NOT another Linux vs BSD thread

[DNAeon]

Hi, guys and girls

I'm NOT going to start a new thread about comparing Linux and BSD as I wrote in the title, but instead I would like to ask you a few questions about your opinion.

/* Just to point out first, I'm a BSD user and I'm proud of it! */

So here are the questions...

1. Why do you think Linux got so much popularity?

And by that I mean thing like that - why do not most of the manufactures/vendors do not provide drivers for their hardware for BSD also, most of them concentrate on Linux (excluding Nvidia for example and ATI which I hope will make us happy with an open source driver soon)

2. Why does not Adobe make our lives a bit easier and give us a native Flash player, instead of running it under Linux emulation?

3. Most of the Linux guys which I had a discussion with haven't even heard of BSD - isn't this a constricted outlook?

4. And why the heck I'm even talking about Linux, when I have a real UNIX?

Cheers,
DNAeon

[BSDfan666]

I'll bite..

Answer #1
Part #1: The early legal battle, USL v. BSDi.
Part #2: 386BSD wasn't around when Linus first created Linux, he's openly stated that if it had of been.. Linux wouldn't have existed.

Answer #2:
Part #1: Because Adobe/Macromedia Flash is a useless piece of trash, and they know it.
Part #2: Their internal statistics seem to indicate BSD is used by a small percentage of people.

Answer #3:
Part #1: They are obsessed with GNU, the existence of non-viral free software threatens their religious belief structure.
Part #2: Rock dwellers, they choose not to explore other alternative Unix-like operating systems.

Answer #4:
Part #1: You are questioning the decision to use BSD, the dark side is luring you.
Part #2: Secretly you're a GNU spy trying to steal our Megabytes.

Hope that helps.

[Oliver_H]

>1. Why do you think Linux got so much popularity?

Well because of legal issues as mentioned above, but partly also due less hype than in the Linux community. But do you know the NSA, DARPA, Nokia, Apple, Cisco, Juniper, ISC, Yahoo et. al.? They're all using *BSD. Furthermore Firefox 3 uses jemalloc from FreeBSD, OpenSSH from OpenBSD is used in *BSD and Linux too, Linux kernel uses many drivers from *BSD, superpages etc., Google Android uses libc from NetBSD/OpenBSD and many parts of the userland etc. pp. As I said less hype :-)

>2. Why does not Adobe make our lives a bit easier and give us a native Flash player, instead of running it under Linux emulation?

Well, ask them. Sun pays for Flash in Solaris and Flash for Linux is good for the public relation of Adobe ('we do open source too'). Linux has got less to none relevance on the desktop, *BSD has got even a fraction of this relevance only. So in the end we're talking about hype.

>3. Most of the Linux guys which I had a discussion with haven't even heard of BSD - isn't this a constricted outlook?

The less hype, the less fellows, the more quality :-)


>386BSD wasn't around when Linus first created Linux

386BSD was utter crap. Therefore we've got FreeBSD and NetBSD :-)

[DNAeon]

Originally Posted by BSDfan666

Answer #4:
Part #1: You are questioning the decision to use BSD, the dark side is luring you.
Part #2: Secretly you're a GNU spy trying to steal our Megabytes.

Ah, no way! I'm not a spy!

Originally Posted by Oliver_H

Well because of legal issues as mentioned above, but partly also due less hype than in the Linux community. But do you know the NSA, DARPA, Nokia, Apple, Cisco, Juniper, ISC, Yahoo et. al.? They're all using *BSD. Furthermore Firefox 3 uses jemalloc from FreeBSD, OpenSSH from OpenBSD is used in *BSD and Linux too, Linux kernel uses many drivers from *BSD, superpages etc., Google Android uses libc from NetBSD/OpenBSD and many parts of the userland etc. pp. As I said less hype :-)

Didn't know that Google Android was using libc from NetBSD/OpenBSD - haven't search for any info about that though. That's something new I've learned

Thanks for the answers!

[jggimi]

Originally Posted by BSDfan666

I'll bite..

You've made my day.

[Oliver_H]

For the Android stuff: http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blo...eway_to_a.html

[ephemera]

Originally Posted by DNAeon

> Hi, guys and girls

girls?

1. Linux has gathered momentum over the years but it took a tremendous about of hype (lot of half truths, brainwashing and a lot of BS) to get this far.

2. Adobe doesn't care about the BSD's because they only account for a miniscule percentage (< 1%) of the desktop market. It's not because Adobe is bad, it's probably because this is not something that is high on their list of priorities and they have a business to run.

3. http://www.freebsd.org/advocacy/

4. Oh please, let's not start with the "real" Unix arguments.

[Oliver_H]

>Oh please, let's not start with the "real" Unix arguments.

Well, why not.

http://www.oreilly.de/catalog/openso...k/kirkmck.html

It's the heritage we're talking about.

[ephemera]

Originally Posted by Oliver_H

>It's the heritage we're talking about.

Yeah, but in this day and age the Unix 'trademark' doesn't mean much at all. Unix is still important, the trademark isn't.
Even the commercial Unix vendors don't flaunt their Unix badge anymore.

[Oliver_H]

Okay but one thing is a silly trademark and another one is the UNIX history. Btw. the single UNIX specification counts even today, have a look e.g. at several governments.

[TerryP]

1.

Because it was the "geeky cool" thing back then; you could hex edit your disk into booting Linux, and build your own custom unix system on cheapo hardware, what could be cooler then that?

Because of the infiltration of geekdom and subsequent infiltration of a portion enterprise systems, for most people its "Windows, Linux, and baby Mac", unless your idea of an OS means Windows 95/98/ME/2000/XP/Vista/7

2.

Who will foot the bill? And if no one, what coders on the Flash product care to port it in their free time (this is IMHO)

3.

To many GNU/Linux users that I have met, vi is vim, Linux is the OS, Linux is the Unix, always was and always will be. To any competent Linux user I've met, they generally know that there is a difference between Linux and Unix, and usually know of a few BSDs.


4.

I assume curiosity.

History aside, FreeBSD is not a *real* UNIX, but is probably more fun then some real UNIX systems ;-)

[ocicat]

Originally Posted by ephemera

Linux has gathered momentum over the years but it took a tremendous about of hype (lot of half truths, brainwashing and a lot of BS) to get this far.

It is also quite possible that that heated Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate on the value of microkernels picqued the curiosity of many.

[Oliver_H]

Compared to today's 'fat' Linux kernel, a microkernel would be indeed of great value ;-)

[ephemera]

Originally Posted by ocicat

It is also quite possible that that heated Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate on the value of microkernels picqued the curiosity of many.

I wasn't introduced to computer's at the time but I did read it a few years later.
Yeah, that surely must have added fuel to the hype machinery around Linux.

My experience of Linux is from 1999-00. The Linux noise in the media was deafening. I don't how the Linux personalities made the sort of claims about Linux they did at the time with a straight face.

There was anti-BSD propganda going on too. Apparently, the BSD license wasn't free like the GPL, and the fbsd devel model (core team et al) wasn't really open/democratic like Linux...

[DrJ]

Originally Posted by ephemera

Apparently, the BSD license wasn't free like the GPL, and the fbsd devel model (core team et al) wasn't really open/democratic like Linux...

That's one reason (well, two reasons) that I went with BSD. It was also hard-wired into my fingers, but that is of no consequence.

[Oko]

I thought that original post was a troll and I still think this is a troll. I am surprised how many serious people posted their answers. Since we are already trolling I will post couple observations.

An average Linux user is a desktop user who is dual booting Windows and Ubuntu. He/she is primarily GUI user mostly unaware of Operating System. He/she knows about Unix as a barrel of donkeys. If, accidentally, such a Linux user stables across BSD he/she will give us lots of FUD. The FUD usually goes something like this:"Flash doesn't work, Java plugins are difficult to install, Skype doesn't work with video or not at all, and HAL either doesn't exit or doesn't work out of box". Then they will continue about lack of drivers for BSDs.
It is interesting to note that all above technologies are proprietary which seems odd having in mind the vision of founding fathers of GNU movement.
Or is it really odd that BSD sucks because couple companies see no viable reason to provide their proprietary products for BSD. No, not at all since GNU founding fathers are full of shit as their followers. The image they are trying to project to their flock has little to do with reality.

For example: http://www.softpanorama.org/People/Stallman/index.shtml

Why does Linux seem to have more drivers than BSDs? Because of their willingness to
sign non disclosure agreements with hardware manufactures unlike most of BSD people minus some minority of FreeBSD gang. Linux people are trying to lock the hardware for any other open source project much like their alleged nemesis M$.
In reality Linux owns its very existence to M$ who ported Unix to crappy i386 machines. It owns its existence to the IBM and HP which needed it to combat M$
on the commodity server market.

Linux is neither free nor non-proprietary product for the most part. Presently it is mostly product at least kernel of one proxy company called RedHat (read IBM and HP instead) which has different revenue model than M$. Even RedHat(Fedora) openly admins that Linux desktop has no future. Canonical (buntu) and Novel(SuSE) are here to prove RedHat wrong. I think they will be filling for bankruptcy soon. All other Linux distros are jokes. How many kernel commits have been done by Slackware developers last year? Compare that to RedHat.

Story of GNU is even more comic. Emacs runs fine on M$ as well as GCC. As a matter or fact GCC is presently completely controlled by corporate interests. If that is not the case I am sure that SGI enthusiasts will be able to compile more than 2000-3000
which currently can compile on SGI.

Why BSD is not popular? Because for the most part with exception of Apple and FreeBSD (up to some point) doesn't care for GUI users. Those users will not benefit from BSD nor BSD will benefit from them.
Because BSD used to be a joke. Serious people in early and mid nineties were running Digital Unix, Solaris, and Irix. The only advantage BSD offered to real Unix users was its ability to run crappy Wintel hardware (that is why FreeBSD which essentially runs only on Wintel hardware is the most popular flavor of BSD).
Most present day BSD users are old Unix users who have commodity hardware. Oh wait a minute. Real hardware doesn't exist any more unless we count there three
years old SUN's blades which are as fast as P4 and cost $1000.


OpenBSD is a niche product never meant to be widely used. NetBSD is almost gone
since non-Wintel hardware is almost gone (Those who run Amiga, Atari, SGI, or even
SUN please raise your hands). Sparc 64 port of NetBSD is buggy as Hell doesn't support any hardware beyond 1998. PPC port of NetBSD is on life support. NetBSD port of SGI supports two essentially Wintel machines (O2 and Indigo). What else are there? Nothing. Everything is just Wintel junk. That is way NetBSD is only relevant for embedded devices (which is HUGE market). DragonFly actually is cool project.
It did manage the develop Hammer. Couple clever guys managed to beat 100 of RedHat engineers who couldn't even properly copy the Journaling File Systems developed by proprietary Unix-es 20 years ago. In particular comparison of Ext3 and
ZFS is laughable. Oh wait a minute Linux has a new Journal File System in the pipe line and is already better than ZFS. Sure. That is why SGI who donated that journal file system is out of business.


Ok. I am going to stop trolling now. I feel better. Count until ten Oko.

[Oliver_H]

>NetBSD is almost gone

Au contraire, after seeing NetBSD 5.0 I see indeed a very strong and healthy BSD operating system.

>DragonFly actually is cool project.

Sure, but most of the time his work doesn't gain momentum (apart from his great dice compiler back on the Amiga). ZFS is to some degree funky too, as is brtfs, XFS, Hammer. But the major difference to UFS is: UFS is _stable_ as in _rock-stable_, it's not funky, cool or groovy ;-)

>Oh wait a minute Linux has a new Journal File System in the pipe line and is already better than ZFS. Sure. That is why SGI who donated that journal file system is out of business.

Wait, you surely mean brtfs - and this very fs is from Oracle not SGI. SGI donated XFS.

[anomie]

Originally Posted by Oliver_H

Wait, you surely mean brtfs - and this very fs is from Oracle not SGI. SGI donated XFS.

I think he meant GFS.

[peenworm]

3. Most of the Linux guys which I had a discussion with haven't even heard of BSD - isn't this a constricted outlook?

This to me is incredible. I've worked for many years in BSD-only shops but I would think anybody involved with x86 unices would have at least heard of BSD.

[indienick]

Originally Posted by peenworm

This to me is incredible. I've worked for many years in BSD-only shops but I would think anybody involved with x86 unices would have at least heard of BSD.

I don't find it shocking in the least; having been doing the "Linux thing" from a young age (ca. 12 years' old) I never heard about BSDs until I was taking a look-see at distrowatch.com a year-or-so ago. I have often seen BSDs played out as, "It's like Linux but not [as good]..."

IMHO, BSDs do lag behind Linux a little bit, but only in terms of popularity and, thus, drivers. As far as stability goes, BSDs win; at a recent job interview, they asked me if I knew Linux and what I thought of it; I explained that I am seceding from the Linux world and moving into BSDs, and while there's nothing wrong with Linux, the "religion" behind Linux and the GPL aren't to my liking. On the same note as the "stability" comment; I find it terribly easy to corrupt a Linux system - you just have to poke it a few times...and they are slowly getting to the Windows-level of automation (packages and such)...and it's really beginning to show signs of suffering. The last few times I have had to re-install Linux, was because an "apt-get upgrade" or "slackpkg upgrade-all" went awry and bricked my system.