Is Red Hat bad? You Linux guys should take a minute to put yourselves in the shoes of a BSD advocate, and imagine how this all looks from the outside. I'm not saying you'll learn anything useful, but at least you'll get a different point of view.:-)
The most amusing thing about this whole brouhaha between different distributions is that a year ago it was the Linux camp accusing the BSDs of being `fragmented.' Why is it that the BSDs don't seem to be as fragmented now? There are still about the same number of major Linux distributions out there, and the same number of BSDs.
cjs
Sterling and Gibson anyone?
on
Generations
·
· Score: 1
I think that far more prophetic than the cyberpunk authors was John Brunner (The Shockwave Rider, The Sheep Look Up, Stand on Zanzibar). Writing fiften or twenty years earlier, he much better captured the social, as opposed to the technological, changes we're talking about here.
I think this editorial points out something really important: what Stallman is fighting for in particular may be foolish (renaming Linux to GNU/Linux), but the general problem that brought this about (Linux getting lots of recognition, and other free software getting little) is very real. As someone who uses and develops free software, but doesn't use Linux, I constantly find myself asking, Are Linux folks really interested in free software? Or are they interested only in Linux?
It will benefit a lot more people than just Stallman if the Linux community somehow can come forward with a plan to make sure that a little of the light shining on them illuminates others in the free software community. How is the Linux community going to do this?
As far as your argument about gcc being abandoned goes, I doubt it. I don't think that Cygnus would let itself fall behind.
Err...in case you hadn't noticed, they already did. Egcs exists for a reason; it wasn't started on a whim.
Oh, and for those folks who insist that an open source compiler is very important because it lets them fix bugs, I have a buglist as long as my arm for egcs, and I'd love it if you could step up and fix some of these for me.:-)
Why, though, in God's name, would I even *want* to run NetBSD on my 8400, which most likely has at least two CPUs? Why would I want to run NetBSD on that system, when DU has a better [etc.]
Well, given that, why would you want to run Linux on any Alpha, when DU will always have better performance, not to mention far better SMP, journaling filesystems, etc. etc?
You are right about a lot of the things that are lacking in NetBSD. But it's interesting to see how issues rate differently in technical and `marketing' worlds. SMP is obviously quite important, and a major lack in NetBSD. Even Linux's poor SMP (compared to, say, Solaris) is better than nothing. But the lack of a unified buffer cache is, in the end, not that big a deal technically if you go back and look at the studies and performance measurements done over the years. And while the device-driver framework of NetBSD is incredible (I don't think any OS--including all commercial ones--equals it), that doesn't rate well in terms of marketing, even though it can be quite useful. (Yes, you can even use an Adaptec 1542 in an Alpha if you want, and not through any special machine-dependent hacking on that driver, as with the way Linux does bounce buffers, but because NetBSD has solved that class of problems in a general way.)
I'm a little more puzzled by the things that I would think would generate `marketing' support. I've been told by any number of people who've used both that the NetBSD install tends to be a lot less painful than the Linux one, and that NetBSD is in general more stable than Linux on the Alpha. (I expect I'm about to get roasted for these statements, and for the most part, roasted by people who don't even run Linux on an Alpha. But what the heck; this is slashdot, after all.:-)) So why haven't these attributes come out?
I, like others, suspect that when they said `logging,' they meant a journalling file system. Why don't you do a technical comparision of JFS and ext2fs and tell me what conclusion you come to now?
Well, as usual, NetBSD gets left out again, despite the fact that it's the only free OS that runs on high-end AlphaServers, such as the 8400. (Or maybe because of that fact; who knows?)
I'm entertaining suggestions about what we can do to fix this. What needs to be done to give NetBSD a bigger place in the Alpha community? Or is there a good reason it shouldn't have a bigger place?
Sure, it was irritating and malicious, but not in the way country music is. If you don't like country music, you just change the station or go to another bar. Not liking the virus doesn't help if you're the tech responsible for cleaning it up. You just cancel your dates for the next few days, maybe give away an expensive pair of theatre or game tickets, and spend your evenings fixing the trouble that this guy caused.
I don't see how this is different from, say, shouting `fire' in a crowded theatre. Sure, chances are that nobody really gets hurt. But it's still making innocent people's lives less happy.
If open source is the solution to all of the world's software problems, then eventually (to listen to some people here) all projects will be open source. Who then pays the programmers?
The companies using it, often. At an ISP I started we used NetBSD, and that ISP funded a quarter to half of my NetBSD development work. When we found bugs or security problems, I fixed them; that was part of the cost of the software.
It doesn't even require the GPL to get the changes back into the world, in most cases. The cost of maintaining your own version of the software, combined with the loss of functionality when your changes and new features are not reviewed and improved upon by others, is fairly high. Thus, if you're using the software to support another business, rather than making a business of reselling the software, it's cheaper to give your changes back to the project than to keep them private.
And there also are a fair number of people who write software just because they like to; not for financial gain. Yes, eventually some of these people will go away, but they'll probably be replaced by others, because in the end hacking is a fun hobby. (You see the same thing in other areas: amateur radio has contributed huge amounts to the commercial radio industry in the past eighty years.)
When I look at the above I am hard pressed to conclude that free software is anything other than a huge welfare project that refuses to show gratitude to the commercial interests that spawned it.
Well, it's more than a little unfair to say that of BSD code, given how many commercial products the BSD TCP/IP stack is in. And a widely available, very cheap TCP/IP stack is probably one of the big reasons we have the Internet today. I'd say that investment has paid off in spades.
Yes, the software that UCB produced was free; it just depended on non-free software (the AT&T code) to run. Much as GCC won't run without other code (an OS).
In fact, I'm not laying the idea of free software at the feet of the BSD folks, either. Around the same time (late '70s) in CP/M world (which was pretty much entirely independent), lots of people wrote programs and gave them away, source code and all. And I doubt that they were the first, either.
I also don't want to make light of Stallman's contribution to free software. He did an incredible vision, did a lot of work to move it foward, and free software has received huge benefits from it. Gcc is without question one of the most important things making free software what it is today.
What I'm saying, I guess, is that there are a lot of people involved here, and the idea of free software goes back a lot further than most people appear to think. Linux just happened to be lucky enough to get the press attention, and be the one word the press chose to print. I think the whole discussion would be much better off if certain people would try to understand just why Stallman is pushing this `GNU/Linux' thing, rather than just dismissing him as a moron. I don't think it's a good (or even practical) idea to start calling what we currently call `Linux,' `GNU/Linux.' But I think that Stallman does have some pretty good reasons for being upset, and I think the Linux community should sit down and listen to them.
Stallman needs to pull his head out of his butt. Without the LINUX kernel, he would just be another pointy-headed chowd programmer from Bahstun who thinks he knows everything while making his living from "research grants" aka "academic welfare."
Well, this really gets to the heart of the problem, though I'm sure the poster didn't realise it.
Most likely, without Linux, the world would be just as it is now except that the press would be talking about FreeBSD or NetBSD or 386BSD or something similar. In fact, had it not been for the USL lawsuit holding back the BSDs, Linux might not even be where it is now anyway.
What many in Linux community don't seem to realise is that it's frustrating to be marginalised, but even more frustrating to be marginalised by a group that managed to make its way out of the margins. How did you feel two years ago when the press never paid any attention to Linux, but just said `there are no OSes other than MS ones out there'? Well, that's what it feels like the Linux crowd is doing right now.
This argument has been going on for a while now, and I can understand why the FSF would feel it's not getting enough credit in the Linux community and in the mainstream press for what it's done. I think that every free software group that's not Linux feels the same way; I know that the BSD crowd certainly does, becuase there's a lot of BSD code in Linux, too. (And in fact, the BSD concept of free software predates GNU.)
But I think that we're making a mistake by insisting that we can't call the typical package of Linux kernel and applications someone installs on her computer `Linux.' For a long time it's been a word with multiple meanings; in some contexts it means just the kernel, in others it means the entire distribution.
There is plenty of precedent for this. Take, for example, the term `classical' as applied to music. It has two distinct meanings that parallel the two distinct usages of Linux above. The broader meaning is as a general term for music in the European, non-folk tradition. The narrower meaning is for a specific period (between baroque and romantic, mostly falling in the 18th century) of that music. Certainly in the more precise definition of the term it's wrong to refer to J. S. Bach as `classical'; without question he's baroque. On the other hand, if you're looking for Bach in a record shop, it's not at all considered unreasonable to ask for the `classical' section (as opposed to `folk' or `rock'); you'll end up at the right place.
And in the article, you yourself seem to think that it's fair that one project (GNU) can `adopt' another (XFree86) as a part of it. If you've done that, why cannot Linux do the same?
There is, too, a real benefit to gathering all of this stuff under one name: it helps a lot with the press coverage. One of the reasons Linux has been able to do so well in the mainstream press is that it is simplifiable to a sound byte: `Linux with BSD and GNU userland, XFree86 as the GUI, and fvwm95 as the window manager' gets reduced to `Linux,' which works well in media because it reduces something complex to something apparently simple. You may not like that, but that's how news coverage works: subtlety gets removed because simplicity gets attention and complexity gets ignored.
That still leaves those of us who who build and use free software that's not Linux with a bit of a problem. As a NetBSD developer and user, I get just as annoyed as anyone when someone starts talking about `Linux drivers' for a video card rather than `XFree86 drivers,' since NetBSD uses the exact same drivers and has the exact same capabilities. Now that Linux folks have gotten the idea of free software in the public's mind, how do the rest of us get our fair share of the spotlight?
We're not going to do it by trying to redefine terms that the press (and most of the rest of the world) have already decided on the meaning of. Asking the press to abandon the term `Linux' for free software just isn't going to wash; they've invested a lot of time and effort into into making that term into what it is. And it's not going to be by picking fights with the Linux folks, either. They're the ones in the spotlight; they have the power.
I don't have a good solution to this problem, unfortunately. I think that part of the solution will be setting up the educational resources so that those who are interested or get involved can find out the true depth and diversity of the free software world. And part of it will be convincing the Linux advocates to help us spread the word. Part of it may even be gentle reminders, when appropriate, to the Linux folks that there is something out there besides Linux. But is all that enough? I don't know.
I'm not at all impressed with this article, and I must say it's reduced my opinion of Linus considerably. I've mentioned a few of the things that have bugged me in other posts, but I'll summarise here.
1. The claim that Linux is `the most widely ported operating system available for PCs' is certainly arguable. It's unfair to ignore the lesser known systems (such as NetBSD) in an article with such wide distribution.
2. He's insulting. There's no reason for calling the people he's discussing `dishonest' or `stupid.' That's immature.
3. He's not correct that the OS research world had abandoned monolithic kernels for microkernels or felt that only microkernels offered good prospects of portability. Around the time Linus started his first i386 work, Berkely and other folks were busy making 4BSD (which is monolithic) more portable, and moving it on to several other architectures. The period between 4.3BSD and 4.4BSD showed a dramatic portability and ports increase.
4. Linux is far behind the curve in terms of internal structure for portablity; NetBSD is unarguably significantly better in that regard. Take a look at device drivers, for example; Linux has a proliferation of machine-dependent drivers where NetBSD uses machine-independent drivers almost everywhere. Linux doesn't even have a structure to support MI device drivers! (See NetBSD's bus_space and bus_dma work for an example of what such a structure can look like.)
In short: he insults others, denegrates the work of others that Linux was built on, and he frequently ignores the work of others. Either he's lacking in technical knowledge, or he's willfully ignoring other stuff out there that `competes' with Linux. This article is marketing, not information, and is only going to worsen the reputation Linux already has as a `Microsoft' among the non-Linux free software community.
I believe the concensus was it just isn't worth it: the bulk of the package is in the drivers, not the architectures.
Hell, just fix the drivers to be MI, and you'd probably get rid of half the kernel source right there. There's no reason to have, for example, eleven different drivers for the same chip (lance Ethernet). NetBSD has only one lance Ethernet driver, and supports more cards and other implementations of the chip (and supports it on more machines) than Linux does.
Most of his comments on portability are quite ignorant. The Linux kernel is *not* very portable internally in many ways. Compare the device driver model Linux uses to NetBSD's bus_space and bus_dma structure for a look at the difference between portable and non-portable. (And if you're going to argue this point, please actually *read* the source code first, before spouting off. Though I'm a NetBSD developer, I read a fair amount of Linux kernel code before coming to this conclusion, so I'm not talking through my hat.)
Linus's bald claim that Linux is the most ported operating system that runs on the PC really burns me, because I don't think that anyone who actually examined the issue would disagree that NetBSD has a strong claim to this. (I believe it's stronger than Linux, myself, but that's just my opinion.) I expect that this will be perceived by the free software community outside of Linux as yet another typical example of Linux hogging the spotlight, rather than sharing the fame. There are not an insignificant number of people out there who see little difference between Linux movement and Microsoft; in both cases the promoters tend to gloss over flaws and ignore other technology, instead giving the impression that they are the one and only option.
The link given above, http://www.ctv.es/USE RS/xose/linux/linux_ports.html, is a little optimistic in what it considers a `port'; The VAX port isn't anywhere near bringing you to a single-user shell prompt yet, for example. (This is typical of most `Linux ports' pages I've seen; they don't indicate which ones are real and which are currently vapour to some degree or other. Again, more Microsoft-style marketing.)
If you're going to discuss this issue, it helps to make clear exactly how you're approaching it, as I've done a href="http://www.cynic.net/~cjs/computer/os-ports. html">here. (Note that this page is getting old and needs an update; I'll get to it as time permits.) Some of the questions you have to deal with are:
Are incomplete ports still considered ports? The sparc64 port of NetBSD is not in releaseable condition right now; do we consider it ported anyway? How about Linux ports like the Sun3, that are still missing large amounts of functionality? Or the Linux VAX port, which can't even run a shell yet? (It somehow doesn't seem entirely fair to me to imply that the Linux VAX port, such as it is, is equivalant to the NetBSD VAX port, which is running production web servers on the Internet.)
Are you counting all CPUs as one port, are different architectures around different CPUs as different ports? If FreeBSD, for example, were ported to an Amiga, does that mean it's just as ported to the 68K as NetBSD and Linux, which run on a much larger number of 68K machines?
What capabilities does a `port' have to have? Do you expect to be able to use all the same applications without modification on all the ports? I don't believe you can grab perl source off the net, drop it on to a PalmPilot running `Linux,' type `configure && make', and have a fully-functioning perl just as you'd have on the i386. Do you consider virtual memory and memory protection `optional' features of Linux, so that you can claim that code running on a machine without hardware support for this is still `Linux'?
I have another comment on Linus's article, but I'll put it in another post.
When the video-driver-in-the-kernal thing gets dredged up, I always wonder if it really matters...
It matters a lot, but not for the reasons anybody here has yet mentioned. The tremendous problem is not the video drivers, but the fact that you can't run an NT console over a serial line, requiring you to be physically present if you need access to the machine and (for any of a multitude of reasons) you can't reach it or do what you need via the network.
This is a really big deal when you're maintaining, say, 300 servers that are 21 floors and two elevators away from you. It's an even bigger deal when you need to deal with a server from home.
Of course, most PC hardware limits your capability in this area regardless of the OS you run. I've run lots of NetBSD/i386 systems with serial consoles, but that still doesn't give me access to the BIOS setup. With a Sun server, on the other hand, using a terminal server to talk to the serial port is just as good (better, in fact), than having a graphics console on the machine and being there.
"FUD", excuse me? The future of FreeBSD/axp was in jeopardy because of this "FUD" you refer to.
Look, I've been subscribed to port-alpha@netbsd.org for years, and port-alpha@freebsd.org since it started. I've been heavily involved in the NetBSD/alpha port, and was acting portmaster for it at one point. I think I know whereof I speak.
You, on the other hand, not only cannot come up with any record of messages that back up your statements, but can't even get the name of the FreeBSD mailing list or port right! (It's the "alpha" port and mailing list, not "axp".)
So unless you can come up with something more than argument by unsubstantiated assertion, I think we can lay this to rest.
I've replied to the copyright FUD above. If you're thinking of a different incident, you're going to have to dig up the messages for me, because I can't find them.
I wouldn't be surprised if the OpenBSD Alpha port is fairly dead, but that would be due to the fact that NetBSD's seen a lot of internal changes on all architectures since OpenBSD split, and OpenBSD hasn't followed these. Therefore they can't do straight code imports any more, and I don't believe they have the manpower to do the re-coding necessary to keep pulling in NetBSD/alpha stuff.
There are some copyright issues with CMU which have "tied up" the NetBSD alpha port. I only say this because I witnessed a short "flamefest" on the FreeBSD-axp list in which some NetBSD folks cried foul about some code used, and threatened to call their lawyer friends at CMU about it. What I speak is true - look it up on Dejanews if you care to.
Well, that's quite a misrepresentation. If you check out the thread starting with this thread, you'll see that though it is indeed a flamefest, it was merely over the lack of a proper copyright notice on a file taken from NetBSD, and with that notice added, the problem was resolved.
I also believe this is the reason OpenBSD "abandoned" their alpha port, see their page for more details.
They don't appear to claim on their web page that their port is `abandoned,' though it is admittedly well behind the NetBSD port these days in terms of functionality.
I think that copyright issue is the one major hinderance to free BSD on the alpha platform.
No, there are no copyright issues at this time. Please don't spread FUD.
From what I've seen, Compaq is providing a fair amount of support for the Alpha, and has no intention of phasing it out or slowing development. They've shown in the past they they're not married to Intel; a fair number of their home systems use AMD processors. Given the delays with Merced, they may (and should!) see the Alpha as their chance to make a pretty big dent in the performance computing market.
Digital Unix is quite a ways ahead of any of the free Unix systems out there. As has been mentioned here already, the compiler generates significantly better code than the free compilers, but also the multi-CPU and large system support is better. I certainly don't see them dropping support, or even development, for DU any time in the near future.
As far as the `lack of IRQs,' well, it depends on what sort of Alpha you get. Some of the low-end models have very PC-like hardware, and even an ISA bus bridged off a PCI bus; this obviously has the same IRQ problems as the ISA bus on any machine. But these days many people stick to PCI peripherals on both Intel and Alpha machines, and it's not a big deal.
WRT the Red Hat install pain: I've heard this from quite a number of people. I've seen word from several sites that they switched from Red Hat to NetBSD due to this pain, in fact.
Which brings up the question: why is NetBSD never mentioned in any of this? It's certainly a viable alternative to Linux on the Alpha platform. I find it rather sad that the `Open Source' hype mechanism tends to such a great degree to promote Linux and ignore other systems. (I should mention, too, that FreeBSD has a port to the Alpha in progress, though I'm not sure of the current state of it.)
Anyway, here's my quick comparison of the Unix-type operating systems available for the Alpha. I'm open to comments on any of this.
Digital Unix: Advantages: most featureful; best support for all Alpha systems. Disadvantages: not open source; costs a fair amount of money; requires SRM console.
Linux: Advantages: has massive Linux hype machine behind it (I suppose to some it's debatable whether or not this is an advantage); open source; some support for SMP?; can be run on some (many?) systems for which SRM console is not available; has DU emulation. Disadvantages: really painful install. Lack of support for many Alpha machines, especially high-end ones.
NetBSD: Advantages: better peripheral than any other system, at least for PC-type peripherals; support for more machines than Linux (particularly older ones and the larger servers); fairly easy install; open source. Disadvantages: requires SRM console.
FreeBSD: I don't know the status of this, so I won't comment. I gather it's to the stage where it's running reasonably well, though.
CPU Micromart (www.cpumicromart.com) is selling 166MHz Alphas for $100.
I'd avoid these; they're UDB boxen (also known as Multias, when running Windows NT), which have a 21066, not a 21064 in them. The memory controller built into the 21066 is quite slow (about 1/2 to 1/3 the performance of a 486) so though the CPU itself will perform like a P166 when running out of the first-level cache, the overall feel is more like a P100.
You're better off with an AS200 or something like that, if you're looking in this price range. If you want something with modern performance, however, you'll need to get a 21164 running at a reasonably high speed (433 MHz or above).
I find it quite amusing that there are so many people claiming this is FUD, since I have seen members of the Linux community spread this exact same FUD about BSD systems many times in the past. (`There are three BSD systems, but only one Linux.')
Slashdot Mirror
Is Red Hat bad? You Linux guys should take a minute to put yourselves in the shoes of a BSD advocate, and imagine how this all looks from the outside. I'm not saying you'll learn anything useful, but at least you'll get a different point of view. :-)
The most amusing thing about this whole brouhaha between different distributions is that a year ago it was the Linux camp accusing the BSDs of being `fragmented.' Why is it that the BSDs don't seem to be as fragmented now? There are still about the same number of major Linux distributions out there, and the same number of BSDs.
cjs
I think that far more prophetic than the cyberpunk authors was John Brunner (The Shockwave Rider, The Sheep Look Up, Stand on Zanzibar). Writing fiften or twenty years earlier, he much better captured the social, as opposed to the technological, changes we're talking about here.
cjs
I think this editorial points out something really important: what Stallman is fighting for in particular may be foolish (renaming Linux to GNU/Linux), but the general problem that brought this about (Linux getting lots of recognition, and other free software getting little) is very real. As someone who uses and develops free software, but doesn't use Linux, I constantly find myself asking, Are Linux folks really interested in free software? Or are they interested only in Linux?
It will benefit a lot more people than just Stallman if the Linux community somehow can come forward with a plan to make sure that a little of the light shining on them illuminates others in the free software community. How is the Linux community going to do this?
cjs
Oh, and for those folks who insist that an open source compiler is very important because it lets them fix bugs, I have a buglist as long as my arm for egcs, and I'd love it if you could step up and fix some of these for me. :-)
cjs
You are right about a lot of the things that are lacking in NetBSD. But it's interesting to see how issues rate differently in technical and `marketing' worlds. SMP is obviously quite important, and a major lack in NetBSD. Even Linux's poor SMP (compared to, say, Solaris) is better than nothing. But the lack of a unified buffer cache is, in the end, not that big a deal technically if you go back and look at the studies and performance measurements done over the years. And while the device-driver framework of NetBSD is incredible (I don't think any OS--including all commercial ones--equals it), that doesn't rate well in terms of marketing, even though it can be quite useful. (Yes, you can even use an Adaptec 1542 in an Alpha if you want, and not through any special machine-dependent hacking on that driver, as with the way Linux does bounce buffers, but because NetBSD has solved that class of problems in a general way.)
I'm a little more puzzled by the things that I would think would generate `marketing' support. I've been told by any number of people who've used both that the NetBSD install tends to be a lot less painful than the Linux one, and that NetBSD is in general more stable than Linux on the Alpha. (I expect I'm about to get roasted for these statements, and for the most part, roasted by people who don't even run Linux on an Alpha. But what the heck; this is slashdot, after all. :-)) So why haven't these attributes come out?
cjs
cjs
Well, as usual, NetBSD gets left out again, despite the fact that it's the only free OS that runs on high-end AlphaServers, such as the 8400. (Or maybe because of that fact; who knows?)
I'm entertaining suggestions about what we can do to fix this. What needs to be done to give NetBSD a bigger place in the Alpha community? Or is there a good reason it shouldn't have a bigger place?
cjs
Sure, it was irritating and malicious, but not in the way country music is. If you don't like country music, you just change the station or go to another bar. Not liking the virus doesn't help if you're the tech responsible for cleaning it up. You just cancel your dates for the next few days, maybe give away an expensive pair of theatre or game tickets, and spend your evenings fixing the trouble that this guy caused.
I don't see how this is different from, say, shouting `fire' in a crowded theatre. Sure, chances are that nobody really gets hurt. But it's still making innocent people's lives less happy.
cjs
It doesn't even require the GPL to get the changes back into the world, in most cases. The cost of maintaining your own version of the software, combined with the loss of functionality when your changes and new features are not reviewed and improved upon by others, is fairly high. Thus, if you're using the software to support another business, rather than making a business of reselling the software, it's cheaper to give your changes back to the project than to keep them private.
And there also are a fair number of people who write software just because they like to; not for financial gain. Yes, eventually some of these people will go away, but they'll probably be replaced by others, because in the end hacking is a fun hobby. (You see the same thing in other areas: amateur radio has contributed huge amounts to the commercial radio industry in the past eighty years.)
cjs
cjs
cjs
Yes, the software that UCB produced was free; it just depended on non-free software (the AT&T code) to run. Much as GCC won't run without other code (an OS).
In fact, I'm not laying the idea of free software at the feet of the BSD folks, either. Around the same time (late '70s) in CP/M world (which was pretty much entirely independent), lots of people wrote programs and gave them away, source code and all. And I doubt that they were the first, either.
I also don't want to make light of Stallman's contribution to free software. He did an incredible vision, did a lot of work to move it foward, and free software has received huge benefits from it. Gcc is without question one of the most important things making free software what it is today.
What I'm saying, I guess, is that there are a lot of people involved here, and the idea of free software goes back a lot further than most people appear to think. Linux just happened to be lucky enough to get the press attention, and be the one word the press chose to print. I think the whole discussion would be much better off if certain people would try to understand just why Stallman is pushing this `GNU/Linux' thing, rather than just dismissing him as a moron. I don't think it's a good (or even practical) idea to start calling what we currently call `Linux,' `GNU/Linux.' But I think that Stallman does have some pretty good reasons for being upset, and I think the Linux community should sit down and listen to them.
Well, this really gets to the heart of the problem, though I'm sure the poster didn't realise it.
Most likely, without Linux, the world would be just as it is now except that the press would be talking about FreeBSD or NetBSD or 386BSD or something similar. In fact, had it not been for the USL lawsuit holding back the BSDs, Linux might not even be where it is now anyway.
What many in Linux community don't seem to realise is that it's frustrating to be marginalised, but even more frustrating to be marginalised by a group that managed to make its way out of the margins. How did you feel two years ago when the press never paid any attention to Linux, but just said `there are no OSes other than MS ones out there'? Well, that's what it feels like the Linux crowd is doing right now.
cjs
This argument has been going on for a while now, and I can understand why the FSF would feel it's not getting enough credit in the Linux community and in the mainstream press for what it's done. I think that every free software group that's not Linux feels the same way; I know that the BSD crowd certainly does, becuase there's a lot of BSD code in Linux, too. (And in fact, the BSD concept of free software predates GNU.)
But I think that we're making a mistake by insisting that we can't call the typical package of Linux kernel and applications someone installs on her computer `Linux.' For a long time it's been a word with multiple meanings; in some contexts it means just the kernel, in others it means the entire distribution.
There is plenty of precedent for this. Take, for example, the term `classical' as applied to music. It has two distinct meanings that parallel the two distinct usages of Linux above. The broader meaning is as a general term for music in the European, non-folk tradition. The narrower meaning is for a specific period (between baroque and romantic, mostly falling in the 18th century) of that music. Certainly in the more precise definition of the term it's wrong to refer to J. S. Bach as `classical'; without question he's baroque. On the other hand, if you're looking for Bach in a record shop, it's not at all considered unreasonable to ask for the `classical' section (as opposed to `folk' or `rock'); you'll end up at the right place.
And in the article, you yourself seem to think that it's fair that one project (GNU) can `adopt' another (XFree86) as a part of it. If you've done that, why cannot Linux do the same?
There is, too, a real benefit to gathering all of this stuff under one name: it helps a lot with the press coverage. One of the reasons Linux has been able to do so well in the mainstream press is that it is simplifiable to a sound byte: `Linux with BSD and GNU userland, XFree86 as the GUI, and fvwm95 as the window manager' gets reduced to `Linux,' which works well in media because it reduces something complex to something apparently simple. You may not like that, but that's how news coverage works: subtlety gets removed because simplicity gets attention and complexity gets ignored.
That still leaves those of us who who build and use free software that's not Linux with a bit of a problem. As a NetBSD developer and user, I get just as annoyed as anyone when someone starts talking about `Linux drivers' for a video card rather than `XFree86 drivers,' since NetBSD uses the exact same drivers and has the exact same capabilities. Now that Linux folks have gotten the idea of free software in the public's mind, how do the rest of us get our fair share of the spotlight?
We're not going to do it by trying to redefine terms that the press (and most of the rest of the world) have already decided on the meaning of. Asking the press to abandon the term `Linux' for free software just isn't going to wash; they've invested a lot of time and effort into into making that term into what it is. And it's not going to be by picking fights with the Linux folks, either. They're the ones in the spotlight; they have the power.
I don't have a good solution to this problem, unfortunately. I think that part of the solution will be setting up the educational resources so that those who are interested or get involved can find out the true depth and diversity of the free software world. And part of it will be convincing the Linux advocates to help us spread the word. Part of it may even be gentle reminders, when appropriate, to the Linux folks that there is something out there besides Linux. But is all that enough? I don't know.
cjs
I'm not at all impressed with this article, and I must say it's reduced my opinion of Linus considerably. I've mentioned a few of the things that have bugged me in other posts, but I'll summarise here.
1. The claim that Linux is `the most widely ported operating system available for PCs' is certainly arguable. It's unfair to ignore the lesser known systems (such as NetBSD) in an article with such wide distribution.
2. He's insulting. There's no reason for calling the people he's discussing `dishonest' or `stupid.' That's immature.
3. He's not correct that the OS research world had abandoned monolithic kernels for microkernels or felt that only microkernels offered good prospects of portability. Around the time Linus started his first i386 work, Berkely and other folks were busy making 4BSD (which is monolithic) more portable, and moving it on to several other architectures. The period between 4.3BSD and 4.4BSD showed a dramatic portability and ports increase.
4. Linux is far behind the curve in terms of internal structure for portablity; NetBSD is unarguably significantly better in that regard. Take a look at device drivers, for example; Linux has a proliferation of machine-dependent drivers where NetBSD uses machine-independent drivers almost everywhere. Linux doesn't even have a structure to support MI device drivers! (See NetBSD's bus_space and bus_dma work for an example of what such a structure can look like.)
In short: he insults others, denegrates the work of others that Linux was built on, and he frequently ignores the work of others. Either he's lacking in technical knowledge, or he's willfully ignoring other stuff out there that `competes' with Linux. This article is marketing, not information, and is only going to worsen the reputation Linux already has as a `Microsoft' among the non-Linux free software community.
cjs
Most of his comments on portability are quite ignorant. The Linux kernel is *not* very portable internally in many ways. Compare the device driver model Linux uses to NetBSD's bus_space and bus_dma structure for a look at the difference between portable and non-portable. (And if you're going to argue this point, please actually *read* the source code first, before spouting off. Though I'm a NetBSD developer, I read a fair amount of Linux kernel code before coming to this conclusion, so I'm not talking through my hat.)
cjs
Linus's bald claim that Linux is the most ported operating system that runs on the PC really burns me, because I don't think that anyone who actually examined the issue would disagree that NetBSD has a strong claim to this. (I believe it's stronger than Linux, myself, but that's just my opinion.) I expect that this will be perceived by the free software community outside of Linux as yet another typical example of Linux hogging the spotlight, rather than sharing the fame. There are not an insignificant number of people out there who see little difference between Linux movement and Microsoft; in both cases the promoters tend to gloss over flaws and ignore other technology, instead giving the impression that they are the one and only option.
The link given above, http://www.ctv.es/USE RS/xose/linux/linux_ports.html, is a little optimistic in what it considers a `port'; The VAX port isn't anywhere near bringing you to a single-user shell prompt yet, for example. (This is typical of most `Linux ports' pages I've seen; they don't indicate which ones are real and which are currently vapour to some degree or other. Again, more Microsoft-style marketing.)
If you're going to discuss this issue, it helps to make clear exactly how you're approaching it, as I've done a href="http://www.cynic.net/~cjs/computer/os-ports. html">here. (Note that this page is getting old and needs an update; I'll get to it as time permits.) Some of the questions you have to deal with are:
I have another comment on Linus's article, but I'll put it in another post.
cjs
This is a really big deal when you're maintaining, say, 300 servers that are 21 floors and two elevators away from you. It's an even bigger deal when you need to deal with a server from home.
Of course, most PC hardware limits your capability in this area regardless of the OS you run. I've run lots of NetBSD/i386 systems with serial consoles, but that still doesn't give me access to the BIOS setup. With a Sun server, on the other hand, using a terminal server to talk to the serial port is just as good (better, in fact), than having a graphics console on the machine and being there.
cjs
You, on the other hand, not only cannot come up with any record of messages that back up your statements, but can't even get the name of the FreeBSD mailing list or port right! (It's the "alpha" port and mailing list, not "axp".)
So unless you can come up with something more than argument by unsubstantiated assertion, I think we can lay this to rest.
cjs
I've replied to the copyright FUD above. If you're thinking of a different incident, you're going to have to dig up the messages for me, because I can't find them.
I wouldn't be surprised if the OpenBSD Alpha port is fairly dead, but that would be due to the fact that NetBSD's seen a lot of internal changes on all architectures since OpenBSD split, and OpenBSD hasn't followed these. Therefore they can't do straight code imports any more, and I don't believe they have the manpower to do the re-coding necessary to keep pulling in NetBSD/alpha stuff.
cjs
cjs
From what I've seen, Compaq is providing a fair amount of support for the Alpha, and has no intention of phasing it out or slowing development. They've shown in the past they they're not married to Intel; a fair number of their home systems use AMD processors. Given the delays with Merced, they may (and should!) see the Alpha as their chance to make a pretty big dent in the performance computing market.
Digital Unix is quite a ways ahead of any of the free Unix systems out there. As has been mentioned here already, the compiler generates significantly better code than the free compilers, but also the multi-CPU and large system support is better. I certainly don't see them dropping support, or even development, for DU any time in the near future.
As far as the `lack of IRQs,' well, it depends on what sort of Alpha you get. Some of the low-end models have very PC-like hardware, and even an ISA bus bridged off a PCI bus; this obviously has the same IRQ problems as the ISA bus on any machine. But these days many people stick to PCI peripherals on both Intel and Alpha machines, and it's not a big deal.
WRT the Red Hat install pain: I've heard this from quite a number of people. I've seen word from several sites that they switched from Red Hat to NetBSD due to this pain, in fact.
Which brings up the question: why is NetBSD never mentioned in any of this? It's certainly a viable alternative to Linux on the Alpha platform. I find it rather sad that the `Open Source' hype mechanism tends to such a great degree to promote Linux and ignore other systems. (I should mention, too, that FreeBSD has a port to the Alpha in progress, though I'm not sure of the current state of it.)
Anyway, here's my quick comparison of the Unix-type operating systems available for the Alpha. I'm open to comments on any of this.
Digital Unix: Advantages: most featureful; best support for all Alpha systems. Disadvantages: not open source; costs a fair amount of money; requires SRM console.
Linux: Advantages: has massive Linux hype machine behind it (I suppose to some it's debatable whether or not this is an advantage); open source; some support for SMP?; can be run on some (many?) systems for which SRM console is not available; has DU emulation. Disadvantages: really painful install. Lack of support for many Alpha machines, especially high-end ones.
NetBSD: Advantages: better peripheral than any other system, at least for PC-type peripherals; support for more machines than Linux (particularly older ones and the larger servers); fairly easy install; open source. Disadvantages: requires SRM console.
FreeBSD: I don't know the status of this, so I won't comment. I gather it's to the stage where it's running reasonably well, though.
cjs
You're better off with an AS200 or something like that, if you're looking in this price range. If you want something with modern performance, however, you'll need to get a 21164 running at a reasonably high speed (433 MHz or above).
cjs
I find it quite amusing that there are so many people claiming this is FUD, since I have seen members of the Linux community spread this exact same FUD about BSD systems many times in the past. (`There are three BSD systems, but only one Linux.')
cjs
Or how did you think that Linux ended up being hyped by the media so much with hardly a mention of the BSDs?
cjs