for other people. While I'm a huge proponent of security and privacy I feel most people can be by with their Windows computers if they have a good firewall/ip-masquerading gateway installed that runs either Debian (most secure Linux), FreeBSD or OpenBSD. With the growth of the home LAN, such a configuration is a no-brainer and you can install it on some relic of a PC that you thought could only have been used as a door stop.
If people want to try a more stable desktop system; I usually will configure a system with KDE and FreeBSD or Debian for them. In terms of application capability they are about the same so it boils down to the person's taste in licencing features.
But for someone who wants to go it alone and install and learn as one goes, I recommend something easy to install like Corel Linux or Caldera Linux (no not Red Hat which I recommend for the corporate environment).
If a company came along that made a BSD easy to install and use it would be a truly awesome product; that is what Darwin and MacOS X is all about and they are awesome but expensive. If you have the money for Apple's new OS, the advantages for using a BSD based system speak for themselves after you've used them for a while. Unix gurus don't need convincing. They either only run BSD because it's 'real' Unix or they only run Linux because the GPL is preferrable. The arguments about Linux having more applications and better hardware support are, of course, silly because if that is the basis for an argument then we'd all be using Windows instead.
The bottom line for new users is documentation that's easy to access and meant for them and an install process that people perceive as easy (i.e., it has a GUI). Linux has it and BSD doesn't.
Shrug. I could really care less if it's more popular or not. It works wonderfully for me, and at the time that I switched from Linux, it worked much better. Popularity be damned.
I've contributed a few ports to FreeBSD. I contribute in the little ways that I can because I believe in BSD and know that if no-one contributed at all, BSD would indeed die. (In the BSD-kernelled Debian threads, someone seemed to think that BSD was dying ``because of its license''. I would challenge that by asking them if ``not dying'' means ``growing to an unmanageable size''.) By the same token, if contributions to Linux stopped, Linux would die.
I believe in BSD because it works, and because the source code is open (though some seem to think that anything non-GPL'd is not ``open'' -- we need not rehash those arguments here.) I can do with it what I want.
The community spirit of BSD ensures -- without encumbrance of license -- that BSD will be around as long as there are still people working on it.
You saved me a lot of typing. :)
In other words I agree with this poster. Linux is designed to bring in people. BSD doesn't seem to me to be similary designed. It's all about the initial planning stages and mission goals. BSD's goals seemed to be just for a free distribution of UNIX for poor academic geeks or something. Linux was a free reimplementation of UNIX for everyone.
pointing to a default apache page... are you just plain stupid?
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
The article contends that Linux is not as sophisticated as BSD. While I agree that certain features of BSD might be more advanced (e.g. from a brief chat with one of the NetBSD folks, the UVM sounds cool), Linux is braving uncharted water in a number of previously shunned areas (I was stunned to find, for example, that I can choose to enable a kernel-based static http server in my Linux kernel as of 2.3.x). This willingness to break with UNIX tradition is what sets Linux apart, and frankly is the reason that many of us like it.
I also like BSD (I was a huge fan of 4.2, back when Ultrix was 4.2 with the serial numbers filed off). BSD has a tradition of stability and innovation that is hard to match, and look forward to a world where BSD and Linux are equal participants in the operating system development community. But can we stop pretending that one OS is "better" than another, and focus on which OS is right for a given task/environment?
...there may be more copies of BSD flavored Darwin/OS X out there than Linux.
You can still make proprietary changes to Linux, you just can't distribute or sell the binary result, which is counter to what the article states. Apple open sourced OS X (though not GPLed) except it will keep its GUI to itself--since that's what makes the Mac the Mac. If the GUI were opened up, Apple would rot. Apple could not make money without complete control over at least some of its system.
I think that Linux and BSD are suited for different tasks. It's good that we have them both.
This is one of the many discussions Comparing FreeBSD and Linux ...
....
... ?
..
Well there have been many a comparison between these 2 and many good point coming out of them. In turn these two have been raised to such atechnical levels, to countermand their negatives in each reviews. This is possibly the only real success that Open Source or FSF have really met.
The real success would be in terms of the commecrial value of these system to support further enhancements. But the real situation is that commercial UNIX's like SUN / HP have still not implemented many of the good features that either FreeBSD or Linux have yet they are still outstanding in sales. To top the list the NET has whole list of pathetic performance of Windows NT and talk to any Sys ADMIN for the rest, still It tops the DeskTop...
Could the real reason be that the word FREE is being misrespresented as POOR QUALITY
I cannot think of a better reason for wither Free BSD or Linux not achieving the Compatitive levels. Where do we start the real education
I would like to help on this
Any suggestions
1)FreeBSD aims to be a stable production exnviroment while Linux is more "Bleeding Edge" development enviroment.
2)FreeBSD is still relatively unknown , since its distrobution was restricted for a long time due to the AT&T lawsuits. Linux did not have any lawsuits to contend with. So for a long time it was only free UNIX-type system available
3)As a result of lack of knowledge about FreeBSD not much commercial software is available for it. Linux has a growing amount of commercial software for it.
4)As a result of a smaller user base, FreeBSD is less likely to have drivers for brand-new boards than linux.
some of these points may not help this discussion at all but I sure hope some do
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
And all of these things will run, mostly without modification, on BSD.
Who cares which kernel is used! That's a small (but very important) part of the whole picture. The important thing is that we are rapidly developing more and more user-space stuff that will run on any modern UNIXy platform -- whether its Linux, FreeBSD, or the Hurd.
Linux's success helps to insure BSD's long term viability. Don't forget it. From some stuff I've seen, I gather that the core *BSD teams are well aware of it.
-- Slashdot sucks.
i always figured that it would be better to be well versed in as many different operating systems as possible. that way, not only do you start to figure out which OS is best for the job, you can feel comfortable if your own company pulls a switcheroo on you.
Linux included things like the DOS filesystem that the BSD kernel hackers looked on as a wart on their beautiful OS. Linux and BSD had different philosophies at the beginning, where Linux aimed to make a *NIX for the users, and BSD was shooting for the best--from the purists view--kernel. Since then, I think that you could argue that BSD has moved towards the Linux camp, with a little movement by Linux towards the BSDers (like Linux not allowing GGI).
--Last Exit To Babylon
You say jib, I say gib.
As long as both parties know what the other person means, then pronounciation isn't [too] important.
Cheers
Im not going to bother answering all your points but as for 1)FreeBSD aims to be a stable production exnviroment - youre wrong. Several bad implementations can be found in the FreeBSD x86 assembly code that render it unstable under certain rare conditions. In fact, Linus *rejected* these changes for Linux outright (even though they would have meant speed improvements).
See this URL : [ http://kt.linuxcare.com/kt19991220_47.html#1 ]for one such example..others can be found elsewhere.
I find it interesting that main stream Indian newspapers are giving thought to such geek dilemas such as why BSD is less widely used than Linux. It seems that the true test and fight of linux/unix variants versus Windows/Microsoft is going to be in Asia; China and India mainly. These are the huge markets of tomorrow with some of the highest growth rate in computer usage. Now is the time to capture market share; since it is always easier to capture market share as the market is created rather than have to take it from someone else. Also, these countries want and need inexpensive solutions; perfect for Linux marketing.
Damn straight! That penguin is stealing all our glory. (Just kiddin') Probably for the best. The slower(development) pace makes a far superior and stable platform. Everything about FreeBSD in my opinion is better from CVSup to sysinstall. The very concept of make buildworld/make installworld is lightyears ahead of the rest. Most importantly it demands knowledge of Unix. That alone may very well spell Linux's downfall. Linux is slowly changing but not necessarily for the better.
-- Ted tsikora@powerusersbbs.com
No offense, but didnt you read the article? The point was not that BSD is superior or inferior to Linux. It was that fewer people are contributing to it.
Yes, applications written for Linux may run on BSD and vice-versa. But the catch really is the license. If NT were as stable as *BSD or Linux, do you think that the development community would switch over to NT? No way - and this is because of the license.
Note that the user community might switch over - but that isnt the point. When we talk of contributions, its the development community that we are talking about.Now, if the BSD license was changed to make a closed source distribution impossible, then you would see contributions increasing tremendously.
PS : The story to which we are commenting is a bit confused in that the writer is unable to distinguish between the development community and the user community. Linux achieved a bigger user community because of features provided by a bigger development community.
There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.
3. Linux supported IDE long before *BSD did, and these were the inexpensive drives that the masses had.
To that, I would add, now that Linux is way ahead,
4. Linux is way ahead in market share, and just like the internal combustion engine, the incandescent bulb, Microsoft OSes, and other less than optimal technologies, once a product is entrenched with sales networks, R&D networks, customer support networks, etc., it takes a vast improvement in the underlying technology to overturn the economic advantage of sticking with the status quo.
Any open sourced kernel offered just that sort of advantage over windows (to developers) and with the internet paradigm shift to vastly increase the numbers of servers, open source (especially of unix) on the commodity platform offered a compelling enough functionality jump to create the new market/new standard. But since Linux won the initial sprint, expect it to continue its hegemony. The BSDs have a chance of gaining share by being very compatible and utilizing highly transferable skills, so all is not lost for them, but things are often the way they are for many small good reasons, not by random chance, nor for one reason.
Linux is not a house of cards. The hype surrounding linux and it's related companies are. I do noet expect that Linux will come down as a dekc of cards, but the hype might, since Linux itself is not a bad product. But... why a shitty unix like SCO for commercial unix? You're pro BSD... choose BSDi! And your expectations about the companies taking another direction are very unprobable. I think these companies like Linux, and they're less or more stuck to some GPL matters.
Really. When I started casting about for a substitute to Win31 or DOS/Minuet, I tried to download a floppy image of BSD.
The response when I tried to ftp it? "Go away, stupid WinBlows lamer." "Fuck off, gates." I finally got an image on floppy, it wouldn't boot. Last experience with it.
By then, Barkakati's flame book arrived, everything worked first off. Been using Linux ever since. Even wrote some stuff under the GPL, but mostly using it as an NT replacement for printer and modem serving.
Might look at BSD again, if php4/apache works under it, but most probably, I'll just get a modern video card and give BeOS a spin.
I will attempt not to fall into the dreaded "*BSD vs. various distributions of Linux" flamebait here. Here's my story:
;-). Needless to say, that box is still running Open (uptime is nearly 500 days!), and I'm rather impressed by its ability to simply reject repeated exploits and intrusions.
;-) machine for the "good stuff" and a NT4 machine for gaming.
I'm still primarily a NT user. Why? Better IDE, more game support and more robust (not to mention widespread) hardware support. However, many, many moons ago I began the Slackware trek. Its simplicity and stability (courtesy of Linus's kernel, of course) really impressed me. I installed a few servers out of curiosity and promptly forgot about them. Four or five months later I realized that they were still running strong (given the requisite `kill ` that one must force on some runaway thread). This was utterly positive; I was used to checking my computers daily to ensure they were still running. Additionally, I noticed that performance wasn't hampered as much as under NT when more users connected or accessed the mounts. Thus, Linux became the fileserver OS.
A few short months later I installed my first copy of FreeBSD (2.7?), again, just out of curiosity. I setup ircd, nfsd, a few other daemons and went on vacation. When I returned, needless to say, ircd (known for its uncanny ability to split) was still running. Of course the other parts of the installation were doing just fine. So when I was called to do a security-apparent job, I tried OpenBSD. Perhaps I was entrigued by the entire "secure by default" mentality (or was it the line-by-line auditing?
Linux has never failed me, nor has *BSD. My limited experience does not qualify me to say that *BSD is any more able to handle mission-critical jobs than Linux, but I will say this: the degree of success that surrounds Walnut Creek is simply amazing. If a site that handles unimaginable daily traffic can withstand attacks and impatient ftp'ers, then I can trust its mission-critical status.
I now use two primary machines: a FreeBSD 3.4 (just made world a few nights ago!
1. It is true that the original 386BSD was hampered somewhat by the Jolitz' attempt to control development. That was pretty much over by the time FreeBSD entered the scene though.
2. Installation of FreeBSD is quite a bit slicker than all but the most recent versions of Linux. Various Linux distributors have obviously made this a high priority, so it is improving for them.
3. Over the years, I've found FreeBSD's hardware support to lag Linux a bit, but I've had some problems with supposedly debugged support under Linux as well. I've found that FreeBSD supports virtually all the hardware I have, but your mileage may vary as your equipment does.
4. Linux certainly is easier to obtain. I used burn CDs for anyone I knew who wanted to try FreeBSD. Some FreeBSD people I know thought this was a bad idea, that if you wanted FreeBSD you should order the CDs from Walnut Creek to support the project. While I certainly urge people to do that if they find FreeBSD useful, I think it was shortsighted to insist on that. If someone doesn't try FreeBSD, they aren't going to contribute monetarilly or with their programming effort to make it better. Therefore our goal should be to get as many people to try FreeBSD as possible.
Recently ISOs of the FreeBSD distribution have begun to show up more widely, which makes it easier for people to try it. I think this is a good thing. OpenBSD has not yet adopted this mentality, which is in my opinion at least partially responsible for its rather limited popularity (it also has a relatively unkind installation process, which is another).
5. Linux does have lots of distributions. I'm not sure that this is a good thing. Most are either of poor quality or simple rehashes of other distributions. The plethora of distributions means plethoras of problems for the most part, as different kernel, config and packaging options make knowledge of one distribution less useful.
To be fair, BSD suffers from similar divergence amongst its three major distributions as well.
6. FreeBSD ships on 4 CDs. They are pretty full. Very little software available for Linux is not available on FreeBSD.
I don't think there is a huge gap. I think the various Linux vendors are a bit further down the road in creating distributions that even novice users can install and use. Given the vast amount of money raised in various Linux IPOs, I don't expect that FreeBSD will close the gap quickly.
There is much pleasure to be gained in useless knowledge.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Let me start off by saying that my first exposure to *nix was 4.2BSD on a VAX-11/780 back in 1985. I spent the remainder of the 1980's using 4.2, 4.3 and 4.3-Tahoe on various VAXen as well as SunOS on Sun 3's. While I also played with other UNIXes such as Ultrix, HP/UX, A/UX, Xenix, Venix and AT&T SVR2 and SVR3 in those days, BSD was my primary platform.
In the early 1990's I spent a lot of time with various SVR3 derived commercial UNIXes including Motorola's SVR3 on 88000 machines and AIX on RT's and RS/6000's. While still *nix, I pined for a lot of things that were missing compared to BSD. By late 1992 I was back to SunOS 4.1.x on Sparc which was more to my liking.
The main reason I chose Linux over *BSD is back in 1993 when *BSD and Linux were first coming to my attention and I was able to scrape together enough cast-off parts and $$$ to hack together a decent enough box (a 386DX-20) to run them, I couldn't get *BSD to run on the junk hardware I had. Linux, on the other hand worked. With the olvwm window manager I was astounded how well it made a clunky PC look and act like a SparcStation running SunOS.
Nowdays I use Solaris on Sparc at work (and some at home, although my primary home platform is Linux and my home SparcStations are all old and slow models) and I could afford to run *BSD as well as Linux at home (I've got dozens of machines), and I do occasionally load one of the *BSDs onto a box to see how things are coming along. I really have nothing against *BSD. If Linux didn't exist, or if it ever somehow falls apart, I will certainly look at switching to one of the *BSDs.
But I have to say that Linux for me has the comfort level now, after six years, I've spent more time with it than any other *nix family. Every time I have tried the *BSDs lately, I just haven't been able to find a compelling reason that would lead me to pick one of them over Linux. Linux still seems to have a better combination of hardware support, easier installation and wider software availability. Mind that the *BSDs aren't really that far behind, but without any real compelling advantage, it is just enough of a subtle turnoff to keep me complacent.
Well, there it is, just one person's opinion. Take it for what it's worth and with a grain or three of salt.
Personally, I use Linux. That is mainly because I am interested in kernel programming, and I like the idea of getting the source code to every app on my system. However, I think BSD has a few good ideas. It's great that a company can come along and take an operating system, pay nothing for it, change it to make it (hopefully) work better and provide some new feature or service that was previously unavailable (Example (kinda), the OpenGL X-server that was recently released). This is great not only for the *nix world, but also for developers. I think I might be installing BSD soon just to give it a try.
=======
There was never a genius without a tincture of madness.
Well since I asked this about YRO about a month ago and got an answer, I'll give you the answer I got. Someone mark this up so maybe someone will read it and not ask the question again? ;)
The colors are indicators of a special section of slashdot. Notice the Sections menu along the left hand side of the screen?
Try selecting a specific section and check the colors. My favorite is the Apache section. YRO is just plain fugly though.
The red used here is a tie-in to the bsd colors
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
if it was simply because of the license then how come more people use apache (bsd license) than any other GPL server?
---
In my experience people tend to graduate from Linux to *BSD once they've gotten their feet wet. Has anyone else experienced this?
I base this not only on my own past, but many others I've spoken with.
"Waiting for that OpenBSD IPO!!"
Scott
For the various posts that seem to be interested in the BSD release timeline, here is how it went:
:) Rather trust the book "the design and implementation of the 4.4BSD operating system" by marshall kirk mckusick et al.
1977: 1BSD (based on UNIX time-sharing system sixth edition from Bell)
1978: 2BSD (based on 1BSD)
1979: 3BSD (based on 2BSD and 32V which itself was derived from unix seventh edition)
mid-79: 4.0BSD (derived from 3BSD)
1981: 4.1BSD (derived from 4.0BSD)
1982: 4.1aBSD
1983: 4.1cBSD (not based on System V)
1984: 4.2BSD (not based on System V release 2); SunOS is based on it.
1986: 4.3BSD
1988: 4.3BSD-Tahoe
1990: 4.3BSD-Reno
1991: NET/2 (386BSD spun from it)
mid-1992: NetBSD 0.8 spawns from NET/2
1993: FreeBSD 1.0 spins from 386BSD as well
mid-1993: 4.4BSD
1994: 4.4BSD lite 1
1995: FreeBSD 2.0, 4.4BSD Lite-2, BSDI 2.0 spin from 4.4BSD lite 1
Note that I'm a linux person, so don't hold me accountable for those dates
Linux of course appeared in 1991.
What the flying fuck does this have to do about Linux?
If you think somthing is a "hodgepodge" it the distro's not "Linux"
EG
Debian is not a "hodgepodge" it is not "insecure"
My two favorite BSDisms. Robust can be argued, maybe.
If I install or configure any Unix based system poorly. It will be insecure. Linux, BSD, even NT.
I don't critize BSD, but then again I don't use BSD ethier. If you use these kind of arguments, your doing BSD a DISERVICE!
Badly reasoned argments make me disbelieve that person's cause.
"Think of it as evolution in action."
Aw come'on there's jerks everywhere it just so happens there are more in comp.os.linux.*.
(See... it's easy to start a war). Seriously I heard many complaints from people about this. On the other hand many FreeBSD'ers are the archtypical Unix user with zero tolerance for newbies. Myself included on occasion. Most of this attitude stems from users who refuse to read the faqs, readmes, and docs. We learned it that way why can't you. Of course I'm not like any of them.(Ha!)
-- Ted tsikora@powerusersbbs.com
You missed out the most important reason : the BSD licence.
Think about it : the Linux developers are just as smart as the BSD developers. The BSD movement also had the advantage that they were a mature operating system at the time Linux was a blip on the horizon. So why didnt the BSD movement gain as many developers as Linux did? Simply because the license was unattractive to them.
Some people also say that the centralized committee nature of BSD is a detractment. Bosh! Linux also has the same committee nature where a patch doesnt appear in a distribution unless it has been blessed by the core developers and / or Linus. The only difference is that this committee is not as formalized as the *BSD committees.
There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.
However, because of the ability for a company to make a proprietary fork of BSD code, I would wager that there are more copies of software out there that owes their origins to BSD than there are for the GPL.
So, really, "popular" to whom? Developers or end users?
--
You are neglecting that fact that you don't _need_ RedHat, SUSE or Debian to provide you linux... users have the most control. If the companies were to go astray, the someone would do The Right Thing and resume distributing their untainted versions. Tbis is an important to watch out for,, Linux could become too commercialized at some point, and young computer nerds all over the world will retch simultaneously. But I think that some new group will step up to revive it to it's prior, geeky glory with some new logo and clever name.
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
If people were OSs, BSD would be an accountant. Efficient, not too fancy, to the point, and not opposed to a little blatant capitalism from time to time as long as it got things done. Linux (and a lot of other GNU stuff), on the other hand is a genius hippie. Long haired, occasionally bong-hitting, Lennon-listening cool guy who happens to be a math whiz and plays concert piano. He may not get the job done as well as the first guy, but he's a lot more fun to hang out with!
Okay bad metaphor. My point is that I think the success of Linux is possibly due to the fact that the Linux community is a little bit funky. And I like that. And I think a lot of people like that. For instance, user support is like being lost and asking a hippie for directions. He won't try to sell you a map, or instead give you directions to a store where he's trying to sell you something. True, the directions might be a little odd, and he might smell a little funny, but it's okay, because as they said at Woodstock, we're all feeding each other.
What mystifies me is how big business is suddenly interested in Linux. I feel as if they've been bamboozled, but in a good way, like actually getting a pig elected to President. If big business actually knew what was good for them, they would adopt BSD like gangbusters. Big companies like things like restrictive licensing, being mean, and other things the BSD license permits them. But amazingly they've adopted Linux, and now Linux is beginning, in a good way, to corrupt those companies from the inside.
Well I say nee-haw. Advocacy has paid off, and I say we take the money and run. If Redhat and other companies want to spend millions on producing high-quality GPLed software, I say right on. Free software will never collapse. It will never be un-useful. As long as we're true in our hearts and we code like madmen, the GPL will protect us, and that's exciting. That's why people fall in Linux, and that's why I fell in love with Linux.
[This groggy Monday morning rant was brought to you by Coffee, or rather the lack thereof.]
One of the reasons why *BSD is lagging behind in popularity is certainly the lack of a well-known commercial distribution with the advertising, support and non-proficient-user-friendliness. Red Hat FreeBSD or SuSE FreeBSD would make a difference...
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
It seems that many of the posters here are relatively new to Linux. But, as someone who was in the market for a Unix-like OS in 1994, I can tell you that "the communities" were the most important factors in the decision of which OS to use. The Linux community was so utterly helpful that it was hard not to use it. A visit to #linux on EFNET would answer just about any question that anyone would have. And just watching the enthusiasm of the group was awe-inspiring.
On the other hand, the BSD users were the entrenched, holier-than-thou, get-outta-my-face-you-stinkin-newbie "gurus" who needed to deride the less knowledgeable in order to feel adequate. It was not a fun experience to be on the receiving end of the *BSD crowd in those days. The BSD crowd today is far different -- a really bright and helpful bunch. But the early days of the movement really hurt. It will haunt the BSD community for a long time to come.
The fact that Linux now has the largest market share and the strongest momentum is due to the outrageously helpful member of the community early on. This sense of community and willingness to help was inspired by the kernel developers themselves. Back when the daily volume on the linux-kernel list was under 30 messages a day (imagine!) it was quite common for the developers to very gently point the newbies in the right direction when they asked for help. ("This list is for kernel development... I'm sure if you ask on 'linux-foo' you're question will be answered.")
I just want to thank the Linux community for being such a helpful bunch. The early developers and users have inspired a large number of people (myself included) to continue the tradition of evangelizing the OS and helping the newbies get on their feet.
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
Commercial? Have you never see www.bsd.org?
Linux has one major advantage over BSD in that Linux modifications happen faster then BSD modifications. The reasons I see for this is a different mindset between people who work on Linux and people who work on BSD and the difference between the GPL and BSD licenses.
.many features are more readlily adopted.
In the Linux world, if a feature is needed, it is added pretty quickly and any problems that arise are fixed when they are found. People don't try to make the software perfect, they just try to make it do what they need it to do. Other people likely to take the isk of using the new feature, because with the source code, they can fix anything that causes a problem, then these fixes are given back to due to the GPL and all will benefit from them. Therefore
In BSD, things happen slowley because the people working on it are more concerned with sercurity and stability. While this allows them to create some very reliable systems, it slows the development of the OS so that it is always lagginf behind in features. Also, if someone does make a good change or add an important feature, they could always keep it and not share it, so these features will be adopted slowly.
The end result is that Linux, while more prone to problem when using the latest and greatest kernal/library/etc, it more quickely adopts features that user want and need.
For the desktop, I think that the Linux model is better, and for servers the BSD model is better. But that can be overcome by using an older and more stable versioin of Linux (most people with production Linux servers so this.)
"Attention Citizens, 2+2 now equals 3.947547175. Please recalibrate your equipment now" --The Computer
I have tried both FreeBSD and Linux in my quest for the operating system that fits me. I like both operating systems, though with Linux I am a bit pickier about the distro. (FreeBSD has 1). FreeBSD seems a bit harder to do a post install setup (I.E. kernel config) the Linux "make xconfig" puts me at ease a bit more than scrolling through "LINT" on FBSD.
I think the part that hurts the BSD community the most is the amount of stores that sell the operating system. You can go online and download or purchase FBSD, but it does not seem to get the shelf space everywhere like Linux.
You can walk into Wal-Mart now and purchase a jewel case distro of Red Hat, or go to the bookstore and pick up pretty much any "Unix" (*) book or search through the shelves full of Linux books. (Though I think most of the books are outdated, books selling with say Rhat5.2) FBSD just is not out there.
The people who choose FBSD are those who want it, alot of people find themselves buying and installing Linux because they find a copy of Linux for $19.95 at the local store or are sick of M$.
Linux just seems to be the buzzword nowadays and the attention it has recieved has been turned into more users. I hope that both BSD and Linux continue to grow in power and availability.
Nothing can last forever, we will continue to evolve and create more, better, faster as time goes on.
I will continue to advocate both FBSD and Linux and let the user decide which is better based upon their wants and needs. If approximately 10 million people use Linux and 2 million use BSD, that is still 12 million that don't use Micro$loth!
*I often wonder who is masquerading Unix with a fresh copy of linux? apples and oranges.. apples and oranges.
'Speaking in terms of reliability, isn't it time for your Windows to crash?'
You make it sound like writing code for any GPL project is bad. Why shouldn't a writer give back any improvements made to a GPL project? After all, the others who have contributed the GPL code did a lot of work for you.
Sitting on code that isn't submitted back only makes it useful to you. If you don't give back and share, the mainline code is going to advance and you're going to end up constantly patching or even better, some one else who isn't so selfish submits the same code fixes.
There are plenty of situations where the GPL is not feasible. I just happen to believe that OS-level and mid-level utilities are perfectly suited for GPLing.
Generally BSD used UFS, but free varients are now incorperating SoftUpdates into the filesystem. I've been told that for the most part, UFS is slightly slower than ext2, but safer. The main reason is because ext2 doesn't sync as often, though both can be tweaked either for the speed or for the safety. Softupdates will do the same as a JFS for Linux, so both systems can have safe and speedy filesystems.
I haven't seen to much of an explanation of softupdates, only on McKusick's page.
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
If moderation extended to articles I'd mark this one down Score -1: Flamebait. Not necessarily because it's inflammatory in and of itself (although the last comment was practically asking the soapboxers to come out of the woodwork), but because we've all seen this ground hashed over again, again, and again: "BSD license sucks! Disinfect the GPV! BSD==Proprietary! GPL==Commie Facists! BSD users are elitist jerks! Linux users are clueless idiots! BSD is k00l! Linux is k00l!" /. to try for a little more discretion in posting articles and to try to cut a little of the hype and bullbaiting. Not that the odds are in favor of this occuring..
I've browsed the first few comments and found that, unsurprisingly, they say nothing that hasn't already been repeated ad nauseum. I'd like to ask
Luck,
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
I think one of the reasons is the "ease of use" factor. This is more of an concern for Linux distos than for xBSD distros. This is probably one of the reasons for the undergroundness of BSD. And frankly I hope it stays that way.
I would really like things to stay the same as they are now, BSD positioning itself as a rock-stable, bad ass mother and let Linux go off and try to make everyone happy with the pretty install progs and such.
2 cents from and ex managers of wrestlers
Long ago I was searching for a "free" Unix for :>) and had access to Usenet as
:>
:>
my PC. At that time I was on Delphi (anybody
remember them?
well as ftp, etc. I'd heard about 2 different
"projects" (well, one project and one family
of project to be precise) - Linux and *BSD.
I checked out the newsgroup(s) for each project.
The *BSD seemed to be full of endless flame wars
about which "version" was better, and any "newbie"
questions were instantly pounced upon as an
opportunity to berate the person in public about
their ignorance. Not a very friendly situation.
Then I checked out the linux groups - lots
of people helping others, with an attitude of
"hey, look at this cool new thing we've got,
what can you do with it?". Guess which one I
went with? Personally, I think that the openness
of the linux guys & gals (and not just the license and/or legal troubles)
is what really helped push linux in the early days
over *BSD. No, it may not result in the cleanest
tightest code ever, but it is a friendly
attractive environment where would could/is
progress at a rapid pace and most people involved
could have fun.
I'm currently running Linux (various distro's),
FreeBSD, OpenBSD soon (gotta order that CD),
and a couple of other things. FreeBSD seems to be
a nice, tightly written OS. I am in the process of building a file/print server using
FreeBSD. The documentation structure is not
as "newbie friendly" as linux, but is fairly complete (hint: "Just get a good book on Unix"
does not for newbie-friendly documentation make)
No doubt there'll be some nice "flaming" replies
to that comment.
The *BSD groups have become *much* friendlier to
newbies, and *BSD is starting to grow in popularity. Coincidence?
As somebody else pointed out, both groups are
(to some degree) working towards the same ends -
free, powerful, useful software. This is not a
cut-throat financial competition, there's room
enough for several OS's/distributions. More and
more software is being developed "across platform"
(Linux/BSD/etc), and that's a step in the right
direction. Cooperation not competition and all
that.
ObTagLine: The more you run over the 'possum, the flatter it gets.
First of all, I don't know how true that is unless you define "successful" to be "widely used." Let's just assume that definition for the duration of this post...
It's simple really: BSD users use(d) BSD because it serve{s|d} thier purpose. BSD is, like Linux, a free implementation of UNIX. The difference is, the BSD community never wanted to be any more than that -- so they succeeded extremely well at what they set out to do: reimplement UNIX under a (arguably) free license.
On the other hand, the Linux community decided that "a better UNIX than UNIX" and "world domination" were the goals for Linux. This lead to the main advocates (ESR, Linus, AC and others) being much more vocal than BSD advocates. The Linux community _wanted_ universal acceptance, whereas the BSD community was simply concerned with making the best OS possible for their own ends.
Not that either approach is worse (I use NetBSD for several web and intranet servers, and Linux on many desktops and app servers), but they have different results.
-- Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
I've heard a lot about the various BSDs being "technically superior" to Linux, but I've never actually heard any BSD advocate point out specific ways in which it is better. I've also heard it's more stable and more secure .. but a properly configured Linux box that isn't using wacky new kernel features can stay up for years, also.
Legal issues put aside, why would I want to use BSD? Thanks,
Broccolist
Licensing is not the cause. Linux runs lots of software using BSD-type licenses (Apache has a similar license, IIRC), and that hasn't driven anyone away except for the die-hard zealots (who are in the minority). The real cause is a lack of support, and that needs to be addressed before BSD starts garnering popularity.
Perhaps it can be addressed with commercial *BSD distributions, more *BSD web sites, or maybe just a new mindset in the community - perhaps the *BSD users don't want popularity. But the conditions won't change until the support arrives.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Something I just thought of that I think might sound interesting is that, as Debian Linux user I feel a bit left out of a lot of the Linux hype. Almost in the same way that BSD users are. And really, I like it that way. Debian is very strict. It has a somewhat closed develpment base and yet is completely GPL'd. Best of both worlds as far as I am concerned. I am not going to argue the benefits of GPL vs. BSDL. I will just say I feel more altruistic working under a GPL in general, and with Debian more specificly. I don't really care how popular the OS that I use is. I will use what I feel most comfortable with. Debian Linux is it.
I hate managing BSD installations much in the same way as I hate Slackware Linux. So, for me, I would say that Debian has kept me from going to the BSD side. I think if I had the choice between Slackware and FreeBSD, I would go with FBSD on technical merit alone. But technical merit isn't enough when deciding between Debian and FreeBSD.
As for the popularity of Linux over BSD? It is probably for the same reason that Debian hasn't gotten the mindshare that other distributions of Linux have. It is simply that most Linux distibutions cater to newbies. They are more inviting to novices. It is that simple. It has nothing to do with application or hardware support or penguins vs. daemons.. etc.
The world is mostly full of idiots. If you cater to them, you are bound to get a larger marketshare. Bill Gates has proven this to be a winning strategy.
So, anyone running RedHat or Slackware, ready to try FBSD, make sure you try Debian Linux too.
-misleb
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
>If NT were as stable as *BSD or Linux, do you think that the development community would switch over to NT?
I like and use linux, but can't agree with you on this.
One of the main reasons why peolple make the move NT -> linux is stability.
If that was available in NT - Why would any NT shop bother to do the switch?
It sure costs them a lot of relearning to go to a new OS, not many would do it just on license issues. (At least that's what I think)
If you would have read the entire article, you would have seen that Linus eventually reversed his position and agreed that the optimization (used in FreeBSD) was safe and correct. Man, I really want to turn on the flame switch when I read uneducated posts like yours. You make a perfect example of the reason that Linux is slowly gaining a black eye in the enterprise world.
Cat, the other, tastier white meat.
Did this optimization even go into the FreeBSD source tree? (It's not in my system anyway, just checked)
Linux this...
BSD this....
Why the fuck does it matter? Use what works best for you. Hell use an MS product if it works best for you.
I have a question. Why in the hell does it matter which is more popular? They both kick ass in my opinion and I have one of each ehre at the office. I *personally* use linux as my desktop because I started with it before FreeBSD and feel much more comfortable with it. It wouldn't matter a rat's ass to me if I had to use a *BSD and couldn't use linux. You wanna know why? (I know you don't but I'm going to tell you anyway)...
Because I have the source to all the applications I run. For those I don't, FreeBSD supports linux binaries.
Why must obviously intelligent people getting into cock measuring contests about which one is better. Quite honestly "better" is all in the mind of the person at the helm of the computer itself.
So let's all get a fucking grip and put our dicks back in our pants and get over it.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
I am getting angrier just looking at all this red!
Yeah, it went in around early December. Only on -current though (which is where experimental stuff is supposed to go).
Cat, the other, tastier white meat.
If that was available in NT - Why would any NT shop bother to do the switch?
But "shop" switching is a user-community switching - not developer switching - especially if we are talking about NT. My comment was about the reasons why the developer community showed a preference to Linux - thereby causing a user community expansion.
There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.
It really shouldn't matter which you use. All the interesting source is open, so doing a BSD-like dist of Linux (slakware?) or a Linux-like dist of BSD should be quite possible. I've found porting C code between two UNIX systems is relatively straight forward. At this point BSD seems to be able to run Linux binaries as well. So what does it really matter?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Check out netcraft and any HIGH volume site. None of them run Linux.
There are many large, high volume sites that run Linux. Google, for example is a 2000 CPU based Linux site. Other examples include eToys, dejanews and RealNetworks.
The idea that Linux cannot support a large website is misinformation, easily disproven by the facts of what is happening on the net today.
Linux demands the user community to disclose modifications. That won't last. It can't.
Have you no clue as to the provisions of the GPL? The day RedHat tries to hide moddifications is the day the Free Software Foundation sues them.
This is in fact one of the STRENGTHS of Linux vs. BSD - the BSD license makes it easy for companies to take modifications private, while the GPL makes it impossible.
This channel has been very helpful to me many of a time. Sure they will not hold your hand but thats not what I want. I either want an answer or point me in the right direction.
At most, they quote somebody from Novell India as saying that "The reason why it is not as popular as Linux is the lack of commercial support".
There's no place I can see where they attribute the difference in popularity to the license. I see a place where they make the factual statement that the BSDL and GPL are different, but I see nowhere anything in the article claiming that this is the reason for a difference in popularity - the sentence after the one about the license difference might, at most, be suggesting that, as a result of the license difference, "the BSD operating system" (although they don't say which particular flavor of BSD - one of the free ones, or BSD/OS) is inside some firewalls (however, there are plenty of "appliances" with Linux Inside, as well; some even have, I think, proprietary code in them, even if it's not in the kernel).
"with such a lack of knoweldge"
Apparently, judging by the lack of capitalization. Real gurus follow the syntax of the English language.
-bugg
"In terms of sophistication, the BSD operating system is better than Linux. Its original kernel is highly advanced. It has always been popular with people doing their masters and doctorates in computer science research. The reason why it is not as popular as Linux is the lack of commercial support,"
Does anyone else think the BSD community is subtly spreading FUD towards the Linux community. I use both Linux and FreeBSD and they both have their advantages and disadvatages, but I think the BSD community likes to display and bring up Linux disadvantages or the advantages BSD has over Linux whenever they can.
They are both FREE and STABLE Unix systems for the lowend to highend hardware, but these hardcore BSD users need to stop thinking their OS is BETTER then Linux. In some ways, it is, in some it is not, we don't need both the Linux and BSD communities pited at each other. Both communities need to brag about what they do best and fix anything that is broken.
Neither BSD or Linux will benfit from bashing and FUD-ing each other, they will benfit from advocating each other though.
One (of the very many) benifits of Open source and Free software (as in speech) is a choice.
You are free to choice. If you dislike something, you can either 1) change it, or 2) find a differnat OSS project that will fit your needs/wants. There is the opinion to FUD anything that you don't like, but this ONLY applies to closed source software.
Everywhere I go:
"see I am SSH-ed into this openBSD from my Linux workstation and th..."
"Get rid of Linux, that is your problem, use FreeBSD as your workstation man, it is BETTER and doesn't crash as much"
"Uh Linux has never crashed on me, and the problem is I had a surge on my Ethernet wired and it physically fired my ethernet card. My question was, can I fix a burnt PCI slot or do I have to replace the motherboard?"
"uh, surge, a? Still FreeBSD is Better in alot of ways, for example, let me start back in 1972..."
sigh... and this is a TRUE story, talking to some hardcore Free BSD user at college about a burnt PCI slot on my freind's motherboard. To this day he is still conviced that Linux physically burnt out some of my freind's hardware, even after the IT director admitted that there was some surges in the school network wiring... sigh
I know this sounds REAL cheese, but "can't we just all get along?"
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
For my part, I work for a game company which has created products for Microsoft, Lego, Williams, Interplay and a few other notable players. Earlier this year I was soliciting people to create text content on updating FreeBSD's packaging to give it more shelf appeal and soliciting information and space to create a well-structured PR team.
My staff created a tasty looking box on their own time without asking for a dime (save the artist making a 3D daemon who was putting in a LOT of hours) as I was cheerleading, working with them and "giving group hugs" as the poster put it. They were working to be part of something and enjoying the appreciation from the onset.
While this was going on, I was met with a lot of fighting and resistance to most any kind of input, so I just told my team to "drop it. I don't want to work with these people." I care more and work better with positive group attitude. My people too. And it's hard for me to keep it exciting for my people here when people there are busy posturing and pissing on me.
I still think FreeBSD is one of the best things that's happened to the PC, and it's my undisputed OS of choice - I'm even using it for Linux targetted programming at work. But working on it simply hasn't got the social returns that make it worth my free time, so I'll stick to being a non-contributing user.
The GNU Generical Public License is obviously much better then the BSD License. The reason for this is GPL forces the creator of a software package to release the feature back into the community while the BSD License lets those features be used for properitary purposes, therefore allowing those features to be hidden from the community.
Not unlike that jeff guy on #slashdot on irc.slashnet.org
jeff may yawn alot, but I haven't seen him treat anyone like crap. Most people use IRC as a leisure tool, and if their daily job involves heavy computer use or even providing support, I doubt they'd want to do that on their off-hours as well.
Well, first of all, Network Appliance doesn't run BSD on their boxes (I joined the software engineering group at NetApp when there were about 7 or 8 people in the group, and I'm still there, so I know what I'm talking about here) - we use the BSD networking stack, and various BSD commands, but it took a fair bit of work with a chainsaw to fit them into our environment (which is a kernel-mode-only, single-address-space OS that would probably not be completely unfamiliar in its innards to a BSD developer, but which is very much not a BSD kernel).
Second of all, there are also embedded boxes that use Linux, e.g. Cobalt's boxes, and, I'm sure, plenty of others.
As for whether Linux is "flakey and not meant for real world use", there are Web sites using it, there are places (including, err, umm, Network Appliance, Inc.) where people use it on their desktops and on their compute servers (most of our compute servers are running Solaris or Digital UNIX, but there is one Linux PC, and there will probably be more over time), and so on. People seem to manage to use it in "the real world" even if it's "not meant for real world use".
The only real thing keeping Redhat strait is that they dont have 100% of the Linux pie. That is why I hope that SuSe,Slackware,Debian, Bob's big ass Linux Disto, etc... keep up the good work and keep making Redhat do some work.
People need to remember that Redhat's share holders didnt sign on to better the linux comunity, they signed on to make some cash. And if fucking over linux makes their stock go up 200% then they would do it with out a 2nd thought.
I have to return some videotapes...
Name three countries whose official language is English and which use "color". Heck, name two. There are oodles more that use "colour".
Of course, "colour" is a perverse Gallic invasion, with no place in Latin. So even though you're in the minority countrywise, you can have philological correctness on your side.
for that matter, name one country.
be carefull not to show too much ignorance
@.
I can accept your article as one of mostly opinion. Except the "code stealing" bit. We [FreeBSD] have very little if anything at all that can be considered "Linux code." We have the GPL math emulator, GNU binutils... but then again, things like that are GNU code, not Linux code.
So where do you get the idea that BSD programmers steal Linux code?
*BSD lacks several factors that made Linux the big success that it is today. Linus, the license that can be corrupted (theoretically, at least), fragmentation.. The FreeBSD IPO (?) I heard would not have happened if there hadn't been Linux IPOs first; people are only riding the wave; *BSD is coming in the wake of Linux and getting more publicity, not less.
Then there is the competition aspect.. *BSD is better because of Linux, and vice versa. Of course you might argue that *BSD would have more developers if it weren't for Linux, but that can't be proved.
I have great respect for *BSD - but Linux deserves respect, too. It does not deserve to bashed simply because it's more popular.
As a phenomenon, Linux is unique. *BSD would not have made it.
--
He's seeing monsters. He's losing his mind and he feels it going.
OK, good point. Name one country whose official language is English and uses "colour"
hehehehe
there may be one out there, but I cannot think of it.
@.
Linux simply got a head start while the BSD camp was distracted by the AT&T lawsuit.
*BSD is growing just as fast as Linux. It's just a couple of years behind.
I don't know what the long-term picture looks like. Either operating system could falter. Mostly growth of Linux is good for *BSD and vice versa.
Canada does and I think the U.K. does too.
How about ENGLAND?! sheessh...
I think he's trying to imply that they may have adopted it now, but rejected it originally.
The CVS tree seems to imply that it may have been in FreeBSD at least as far back as 2.0, however; the comment from the initial checkin, with a date of Mon Sep 19 15:41:43 1994 UTC, says "Obtained from: NetBSD", so NetBSD may have had it even longer.
This article is oddly timely for me since my subconscience lately has been bubbling up little whispers to ditch Linux and move over to FreeBSD. Is this irrational on my part? I love Linux, don't I? Ok, Ok, I know AM worried about all the recent IPOs and Linux certification and I do have this irrational fear that the suits aren't far behind and when the suits get involved the inevitable ruination waits in the wings. But to ditch something that's provided so much intellectual pleasure? Plus there's a whole new cast of characters in FreeBSD land - who are they? Are they friendly? Are they open to newbies asking a bunch of dumb questions?
Aaahhhh! Maybe "those guys in the basement" as Steven King calls them aren't done figuring it out yet. I guess I'll wait a little longer.
Linux is a great starting point for many, many new people in the Unix world. With that said, almost every single person I know that uses *BSD is someone who came from linux, not from another OS. OpenBSD for example comes locked-down out of the box. The ports tree in BSD lets you install anything after that. A good comparison is between a Redhat 6.1 install and an OpenBSD 2.6 install. Redhat's GUI frustrated me to no end, and there was no way to break out of it that I could see. Redhat does not have readily-identifiable links to it's docs from their main page- Open and FreeBSD do. Open and Free also use man pages- a central reference for any command in BSD. The 2.6 install was a little different, but I did not epxect it to be the same- so I printed out the install.i386 html doc- I never had to ask a fellow user a question when I installed Open 2.6. Let's Recap:
Linux Pros:
Easy install (for even the lamers)
Lots of Software
Lots of Documentation
Linux Cons:
>Not everyone wants or needs a GUI install.
>Messy dependencies, especially with RPM's
>HOWTO's written by my baby brother- seemily never profread
BSD Pros:
>Centralized Documentation
>Ports Tree (ports.tar.gz rocks!) for *easy* installs of anything for BSD
>Lean,mean installs- FTP installs from one floppy was never easier!
BSD Cons:
>New users don't like to read, especially docs
>Linux users are used to gurus massaging them through everything- this is not the case with Open or Free
>Gnome hasn't been ported to BSD (hooray!) due to problems with security and Gnome. (not sure if this is a con)
Null_Packet
I think the question of why Linux is more popular than BSD should not be over-emphasized. You could argue this point over that point.
But it really is being at the right place at the right time. Linus is a popular person who has a good personality. People LIKE HIM...
It is like asking why Microsoft is more popular than Apple or UNIX. Microsoft was at the right place at the right time.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
No one seems to have mentioned that this article is shot full of errors. The first one's in the first paragraph: BSD stands for Berkeley Software Distribution. The company BSDI changed the D to Design, for their company name only.
...so long as the other guy has this license too."). Those two years were all it took to give Linux the edge. Linux was at that time clearly less stable than BSD, which had had fifteen years to get the kinks out. But Linux was freely available and BSD wasn't. That made all the difference. I daresay that in those days the only contribution of the GPL (and it was a minimal contribution) was negative. Several largish institutions (including, as I recall, Purdue University) wouldn't let GPL software onto their campuses because their lawyers got wind of the GPL, read it, said, "We have no idea what this would really mean in court. Don't you dare go there." And, let's face it, while you can't have a software revolution without thousands of individuals pushing things at a grass-roots level, that isn't enough. Big institutions have to pick it up and support it, too, or the revolution doesn't happen. The GPL has, arguably, been of assistance in preventing some large corporations from forking private versions of Linux, but it has been of no assistance in convincing large institutions to adopt the software in the first place. Quite the reverse.
Bill Joy didn't write free UNIX. He wrote a lot of code, but Sam Leffler, Kirk McKusick, Keith Bostic et al. are not exactly slouches either. Not to mention the whole effort was overseen on a continuing basis by a design board of academics chosen by DARPA. You like the socket interface? Thank DARPA's board. They pounded Bill Joy really hard (probably for the first time in his career) until he "got it" that most of the brilliant things CSRG came up with originally had been tried and rejected by them severally at their own institutions. The Berkeley socket mechanism was the result of several go-rounds of this sort of thing.
Here's another. "When Berkeley stopped funding the project..." Hoo-hah. Berkeley never funded the project. DARPA did. They did it because they got tired of paying all of their research institutions in parallel just to support their computing environments: they wanted a stable base of Internet code that would be used by everybody, and they figured they'd pay for it just until commercial versions became viable. When the Internet took off the funding stopped. CSRG hung on for a year or two looking for other funding, didn't find any, and folded. There was a tag end of work there, by the way: 30,000 lines of OSI networking code (think X.25 & Co.) was inserted. I think it's probably gone by now, but it left its mark in the data structures, at least.
Then there's that amazing quotation: "In terms of sophistication, the BSD operating system is better than Linux. What flame-bait. This was definitely true in earlier days, but these days it's probably a push, for most applications. I believe that BSD may be better for truly huge server installations, but in comparison with the total installed base, this isn't a very high percentage.
Looking back, I think the history of Linux and BSD can be compared with current theories of the early universe. Very small things result in huge differences later on. Frankly, I don't think the preponderance of Linux over BSD has squat to do with licenses. The BSD system was designed in an encumbered environment, with everyone under license. It took two years in court to get out from under the AT&T license, which was the exact opposite of free software ("You can exchange software freely!
I grew up in a BSD world. (Truth in advertising: I was on that DARPA board.) I recommend FreeBSD for really large server applications. For smaller outfits, and for desktops, I recommend Linux enthusiastically. Not for the GPL, on which I'm neutral (now THAT makes me a rarity, I think!), but for the ease of acquisition, the base of available software, and the size of the support community. (My understanding is that ease of installation for many of the Linux distributions has a ways to go yet, at least compared to FreeBSD.)
Those actively involved in development know that GPL or not, Linux and the BSD movement trade software back and forth all the time, freely, openly, and in an atmosphere of mutual support. The bigots for one side or the other are, in the main, out of the loop. I hope it stays that way.
Um, is this in the FreeBSD code though? All the message mentions is that it was discussed on the FreeBSD mailing list. By that token Linux must be unstable as it was discussed on the Linux kernel lists.
Or is this just Linux Nu-FUD(TM).
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
I frequent an IRC channel that used to get a lot of people joining and asking questions (we had to set a channel key because of this). They would not usually be treated with kindness, though there were plenty of exceptions to that. They'd frequently get at least a pointer to the answer to their question, even if it was in the kick message. I've seen identical behavior on other channels, e.g. #linux.
Here's why. First, they're not help channels. The people that are there are not trying to volunteer their time to answer anyone's questions. That's not usually fun.
The clueless newbies answering questions is constant. Multiple times per hour, perhaps. How do constant stupid questions make you react?
Nobody in the channel knows these people, they come out of nowhere asking for help. They ask questions that are answered in the documentation, or that a search engine could have easily found the answer to. They ask confusing or vague questions. They ask questions that show they don't have basic fundamental knowledge that nobody wants to explain to them. And these people treat the people they're asking like total crap. They want us to believe that our time is worth so little that it's better that we answer their question out of kindness, rather than them going out on their own and learning it.
When not treated with perfect kindness, people who ask questions sometimes become incredibly angry. They make threats, try DoS attacks, etc. It gets very annoying.
And to top it all off, not only do the clueless help-me-please babies *act* like the people in every channel they come to have a responsibility to help them, but there's people like you who almost come out and say it.
If the people in the channel had to deal with stupid questions all day, the people begging for help on IRC make a fabulous target for the response that we've been longing to give to someone all day. This should be obvious pretty quickly, therefore if you continue to run around on IRC thinking that every channel #x is "help for newbies on x", you're hassling people that you know are in a bad mood, and that you know don't have to take any crap from you at all.
Yes, Linux was the right Unix in the right place at the right time, and it took away BSD's chance to rule the world. However, a lot of people I know who work or tinker around in Linux, myself included, would have already tried out BSD if it weren't so adamant about two things: First, you can do whatever you want with the source code, including making it closed-source and selling it off, and second, that requirement to mention the University of California at Berkeley to everything you do and later redistribute. First off, one likes to give credit where credit is due, and I'd say that 99% of GPL software gives credit to the original authors somewhere in the source code, even though they are not forced to. However, forcing people to put it in is not liked by the developers, and so, they favor Linux, besides that fact that, by now, Linux is plenty more popular.
And second, it's a lot more "cool" belonging to a community where all involved cooperate and share their code, instead of hiding it and trying to sell it to you later. It's more of a sense of belonging to a truly free community, one that can't be tarnished by people taking all that software and selling it repackaged as closed-source.
I think that, mostly, describes my feelings on the subject. Just my $0.02...
On chronology: I recall NetBSD being available by early 1993; in fact I used it prior to using Linux. Minix and 386BSD were the real pioneers in this genre and date back long before the lawsuit with AT&T was resolved. Minix wasn't quite open source and was very limited; while 386BSD degenerated into a series of patches upon patches, and after a while full releases came out late to never. A lot of its users simply gave up and switched to NetBSD or Linux.
By late 1993 Linux was way ahead of NetBSD in user base (perhaps 100,000 at that time). This is mostly because NetBSD was not aimed at general technical home users with PCs like Linux was, it was aimed at UNIX people. As a result:
1) Linux was much earlier at taking advantage of PC hardware, without necessarily trying to make it look like real UNIX workstations. It arguably still does a better job of this, even compared to FreeBSD. This isn't necessarily an advantage if you are already familiar with UNIX workstations, but if you know PCs it is less confusing.
2) Linux wasn't really UNIX. Linux developers haven't been afraid to add features or implementations that are different from standard UNIX design as long as the standard UNIX semantics continue to work. This may sound like a disadvantage, but it enabled Linux to gain a lot of users, and some truly brilliant developers, from the DOS/Windows world. By several estimates over half of Linux users had never used any kind of UNIX before. These DOS/Windows people added features and documentation that made future DOS/Windows people more comfortable, and it became self-perpetuating.
3) Linux (in SLS, and in late 1993 Slackware) was much earlier in having distributions that could be installed fairly easily on typical cheap PC hardware. True, they were horrid by today's standards, but the NetBSD installation of the time was far, far harder. This locked in a fair number of users back in the 1993-1994 timeframe, before FreeBSD provided a BSD installation that was more or less as easy as those for Linux. Presumably NetBSD is much easier now; but back then hardly anyone who didn't already know UNIX quite well could have installed it. This is not intended as a criticism -- NetBSD simply did not aspire to be a mass-market OS at the time, and as a result, it wasn't.
True, Linux networking wasn't really stable at all back in 1993, but for home use that didn't matter much yet -- in fact PPP was not even widely available at ISPs until about a year later, and by then Linux had workable support for it.
> Linux ranks so far behind MacOS and Windows in installed base it's laughable. They are about even with OS/2...maybe...
Perhaps you could bother to provide some evidence for this opinion? I have no clue how many Linux users there actually are, but I could pick numbers out of the air just as easily as you or anyone else. Until I find some solid number backed by reasonable research, I'll keep my mouth shut. I *believe* the number must be more than 10 million, but I can't back it up any more than any else can their guess.
Really man, four sites. Is that all you could come up with. A couple no name sites. No mp3.com or Yahoo, or Netcraft.com for that matter..
Really. All I needed was one to prove my point. The man said NO high volume Linux web sites. Do you think I am going to sit here and do a flippin' web survey and list all of them? I have at least part of a life. As far as being no name, I think you look pretty foolish claiming Netcraft is a bigger name than any of the ones I listed.
Novell, NT, SCO and many other Operating systems can as well.
So what? I never said they couldn't.
just look at the Caldera vs MS suit...
Yeah, just look at it. The judge recently threw out all of Microsoft's efforts to prevent a trial. Last I heard the jury convenes in early February.
R'ing the F'ing M's is not always enough when the manuals are often quickly thrown together, incomplete and poorly-written. In any revolution, either political or software,everyone wants to be a general and no one wants latrine duty. Guess which category doc writing falls under.
FreeBSD does not complain about the hyphen. Linux, being the pain it is, does.
GNOME not ported?
/usr/ports/x11/gnome && make install clean; some day...
cd
-Jeremy
Oh, you mean the discussion that includes
i.e., that Linux later accepted the change:
As for "others can be found elsewhere", please give references - perhaps they're also not bad implementations.
proprietary software for linux yes, but proprietary changes to the linux kernel would be illegal. unlike *BSD.
Hmm...yes..I supposed technically there's not GNOME "port" and that's because "./configure && make install" works just fine.
To ease this though, GNOME *IS* in the Ports Collection (Note 'Port' the noun != 'port' the verb) so a `cd
Please post responsibly. Don't spread misinformation.
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
ooohhh no.... another one i'm sick of this english speaking people that dont want to understand that other speak/write diferent from then... try to learn 2 other languages (not english related ) and you will be more open mind about this you are not the center of the world, you now!! grow up
Higuita
Maybe Linux is more widespread because Linus isn't responsible for the whole OS? He just puts up a new kernel every few weeks, and lets others handle the packaging. But the BSDs do it all. And because, say, FreeBSD is presented as a single production, would-be distro-makers lack motivation to brew their own versions, ala RHAT, Corel, Mandrake, etc. Kind of like Apple's originally closed architecture, and IBMs quickie off-the-shelf, but ultimately more popular PC.
.deb is maintained by dedicated volunteer(s), while RHAT is responsible for the whole ball of wax, just like FreeBSD is. Maybe the Linux motto should be "let's divide ourselves, and conquor."
Maybe that's why I like Debian. Every little
(Boy, this is written badly. instead of giving up, I think I'll post anonymously.)
I'm cool like a fool in a swimming p-p-pfft-pool
Yes, because it's still not a help channel, and because these people still have no obligation to help you, no matter how good your question is. Those people don't want to help you, and you should let them be.
1) The linux community has fraudulently swindled its way into an award for technical support.
I can see your point, I suppose. Absolutely every single time I have asked a question in the comp.os.linux.* newsgroups, I have received no help. It's probably because I only ask for help there as a last resort, so they're always fairly difficult problems. A few people will try to help, but they'll suggest things that are completely wrong, or I've already said did not work. I always go through great effort to make sure my questions are clear, concise, and include all pertinent information.
But I have just read those groups also, and helped people in them, and people asking simple questions, or difficult questions that other people have already had to solve, do get very good help. If you ask something that's a little unusual, all the people that are intelligent enough to answer quickly aren't wasting their time with you. And all the people that could solve it with some effort aren't going to bother unless it's an interesting problem.
The support you can get for Linux on comp.os.linux.* and mailing lists blows away any commercial Unix support I've dealt with. Consider that a scathing indictment of commercial OS support.
2,000,000 is an awfully big number of users. In no sense does it represent any kind of failure.
Frankly I'm stunned by the swift rise of FreeBSD - I thought nothing would ever touch the success of the Linux movement. Being a relatively new Linux convert I'm willing to admit that I suffered from a kind of parochialism with respect to FreeBSD - when I heard news of it I kind of wanted not to hear it because, hey, I've already found the answer and it's Linux, right?
I think I'm probably not alone in that: many of you probably have the same feelings (you know who you are:) Recently though my attitude towards the BSDs has changed from a kind of jealousy to admiration and respect. A lot of that has been due to the sympathetic and interesting coverage on Slashdot. A larger part of it is the obvious truth that there's a lot to respect technically in the BSD's - look at the security audits just for one thing. I now see the BSD's as another tool in the toolbox - it's what I'll do when I need a slimmer, tighter box that doesn't necessarily have to get all dressed up to kill.
Now, I don't seriously believe that the BSD's will ever pass Linux in popularity, for reasons that are set out nicely in your article and are beaten to death elsewhere in this thread. But neither do I believe that there is room in this world for only one open OS, especially when they are interoperable. The BSD's will help us achieve world domination. They are but one more division in the open source army.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
I've been using ext3 (journaling ext2, still considered quite experimental) for a month now with no problems. I've been using Mozilla for even longer than that, so I guess I'm just that sort of guy :)
In my eyes, BSD seems like the "safe" OS for servers, though this can also translate into it being the "boring" OS for people like me; I take backups and I want the new features now...if the developer says they work for him, OK. Everything always seems to work for me...perhaps it's the "Magic Ass" theory at work...
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
From the start, Linux did a better job of fitting in with whatever OS might already be on your PC, and did a better job of fitting in with existing hardware.
There's no real polite way to put this, so I'll just be blunt: a few years ago, the FreeBSD were a lot more snotty than the Linux people when it came to cheap hardware. If you were the kind of person who thought that spending $350 for a SCSI CD-ROM was silly when an IDE CD-ROM was only $100 because you only use the thing for installations, then FreeBSD was not the system for you.
The FreeBSD people have gotten a lot better in the last few years, and I believe they now try to support cheap commodity hardware well.
I tried it - once. After much effort to get it to work on my hardware I was rewarded with an interesting but wholly unintuitive GUI.
Apps? mini-apps? ANYTHING I could start up that was going to let me know I was in for an experience of a lifetime? Nope. Just a broken Internet browser.
I had to switch operating systems to hunt around for anything I might download that would show off this wonderous system. Everything remotely interesting had a price tag on it.
I'm sorry, but even Windows comes with a couple of gizmos to click on.
Thanks, but no thanks, I'll stick with GNU/Linux.
The Supreme Art of War Is To Make the Enemy Look Foolish --- Li Atwater
When you are threatened, it makes sense to close ranks with your allies and set up the fort.
:)
So why this infighting? Windows NT caught up in the enterprise share because IBM, HP, Sun, BSD are too busy trying to compete with each other (or selling their propietary hardware) to bother with improvement or innovation. Starting Linux/BSD camps wouldn't to help.
Don't flame me, but I believe Win2000 represents a genuine threat to acceptability of Unix. Just because WinNT is crap now does not mean it will always be crap in the future - never underestimate M$ ability to improve and most especially to market and brainwash MIS managers. Also Win2000 got quite an impressive bit on the new features (rather if it really works still is yet to be seen).
Personally, I would just like to see our most talented guys putting their effort to Linux all the way and, sorry to say, screw BSD
Its all penis envy if you ask me.
Its like that question you hear people ask: "do you think you are better than me?"
if you say "yes" they feel offended, if you say "no" you acknowledge that you are as good or worse than the person. So, you damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
Like the man said, "use what works best for YOU"
Its spelt "L-I-N-U-X", but pronunced as "Free Beer"
That part showed up after that issue of KT came out; I don't know whether it showed up after I checked it earlier today or not (I'd assumed that issues of KT are invariant after publication, and I saw that issue before the note was added).
Some stuff in the FreeBSD archive indicates that they may have decided that the unlock optimization couldn't be done that way, either, although I'd have to plow through a ton of -current code and, perhaps, CVS logs to see exactly what they did do - see this message, for example, and this message.
(And, the hypothesis in, as I remember, one of the linux-kernel messages nonwithstanding, the FreeBSD folk do have P6 machines - some of Matt's timing experiments were, as I remember, done on a Pentium III.)
The comment in the code also suggests that it might be useful to have a way of building a kernel without the lock, if it truly can be removed on all but the early PPro's to which the comment refers.
I don't personally like what I've seen of it, either.
- 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?"
When an os is based on bsd, due to the license, the person releasing the os is allowed to call that program their own. Well, if I were going to try to make my buisiness have a billion dollar ipo, I would call my os something else, not BSD. This would make it seem that I had something that others did not have, and make my business have a percieved edge against the competition. I may be completely incorrect, but I believe I have heard that Solaris and BSD are related in the past somewhere this way (maybe through Bill Joy). Sun is not a billion dollar ipo company, but I wouldn't sniff at their value.
_this is not a signature_
- 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?"
I would really like to see such a Slashdot poll
I bought BSD/Linux because
My personal guess is that only those who actually program might rank the type of open source license so high that it influenced their decision. And these are a minority, I believe, maybe ranking in the ten thousands but not in the millions.
You _can_ find out what it does, rather than trying to guess from poorly written specs.
Not as good as BSD/GPL licensed source, but _much_ better than nothing.
Power and elegance? Where? BeOS gave me no indication it had anything to offer. My point was show it to me! I haven't time to waste on an operating system that forces me to beat "power and elegance" out of it.
The Supreme Art of War Is To Make the Enemy Look Foolish --- Li Atwater
Why isn't this whole damn flamebait tree set to -1? OR -99999 for that matter?
> Linux is a great starting point for many, many new people in the Unix
/usr/doc doesn't count?
Agreed.
> world. With that said, almost every single person I know that uses
> *BSD is someone who came from linux, not from another OS. OpenBSD for
> example comes locked-down out of the box. The ports tree in BSD lets
Which is a *good* thing. Closest thing to this I've used in the Linux
world is a bone stock Slackware, tho many feel Debian is also reasonable.
RedHat, tho a very nice distro, need not apply here!
> you install anything after that. A good comparison is between a Redhat
> 6.1 install and an OpenBSD 2.6 install. Redhat's GUI frustrated me to
> no end, and there was no way to break out of it that I could see.
Um...you mean other than reading the clearly described choices on the
install boot screen and choosing the non-GUI install?
> Redhat does not have readily-identifiable links to it's docs from
> their main page- Open and FreeBSD do. Open and Free also use man
Um...other than the section titled "Linux Documentation" with links to
LDP, Redhat manuals, etc.? Did you ever even *go* to their site?
> pages- a central reference for any command in BSD. The 2.6 install was
Um...last I checked (just now) so does Linux. Have you every actually run
Linux? We also have the LDP and a well defined place to put app specific
docs (/usr/doc). Works for me.
> a little different, but I did not epxect it to be the same- so I printed
> out the install.i386 html doc- I never had to ask a fellow user a
> question when I installed Open 2.6. Let's Recap:
> Linux Pros:
> Easy install (for even the lamers)
What is the point of the parenthetical there?
> Lots of Software
> Lots of Documentation
> Linux Cons:
> >Not everyone wants or needs a GUI install.
Which is why many (most?) of us don't use 'em. Get your facts straight.
> >Messy dependencies, especially with RPM's
Or usefull ones, depending upon your perspective. For a home or small
office user deps can be a godsend. I personally run Slack for the most
part, and compile much of my own software, so it's pretty much a no
issue for me. This point can be seen as either pro or con...thus there
are choices ether way...the only choice that gets *really* messy is "both".
> >HOWTO's written by my baby brother- seemily never profread
Pot. Kettle. Black. Is any of this ringing a bell?
> BSD Pros:
> >Centralized Documentation
Um... so man pages and
> >Ports Tree (ports.tar.gz rocks!) for *easy* installs of anything for BSD
This does work well. But most Linux distros have pretty damn easy package
install tools as well. (RPM, apt, installpkg/upgradepkg)
> >Lean,mean installs- FTP installs from one floppy was never easier!
Um...deb comes damn close, and Slack can as well. Hell, even the much
maligned Redhat can do a two floppy FTP install.
So what. CD install is usually easier & faster.
> BSD Cons:
> >New users don't like to read, especially docs
Looks like that is a con for a certain BSD user trying Linux anyway.
Sheesh. *Most* people are stupid. It's a fact of life. This is a problem
for anything more complicated than dialing a phone. Sucks to be them.
Since this is the case, why not profit from making a no-brainer install
for those to lame to even read the screen messages? Doesn't hurt those of
us who don't need it.
> >Linux users are used to gurus massaging them through everything- this is
> not the case with Open or Free
Well...some BSDers are happy to give help when asked, and some Linuxers
are to lame or scared to admit they don't know it all to help. Works both
ways. However, painting "Linux user" with such a broad brush is stupid.
There are many more newbies running Linux than BSD. Comes with the 10+ times
larger user base...even with the same percentage of newbies Linux would have
around 10x more of 'em. "I canna' change the laws of physics, capn'" Er...
make that arithmatic.
> >Gnome hasn't been ported to BSD (hooray!) due to problems with
> security and Gnome. (not sure if this is a con)
Wa? What stops you from compiling it for BSD? Do your research, man. At least
have enough facts straight to *appear* to know what you are talking about.
--
If your map and the terrain differ,
trust the terrain.
Wasn't being disingenuous. I don't see what the problem with seeking appropriate docs in a standard place is.
/usr/doc is the location for LDP and non-man page docs. Would I like the non-LDP stuff in man pages instead? Of course. And most of it is.
man works on Linux for basic stuff and much less than basic stuff. I'd love to see better man page coverage than there is...I'll readily admit that Linux man page support is less than it should be.
Your attempts to "define" what a standard centralized location is is silly. For Linux,
As for the "not" examples...I'll grant netscape. I don't use it for docs. In the rare occasion that the docs I need are in HTML I use lynx. But I digress.
I fail to see how seeking out and reading the READMEs is a bad thing. I also fail to see how find | less is any less standard than man. man is just a fancy-schmancy locate | groff | less anyway. A *nice* fancy-schmancy locate | groff | less, mind you.
As for emacs, bleah. I, and more importantly my hands, prefer vi. Emacs is also not part of the standard install of some Linux distros. What does that have to do with centralised docs?
--
If your map and the terrain differ,
trust the terrain.
As I see it, there are a few reasons...
1) PR. Not that BSD has bad PR. It just doesn't get as much of it as Linux does. Most people have at least heard of Linux, but you don't hear about BSD in the media very often. You can't use what you don't know exists.
2) The license. Say what you will, but the non-quid-pro-quo has a lot of disadvantages, not the least of which is that it discourages development by independent authors. Look at it this way: a commercial company can do whatever it wants with BSD-licensed software, make it proprietary, and make a ton of money off the stuff (witness Solaris). Corporations have nothing to fear from BSD, the way they do GPL. An independent author could theoretically do this, but it's not practical; one person simply doesn't have the marketing power of a corporation and thus isn't going to be able to profit. Therefore, the independent author has no real choice but to keep his code free and Open-Source. This tips the balance of power, and means that independent authors usually end up working, in effect, as unpaid coders for the companies that leech off of BSD's work.
3) Fragmentation. The fragmentation of BSD really isn't that bad. But it is there; you have three major versions (FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD) and a few others (Darwin could, in a way, be considered one, though it's hardly a major variant at this point in time). Is this a Bad Thing? No. It's not good, but it's not bad. But it does scare most bosses. It scares them enough so that it doesn't take much extra FUD to sway their decisions (unless the bosses know what they're talking about, in which case it takes considerably more effort).
Is BSD a bad system? Hardly; I don't have very much experience with BSD but I like what I've seen so far (though I think I'll stick with Linux all the same). But it does have a few issues. Linux does too; don't get me wrong, no OS is perfect, and they both have some way to go. It just happens that, for now, Linux is farther ahead. That might change, or it might not. Either way, it keeps things from being dull.
Way back in the old days, I developed an antipathy to BSD because Berkeley insisted on charging
license fees; I felt that we (in California, at least) had funded the development of the
kernel and utilities and should be allowed free copies (media cost only), whether for personal
or business use.
Now that there are free versions, I may make use of BSD, but, until I find something that Linux
won't do for me, I see no reason to add another OS to the mix (mostly Linux, one Amiga) that I run
at home. For my professional use, Linux has broader embedded processor support. What is
sad is that Linux' popularity has slightly opened the door for corporate use, but those %$*$#
that "approve" technical decisions now have two names that they can remember (M$ and Linux);
getting another name into that mindspace is hard.
While I really enjoy using Linux and have no inclination to "jump" to BSD myself... I'm also of the opinion that BSD deserves some attention. Great to see it hit the shelves too.
The name's Brett Glass, thank you very much.
that helped me along to this conclusion. Because of him, I used my influence at a major manufacturing company (considering requiring all mission critical systems be open source) to convince them that the *BSDs were NOT open source - and they bought the argument.
In short, you admit outright that you told a destructive lie to your employer or client. I hope you're proud of yourself. No, on second thought, it's quite obvious that you are not, since you've posted as "Anonymous Coward."
It's obvious that you yourself believed that you would have had a more difficult time selling your employer on Linux vs. BSD if you'd been ethical enough to be truthful.
--Brett Glass
And the technocrat.net thing is his signature, you nitwit.
--
WorldServe Consulting
I would use it, but it lacks thread support - namely proper threaded SMP support. The other thing is that pesky non-automatic kernel config problem. I guess I'm a Solaris loser, but proper modules with hardware detection is a lot more fun than recompiling the kernel in production.
To be more to the point, I'd use OpenBSD for more than just firewalls. I love OpenBSD.
Kyle Hodgson Systems Geek
Ah, yes. GNU advocacy at it's finest. Makes me so proud to use Linux. After all, there was no such thing as Free Software until the concept mythically sprouted from the forehead of Richard Stallman. Since then we have been freed from the bondage of, of, of... non-GNU software.
After all, the GPL demands that all those who use gcc must worship Richard Stallman.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"The unwritten rule of the BSDL seems to be "you can make a proprietary version, but not a GPL'd version""
The reason for this is that the GPL extends to third parties, the "viral" clauses in other words. No other license that I am aware of, proprietary or otherwise, does this (except for those few derived from the GPL). BSDL developers have no desire whatsoever to impose anything on third parties.
However, there is nothing preventing you from copylefting your mods to BSD code. Just don't expect it to get rolled back into the source tree. If GNU will refuse, or even sue, those who would return modifications under BSDL, why should BSDL behave any differently?
"They seem to resent the fairness we insist on."
Enforced fairness is not fair. It is impossible to commit a moral act if you have no choice. If you choose to use a fairness enforcing license, that is your choice, but by making on airs of moral superiority by doing so is utter hypocrisy. That's like calling taxation charity.
"Perhaps they're trolling for work from naive coders.."
Okay, now I'm completely offended! My actions are my own, and it's none of your damn business what they are. It's interesting how Stallmanistas rant on and on about freedom, but once someone makes a free and conscious choice, they call us dupes and knaves. You guys don't know the first thing about freedom.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Is this comment refering to the BeOS still?!?
"a wholly unintuitive GUI"... what are you, a retarded four year old? what could possibly be unintuitive about Be's GUI? It's as simple and effective as could be. "Broken internet browser"?
You must have been using an OLD OLD version or something.
I urge you to give it another try. It really does rock.