So, with 5.3 already becoming stable, investing in "The Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD OS" (version 5.2.x) was close to becoming an internals description of the new STABLE.:)
Well, I don't think quite so. Not because I think bsdtar has no technological merit. I've got good reason to believe so, because gtar is known to be not very good.
The crdrecord guy rewrote gtar, because it is in a state where it is almost no longer maintainable. He committed his version. Maintainers were happy. But Stallman said: We've already got a working gtar and basta!
At least that's what I've heard.
Given that most distributors stick with the whole GNU package, bsdtar, whatever its merits are, is more likely to be an addon package, and not the default tar on any Linux distribution.
It surely would make a nice/etc/alternatives option in Debian for tar, where it would integrate nicely! But Debian is always more flexible and open in a lot of respects (Debian GNU/BSD anyone?;) ) than other distribs.
Well, it happened while Apple was busy building server blades.
Or Microsoft building "compact" versions of their BloatOS for handies and PDAs.
Or IBM building processors fit for embedded systems.
While all three are well-known for other stuff (Apple: nice-looking desktop, Microsoft: bloated consumer OS, IBM: mainframe, batch-processing, PowerPC), you'll miss a lot of stuff when sticking with your perception prejudices.
Never underestimate the power of FREE (this time both as in beer and in freedom) when having people consider what OS/software to use. Linux gets 2nd/3rd world use (South America, Africa,...), is present on most of Asian markets, even with government approval, is used for research, servers, heavy server metal, student PCs, cheap web serves, at ISPs and at lot of not-so-well-off geeks homes (like mine). Apple is losing a lot of universities to Linux and the schools to MicroSoft. On blades.
Nobody counts all the free downloads of Debian, Gentoo or even SuSE ftp into "marketshare", and most of the licenses sold for Linux can be used for whole sites, and do not only come with one machine (as with Apple) or per-CPU (as with Windows).
We can safely assume that there at the very least double as much Linux boxes out there as MacOS 9 and MacOS X boxes together, because the numbers about MacOS are known, while the Linux numbers are conservative estimates.
Anyone believing anything as pricy as a MacOS X computer is more widespread than Linux boxes is simply deluding himself: Cheap "sells", free "sells". Most of the places Linux (or e.g. NetBSD) is (are) used they can do ten times as much with the money they would have spent for Apple stuff.
MacOS X is fine, technically absolutely OK, and runs well with its own hardware platform. You surely get a nice, easy-to-handle package, something what most people would consider the equivalent of a luxury car in computing. Still, MacOS X will not convert the masses, it hasn't even converted as much of the users of "old" MacOS as Apple hoped, and MacOS X for sure isn't the OS that will make Apple win over Microsoft or even Linux.
Apple will stay as a "3rd power" beyond MS and Linux, but with its former exclusive applications (DTP) now available from their competitors, their pricing strategy and frequent policy changes (Rhapsody for x86? No, let's scratch it, get the NeXt core...), they will have to do very well to keep their share.
They'll continue to offer a nice OS, some very nicely-designed hardware, but there is no big Apple comeback lurking. While Linux grows rapidly in all sectors: Embedded (PDAs, mobile phones, single-board computers), Desktop (business workstation, geek desktop) and servers (blades, uni- and multiprocessor web, app and database servers, etc.).
I wouldn't be very surprised if Linux would have beaten Apple on the desktop alone, without even considering the server installation count.
While I to some degree sympathize with your ranting, I mostly feel sympathy for your (overly) ideological views. Maybe this gets a treatable disease one day, too...
Especially since you didn't have a thing to say about the book itself...
Actually all kinds of gore, brutality and profanity mixed with the gameplay in Fallout.
This is not some Anime game where you'll see a naked breast after beating the computer in Tetris.
Fallout was kind of "Leisure Suit Larry" style, creating an atmosphere, and using the adult stuff to enhance the atmosphere, not make a slideshow of it.
It made a full, round experience, that you could not only have sex, but even use sex to achieve your goals (especially as a female character), and could kill and insult about anyone, even breaking the storyline!
I don't want the Nintendo Super Mario Fallout version. I don't care if teenies are allowed to play it - they'll get it anyway!;)
what made fallout so great, imho, was the brilliant dialogue (with lots of different options, which/really/ made a difference) and the well thought out NPCs. morrowind is a great game too but i really dont want to see fallout 3 "morrowind style"
Well spoken!
I love the Fallout games (1 and 2, that is, not the ripoff tactical game). I want a new plot, not a new engine... If this becomes all 3D-actiony, at least make it pausible in combat, or make a turn-style combat, where you can chose your party's actions while floating with a camera.
Besides, I'm pretty sure a 3D version would look crappy compared to Fallout 2!
I guess you're right, but let me add my point of view:
I'm mostly a Linux user by now. All my productivity and development is happening on Linux, or could (nearly as well) happen on FreeBSD. I've been a long-time Windows user before, doing exclusively Windows and DOS from DOS 5 somewhat to Windows 98 SE.
Commercial software I saw over time tended to have featuritis, often enough easy to use, but after some versions coming down crashing and hogging resources by pure overbloat. You could either upgrade (and get ever shittier versions) or stick with the old (which I did till the next OS upgrade made that harder and harder). Most commercial off-the-shelf software for consumers is simply overprized bloatware. Nowadays all I need to do I'm happily doing on FOSS, which is actually proving that what I need in features was actually quite less than what most commercial stuff offers, and I am getting stability and efficiency instead.
So I think most of commercial software is crap/bloatware. Most people don't need the features, so it's no wonder it gets pirated. Companies making you pay lots of wad for the small percentage of features you're actually using are actually digging their own graves. Most commercial offerings simply were at the top of their usefullness years ago, but they spitting it out... Of course, that's often enough what happens to products in a saturated market. Try buying a plain and simple plastic digital watch (without internal altitude measurement or a mini database or stuff). Or a handy you could just phone and send SMS with (without an ever-crashing/freezing software??).
And for computer games, I happen to buy about one every half year, mostly from genres/vendors I want to stay as Paradox (EU2, Crusader Kings, etc.) or Medieval:Total War. While I happen to try some ego shooters when a friend gets one, to see how they look like (and in case of "Call of Duty" even for the gameplay!), I find most games Me-Too! crap as well. Most games I run are Abandonware (Stuff that stopped selling years ago) anyway. The 10000th ego shooter or 10000th RTS with some nicer graphics or whatever really only appeal to one group of customers - the one they are targetted at - teenagers. Bored, bored teenagers.
And bored teenagers tend to do stupid stuff all the time: Try becoming haX0rs, try writing viri, try smoking pot, and try becoming renegade cracker heroes...
But why should it matter to me? The only way to get full-featured, guaranteed virus-free recent game releases is a games retailer. And the really interesting games, those nice strategy games, or gaming classics, you usually don't get with the crackers anyway. They are too busy planning their day-0 release of the 10001st Me-Too! game.
So, this about copyright: If someone pirates an original product - punish him/her to the fullest extent applicable. Like the movie "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind". Or a set of 70s Genesis songs. Or the game "Alpha Centauri". Stuff I will still be enjoying years from now, worth every dime!
But if someone pirates Me-Too! stupid stuff like "Spiderman 2", MS Word 2003 or "Far Cry", I could really care less! Actually I would be overjoyed if some of those responsible for this shit would go out of business!
I guess the only chance OpenBSD will ever have in the corporate world is on servers and firewalls, and in security-related embedded devices.
It's fine for this because it is designed for this and it clearly is the focus of its designers.
I cannot imagine a desktop OpenBSD simply because nobody is there who's willing to apply the necessary polish to make it worthwhile and usable in a user sense.
If no one is willing to contribute a better installer, while every Linux distro can offer one (even Debian is hacking on a better one), it's fairly sure no one wants one, or the people that could make one are deterred by some aspects of the OpenBSD project - perhaps on a personal basis, or simply because they think their work would not be appreciated, or because they think OpenBSD's tiny marketshare would simply grant them not enough fame or whatever rewards open source work.
I'm aware that the *BSD projects already are fairly well behind on attracting developers. I guess the Debian project alone has more developers than all *BSDs together. I guess there wouldn't be a ports tree else. If there would be enough maintainers, all would be packages.
So I'm not very surprised there are not enough people for writing installers or polishing the dektop. Yet a usable installer would greatly help OpenBSD popularity, leading to a greater developer exposure.
Well, you could argue, that once, when you are beyond installation, Unix/Linux systems don't differ very much.
If you're not using OpenBSD as a desktop, it will expose to you the same command line/.conf,.rc file interface like all others. It will administer mostly like other, similar systems.
For example the "Unix Administration Handbook" or the the "Linux Administration Handbook". Both are fine books. But beyond installation you notice that most Unix-like systems administer the same except for some detail stuff.
While kernel level stuff like kernel-based packet filters surely do differ, in configuration and interface, and compiling and configuring kernels as well, most tasks are not OS-specific, at least not in the Unix/Linux world.
So one could argue the installer is one of the features not only offering a significant difference between different POSIX implementations, but a feature clearly cutting out how much of a user base one system will get.
Bad installers simply will deter people, whether rightly so or not.
Actually usability and security often enough go well enough hand in hand.
The easier the default install, the less likely are errors. The more powerful the configuration interface, the less errors, the more safe installs.
Features like W^X or stack canaries make it harder to crack a box, but not impossible. But an app free of overflows and with a good config does. So add nice management/installation tools.
In fact, with the choice of already available installer apps out there it shouldn't be too hard adapting one, so what's the big deal?
Most of the security of OpenBSD stems from careful code review, not featuritis. But they won't be reviewing, I bet, but adding features.
Oh, and beside: I guess they'll mostly focus on SMP anyway. That's not a security feature at all, so your point is moot. Most of the current OpenBSD user population doesn't even have use for it, so it clearly is a feature aimed towards more popularity.
Actually all users could use a thoroughly code-reviewed system with a safe default install.
The net would be a bit safer for sure, even if it was just a bit.
More user-friendly installer => wider user-base => less zombies for DDoS. Maybe even more money for OpenBSD development? More OpenBSD related jobs? More interest in embedded ports? More positive PR?
Of course, nobody would care for a better installer. Nobody in his right mind would demand one. No, not me. Not anyone! Allocating resources to an installer? Preposterous!
Ok, but how widespread are commercialized BSDs like BSD/OS, or whatever BSD commercializing attempts there are? (I really want to know)
And you can surely find BSD the same way in the Enterprise as you can find Debian: under a vendor name. Debian itself isn't used, but "enhanced versions" can be bought like from Xandros.
It's only vaguely similar. It can't compete well on terms of security, performance, stability, etc.
Actually you are deluding yourself by mixing up the features of OpenBSD and FreeBSD. OpenBSD is not really very efficient. And FreeBSD is not nearly as secure as OpenBSD.
You can't mix both up just to make a point. It's more like this:
Daemon1: I'm very efficient.
Daemon2: I'm very secure.
Daemon3: I'm very portable.
Penguin: Come on, matey! I'm most efficient, reasonably secure, and widely ported.
Guess why the penguin is popular. It seems to have the same priorities most people have, in the same order.
I agree that many people consider Linux from an anti-Windows stance. Most articles written about Linux in the "mainstream" press have one of two topics:
"Will Linux replace Windows on the Desktop?" "Will Linux make a dent in Bill Gates' earnings?"
But I think there is another thing about it: The *BSD developer community - and I really don't know, whether rightly so or not - is often painted as being elitist. Maybe the open and friendly approach of Linus to kernel development was an inspiration for many people wanting to have their try at kernel development. (Like me - I'm currently porting a VME bus driver to PowerPC, and "porting" Linux to a single-board computer)
When most of your contributons are done for free by people committed to the idea of free/open software, a bad/eltitist reputation can be the worst thing to have.
Like with XFree86 - the project seems to be despised by nearly everyone who was denied the approval of the inner circle. You rarely read "good press" about XFree, depite all of its technological merits (I'd prefer a GUI without a client/server over network principle a lot, still).
Maybe this is all about outside perception and reputation. I don't pretend to know it.;)
Of course the BSD lawsuit hurt corporate adoption.
But still it did not give Linux a headstart (because by 1993 and even long after, Linux wasn't comparable).
I agree with another poster, that maybe one of the decisive factors has always been a certain desktop focus in the community, giving birth to things like WindowMaker, GNOME, GnuStep and KDE.
FreeBSD is mostly seen as server, a reputation it has earned well. But reputations can be as much of an obstacle as they can be an advantage.
Linux tries to play on all courts - server, desktop, multimedia center (digital VCR, etc.), embedded.
It's like this: Daemon1: "I'm very efficent and stable." Daemon2: "I'm very secure." Daemon3: "I'm widely ported." Penguin: "I'm the most efficient here, reasonably stable, reasonably secure, and widely ported."
Seeing the priorities most users / corporate IT officers seem to have, whether rightly so or not, these are exactly the demands most people have, and sadly for the Internet, in that order.
It is much easier making a product out of FreeBSD, especially if you are selling services.
A lot of Linux companies sell services, not primarily distributions.
One would think the nature of FreeBSD would encourage commercialization - like with OS X.
Especially in the embedded space your explanation does not help at all - the BSD license allows appropriation of code into proprietary products, the GPL doesn't. Yet we don't see as many devices using FreeBSD as using Linux.
Maybe if we think the other way round: *BSD had commercial successes (in Windows Services for Unix, in the distribution of the TCP/IP stack, in Solaris, in OS X), yet *BSD itself has gained next to nothing from it - because no one of the biggies was forced to give back.
A lot of "Daemon worshipper since ever" and "Tried Linux, didn't like it" in here. Some "Like both". A few trolls have been modded down.
But when looking at it, *BSD users are throwing praise at each others in here. It's not like anyone is arguing in here, because mostly people with the same opinion responded to the article.
But no one is really talking about why Linux has more market/mind share. Or why the kernel developers for Linux have created a technologically similar kernel without having a head start (i.e. a full UNIX kernel). Or why - if any *nix - is taught, nearly always Linux is taught at universities. What made Linux the platform of choice for so many people in so "little" time?
These are not flames. These are questions I'd really like answers for. And maybe the *BSD communities should have them, to take advantage of that knowledge!
Nothing gained from 20 somewhat posts of the style "I like the ports tree", "Me, too!".
Start asking: "Why isn't *BSD dominating the *nix world now?" Don't answer: "It doesn't want to." Because that's not true. Hear yourselves talk. You want to! But you don't.
So why? Don't give me the USL/Novell case. In the time from 1991-1993 Linux had not become a comparable kernel, it became after.
Is it the license? The more chaotic collaboration? Linus' personality? The anti-Windows stance? The urge for people to develop something new (that lured more developers)? Why is (almost virtually etc.) nobody talking of a FreeBSD desktop?
As long as a lot of people talk about history, or past successes, or think along "I always have done it that way / have used it" nothing is won for *BSD in terms of "innovation" (it hurts to write it). *BSD needs some new answers to the Linux question, not some self-content same ol', same ol'.
If *BSD asked these questions, found the answers for them, and used them, it actually again become the most-used *nix system.
While I largely agree with your reasoning, I have a question:
Wasn't it OpenBSD that (on purpose) broke its IPv6 subsystem in a release not long ago? This doesn't seem to relate well to "You know that the packet filter will play nice with the IPv6 subsystem".
Thanks, that was funny and informative (and this will be moderated Redundant).
OpenBSD does surely profit from the fact it was security-reviewed that much - and is still. So there is more stable, bug-free code, that doesn't need much changing. And won't changed often, because security comes first.
Linux, on the other hand, is massively performance-reviewed, or at least I get that impression. This induces many small changes that impact performance and features, and I guess this will impact security in the long run. Many small changes are hard to track for security reviewers, or at least I think they are.
My workstations all run some versions of Debian, and out of laziness, my firewall, too. If you've got book-shelf full of Linux books you get less tempted experimenting with OpenBSD, I guess.;)
I didn't want to diss OpenBSD, but it is hard to write a post about BSD without getting flamed/lectured/both by someone.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, this really clears things up for me.
:)
So, with 5.3 already becoming stable, investing in "The Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD OS" (version 5.2.x) was close to becoming an internals description of the new STABLE.
Out of curiosity and ignorance:
Is FreeBSD 5.3, when it's finished, the new stable or the new current release, or both?
I've read somewhere around here, that 5.3 should replace the 4.x series as stable, finally.
So, is that true?
Well, I don't think quite so. Not because I think bsdtar has no technological merit. I've got good reason to believe so, because gtar is known to be not very good.
/etc/alternatives option in Debian for tar, where it would integrate nicely! But Debian is always more flexible and open in a lot of respects (Debian GNU/BSD anyone? ;) ) than other distribs.
The crdrecord guy rewrote gtar, because it is in a state where it is almost no longer maintainable. He committed his version. Maintainers were happy. But Stallman said: We've already got a working gtar and basta!
At least that's what I've heard.
Given that most distributors stick with the whole GNU package, bsdtar, whatever its merits are, is more likely to be an addon package, and not the default tar on any Linux distribution.
It surely would make a nice
Well, it happened while Apple was busy building server blades.
...), is present on most of Asian markets, even with government approval, is used for research, servers, heavy server metal, student PCs, cheap web serves, at ISPs and at lot of not-so-well-off geeks homes (like mine). Apple is losing a lot of universities to Linux and the schools to MicroSoft. On blades.
Or Microsoft building "compact" versions of their BloatOS for handies and PDAs.
Or IBM building processors fit for embedded systems.
While all three are well-known for other stuff (Apple: nice-looking desktop, Microsoft: bloated consumer OS, IBM: mainframe, batch-processing, PowerPC), you'll miss a lot of stuff when sticking with your perception prejudices.
Never underestimate the power of FREE (this time both as in beer and in freedom) when having people consider what OS/software to use. Linux gets 2nd/3rd world use (South America, Africa,
Nobody counts all the free downloads of Debian, Gentoo or even SuSE ftp into "marketshare", and most of the licenses sold for Linux can be used for whole sites, and do not only come with one machine (as with Apple) or per-CPU (as with Windows).
We can safely assume that there at the very least double as much Linux boxes out there as MacOS 9 and MacOS X boxes together, because the numbers about MacOS are known, while the Linux numbers are conservative estimates.
Anyone believing anything as pricy as a MacOS X computer is more widespread than Linux boxes is simply deluding himself: Cheap "sells", free "sells". Most of the places Linux (or e.g. NetBSD) is (are) used they can do ten times as much with the money they would have spent for Apple stuff.
MacOS X is fine, technically absolutely OK, and runs well with its own hardware platform. You surely get a nice, easy-to-handle package, something what most people would consider the equivalent of a luxury car in computing. Still, MacOS X will not convert the masses, it hasn't even converted as much of the users of "old" MacOS as Apple hoped, and MacOS X for sure isn't the OS that will make Apple win over Microsoft or even Linux.
Apple will stay as a "3rd power" beyond MS and Linux, but with its former exclusive applications (DTP) now available from their competitors, their pricing strategy and frequent policy changes (Rhapsody for x86? No, let's scratch it, get the NeXt core...), they will have to do very well to keep their share.
They'll continue to offer a nice OS, some very nicely-designed hardware, but there is no big Apple comeback lurking. While Linux grows rapidly in all sectors: Embedded (PDAs, mobile phones, single-board computers), Desktop (business workstation, geek desktop) and servers (blades, uni- and multiprocessor web, app and database servers, etc.).
I wouldn't be very surprised if Linux would have beaten Apple on the desktop alone, without even considering the server installation count.
While I to some degree sympathize with your ranting, I mostly feel sympathy for your (overly) ideological views. Maybe this gets a treatable disease one day, too...
Especially since you didn't have a thing to say about the book itself...
Actually all kinds of gore, brutality and profanity mixed with the gameplay in Fallout.
;)
This is not some Anime game where you'll see a naked breast after beating the computer in Tetris.
Fallout was kind of "Leisure Suit Larry" style, creating an atmosphere, and using the adult stuff to enhance the atmosphere, not make a slideshow of it.
It made a full, round experience, that you could not only have sex, but even use sex to achieve your goals (especially as a female character), and could kill and insult about anyone, even breaking the storyline!
I don't want the Nintendo Super Mario Fallout version. I don't care if teenies are allowed to play it - they'll get it anyway!
Well, actually forget "Fountain of Dreams". Too short, too crappy, too ripoff.
While Planescape: Torment was one of the most immersive fantasy RPGs ever, it combat system stunk!
;)
Give me Planescape with a real combat system any day, and it will forever rule my gaming world!
I simply FUCKING HATE 3D RPGS !!!
Fallout's game engine was simply the most fun and usable I've encountered in the last years.
And 3D games suck often enough - I don't want to develop some seriouz sh00tA sk1llZ to play a ROLEPLAYING GAME!!!
If they make it in any way action-oriented, they can stick it where no sun shines.
Well spoken!
I love the Fallout games (1 and 2, that is, not the ripoff tactical game). I want a new plot, not a new engine... If this becomes all 3D-actiony, at least make it pausible in combat, or make a turn-style combat, where you can chose your party's actions while floating with a camera.
Besides, I'm pretty sure a 3D version would look crappy compared to Fallout 2!
I guess you're right, but let me add my point of view:
...
I'm mostly a Linux user by now. All my productivity and development is happening on Linux, or could (nearly as well) happen on FreeBSD. I've been a long-time Windows user before, doing exclusively Windows and DOS from DOS 5 somewhat to Windows 98 SE.
Commercial software I saw over time tended to have featuritis, often enough easy to use, but after some versions coming down crashing and hogging resources by pure overbloat. You could either upgrade (and get ever shittier versions) or stick with the old (which I did till the next OS upgrade made that harder and harder). Most commercial off-the-shelf software for consumers is simply overprized bloatware. Nowadays all I need to do I'm happily doing on FOSS, which is actually proving that what I need in features was actually quite less than what most commercial stuff offers, and I am getting stability and efficiency instead.
So I think most of commercial software is crap/bloatware. Most people don't need the features, so it's no wonder it gets pirated. Companies making you pay lots of wad for the small percentage of features you're actually using are actually digging their own graves. Most commercial offerings simply were at the top of their usefullness years ago, but they spitting it out... Of course, that's often enough what happens to products in a saturated market. Try buying a plain and simple plastic digital watch (without internal altitude measurement or a mini database or stuff). Or a handy you could just phone and send SMS with (without an ever-crashing/freezing software??).
And for computer games, I happen to buy about one every half year, mostly from genres/vendors I want to stay as Paradox (EU2, Crusader Kings, etc.) or Medieval:Total War. While I happen to try some ego shooters when a friend gets one, to see how they look like (and in case of "Call of Duty" even for the gameplay!), I find most games Me-Too! crap as well. Most games I run are Abandonware (Stuff that stopped selling years ago) anyway. The 10000th ego shooter or 10000th RTS with some nicer graphics or whatever really only appeal to one group of customers - the one they are targetted at - teenagers. Bored, bored teenagers.
And bored teenagers tend to do stupid stuff all the time: Try becoming haX0rs, try writing viri, try smoking pot, and try becoming renegade cracker heroes
But why should it matter to me? The only way to get full-featured, guaranteed virus-free recent game releases is a games retailer. And the really interesting games, those nice strategy games, or gaming classics, you usually don't get with the crackers anyway. They are too busy planning their day-0 release of the 10001st Me-Too! game.
So, this about copyright: If someone pirates an original product - punish him/her to the fullest extent applicable. Like the movie "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind". Or a set of 70s Genesis songs. Or the game "Alpha Centauri". Stuff I will still be enjoying years from now, worth every dime!
But if someone pirates Me-Too! stupid stuff like "Spiderman 2", MS Word 2003 or "Far Cry", I could really care less! Actually I would be overjoyed if some of those responsible for this shit would go out of business!
I guess the only chance OpenBSD will ever have in the corporate world is on servers and firewalls, and in security-related embedded devices.
It's fine for this because it is designed for this and it clearly is the focus of its designers.
I cannot imagine a desktop OpenBSD simply because nobody is there who's willing to apply the necessary polish to make it worthwhile and usable in a user sense.
If no one is willing to contribute a better installer, while every Linux distro can offer one (even Debian is hacking on a better one), it's fairly sure no one wants one, or the people that could make one are deterred by some aspects of the OpenBSD project - perhaps on a personal basis, or simply because they think their work would not be appreciated, or because they think OpenBSD's tiny marketshare would simply grant them not enough fame or whatever rewards open source work.
I'm aware that the *BSD projects already are fairly well behind on attracting developers. I guess the Debian project alone has more developers than all *BSDs together. I guess there wouldn't be a ports tree else. If there would be enough maintainers, all would be packages.
So I'm not very surprised there are not enough people for writing installers or polishing the dektop. Yet a usable installer would greatly help OpenBSD popularity, leading to a greater developer exposure.
Well, you could argue, that once, when you are beyond installation, Unix/Linux systems don't differ very much.
.conf,.rc file interface like all others. It will administer mostly like other, similar systems.
If you're not using OpenBSD as a desktop, it will expose to you the same command line/
For example the "Unix Administration Handbook" or the the "Linux Administration Handbook". Both are fine books. But beyond installation you notice that most Unix-like systems administer the same except for some detail stuff.
While kernel level stuff like kernel-based packet filters surely do differ, in configuration and interface, and compiling and configuring kernels as well, most tasks are not OS-specific, at least not in the Unix/Linux world.
So one could argue the installer is one of the features not only offering a significant difference between different POSIX implementations, but a feature clearly cutting out how much of a user base one system will get.
Bad installers simply will deter people, whether rightly so or not.
Actually usability and security often enough go well enough hand in hand.
The easier the default install, the less likely are errors. The more powerful the configuration interface, the less errors, the more safe installs.
Features like W^X or stack canaries make it harder to crack a box, but not impossible. But an app free of overflows and with a good config does. So add nice management/installation tools.
In fact, with the choice of already available installer apps out there it shouldn't be too hard adapting one, so what's the big deal?
Most of the security of OpenBSD stems from careful code review, not featuritis. But they won't be reviewing, I bet, but adding features.
Oh, and beside: I guess they'll mostly focus on SMP anyway. That's not a security feature at all, so your point is moot. Most of the current OpenBSD user population doesn't even have use for it, so it clearly is a feature aimed towards more popularity.
Actually all users could use a thoroughly code-reviewed system with a safe default install.
The net would be a bit safer for sure, even if it was just a bit.
More user-friendly installer => wider user-base => less zombies for DDoS. Maybe even more money for OpenBSD development? More OpenBSD related jobs? More interest in embedded ports? More positive PR?
Too bad you're so shortsighted!
Of course, nobody would care for a better installer. Nobody in his right mind would demand one. No, not me. Not anyone! Allocating resources to an installer? Preposterous!
People move along, there's nothing to see here.
(Disclaimer: This is a joke. Now shoo!)
Ok, but how widespread are commercialized BSDs like BSD/OS, or whatever BSD commercializing attempts there are? (I really want to know)
And you can surely find BSD the same way in the Enterprise as you can find Debian: under a vendor name. Debian itself isn't used, but "enhanced versions" can be bought like from Xandros.
Shouldn't be too different for BSD, should it?
Actually you are deluding yourself by mixing up the features of OpenBSD and FreeBSD. OpenBSD is not really very efficient. And FreeBSD is not nearly as secure as OpenBSD.
You can't mix both up just to make a point. It's more like this:
Guess why the penguin is popular. It seems to have the same priorities most people have, in the same order.
I agree that many people consider Linux from an anti-Windows stance. Most articles written about Linux in the "mainstream" press have one of two topics:
;)
"Will Linux replace Windows on the Desktop?"
"Will Linux make a dent in Bill Gates' earnings?"
But I think there is another thing about it:
The *BSD developer community - and I really don't know, whether rightly so or not - is often painted as being elitist. Maybe the open and friendly approach of Linus to kernel development was an inspiration for many people wanting to have their try at kernel development. (Like me - I'm currently porting a VME bus driver to PowerPC, and "porting" Linux to a single-board computer)
When most of your contributons are done for free by people committed to the idea of free/open software, a bad/eltitist reputation can be the worst thing to have.
Like with XFree86 - the project seems to be despised by nearly everyone who was denied the approval of the inner circle. You rarely read "good press" about XFree, depite all of its technological merits (I'd prefer a GUI without a client/server over network principle a lot, still).
Maybe this is all about outside perception and reputation. I don't pretend to know it.
Well, I largely agree.
Of course the BSD lawsuit hurt corporate adoption.
But still it did not give Linux a headstart (because by 1993 and even long after, Linux wasn't comparable).
I agree with another poster, that maybe one of the decisive factors has always been a certain desktop focus in the community, giving birth to things like WindowMaker, GNOME, GnuStep and KDE.
FreeBSD is mostly seen as server, a reputation it has earned well. But reputations can be as much of an obstacle as they can be an advantage.
Linux tries to play on all courts - server, desktop, multimedia center (digital VCR, etc.), embedded.
It's like this:
Daemon1: "I'm very efficent and stable."
Daemon2: "I'm very secure."
Daemon3: "I'm widely ported."
Penguin: "I'm the most efficient here, reasonably stable, reasonably secure, and widely ported."
Seeing the priorities most users / corporate IT officers seem to have, whether rightly so or not, these are exactly the demands most people have, and sadly for the Internet, in that order.
Well, that does not sound logical.
It is much easier making a product out of FreeBSD, especially if you are selling services.
A lot of Linux companies sell services, not primarily distributions.
One would think the nature of FreeBSD would encourage commercialization - like with OS X.
Especially in the embedded space your explanation does not help at all - the BSD license allows appropriation of code into proprietary products, the GPL doesn't. Yet we don't see as many devices using FreeBSD as using Linux.
Maybe if we think the other way round: *BSD had commercial successes (in Windows Services for Unix, in the distribution of the TCP/IP stack, in Solaris, in OS X), yet *BSD itself has gained next to nothing from it - because no one of the biggies was forced to give back.
Maybe that's different with Linux, maybe not.
But it's not nearly as simple as you write.
A lot of "Daemon worshipper since ever" and "Tried Linux, didn't like it" in here. Some "Like both". A few trolls have been modded down.
But when looking at it, *BSD users are throwing praise at each others in here. It's not like anyone is arguing in here, because mostly people with the same opinion responded to the article.
But no one is really talking about why Linux has more market/mind share. Or why the kernel developers for Linux have created a technologically similar kernel without having a head start (i.e. a full UNIX kernel). Or why - if any *nix - is taught, nearly always Linux is taught at universities. What made Linux the platform of choice for so many people in so "little" time?
These are not flames. These are questions I'd really like answers for. And maybe the *BSD communities should have them, to take advantage of that knowledge!
Nothing gained from 20 somewhat posts of the style "I like the ports tree", "Me, too!".
Start asking: "Why isn't *BSD dominating the *nix world now?" Don't answer: "It doesn't want to." Because that's not true. Hear yourselves talk. You want to! But you don't.
So why? Don't give me the USL/Novell case. In the time from 1991-1993 Linux had not become a comparable kernel, it became after.
Is it the license? The more chaotic collaboration? Linus' personality? The anti-Windows stance? The urge for people to develop something new (that lured more developers)? Why is (almost virtually etc.) nobody talking of a FreeBSD desktop?
As long as a lot of people talk about history, or past successes, or think along "I always have done it that way / have used it" nothing is won for *BSD in terms of "innovation" (it hurts to write it). *BSD needs some new answers to the Linux question, not some self-content same ol', same ol'.
If *BSD asked these questions, found the answers for them, and used them, it actually again become the most-used *nix system.
While I largely agree with your reasoning, I have a question:
;)
Wasn't it OpenBSD that (on purpose) broke its IPv6 subsystem in a release not long ago? This doesn't seem to relate well to "You know that the packet filter will play nice with the IPv6 subsystem".
I don't know IIRC, so don't flame me if not.
Thanks, that was funny and informative (and this will be moderated Redundant).
;)
OpenBSD does surely profit from the fact it was security-reviewed that much - and is still. So there is more stable, bug-free code, that doesn't need much changing. And won't changed often, because security comes first.
Linux, on the other hand, is massively performance-reviewed, or at least I get that impression. This induces many small changes that impact performance and features, and I guess this will impact security in the long run. Many small changes are hard to track for security reviewers, or at least I think they are.
My workstations all run some versions of Debian, and out of laziness, my firewall, too. If you've got book-shelf full of Linux books you get less tempted experimenting with OpenBSD, I guess.
I didn't want to diss OpenBSD, but it is hard to write a post about BSD without getting flamed/lectured/both by someone.
Thanks!
This was actually instructive and informative.