*BSD and linux distro wars

J

jmhet42

This is not important, but it got me wondering...

Why is it so easy (and common) to start a huge fight just by comparing distros in Linux?
Why do *BSD users not seem to bother with all that?

�e
 
Maybe because Linux is mostly about hype and jerking off about your OS and license instead of focusing on technologies and simple reasonable sollutions.
 
linux is for pll who hate windows, FreeBSD is for ppl who love Unix. >> linux ppl are haters, bsd ppl are lovers

Windows is like a woman you can easily get,
Linux is like woman you would like to date,
FreeBSD is like woman you dream about.

BSD doesn't have million forks [thank god]
all that linux madness is driving me nuts....
every day new "distro", come on.....
 
BSD may have less forks than Linux, but IMHO the only BSD worth using is FreeBSD. Being able to run on every architecture under the sun (most of which are obsolete) isn't a worthwhile goal, nor is having a "secure" OS that is secure from a good audit and nothing else; it lacks seriously in security features. Does OpenBSD even have filesystem ACLs yet?
 
Pushrod said:
BSD may have less forks than Linux, but IMHO the only BSD worth using is FreeBSD. Being able to run on every architecture under the sun (most of which are obsolete) isn't a worthwhile goal, nor is having a "secure" OS that is secure from a good audit and nothing else; it lacks seriously in security features. Does OpenBSD even have filesystem ACLs yet?
Click to expand...

OpenBSD bsd ain't that bad....
I had serious considerations to switch to it....
There are many things i love about OpenBSD


also who do you think wrote OpenSSH?
 
Pushrod said:
BSD may have less forks than Linux, but IMHO the only BSD worth using is FreeBSD. Being able to run on every architecture under the sun (most of which are obsolete) isn't a worthwhile goal, nor is having a "secure" OS that is secure from a good audit and nothing else; it lacks seriously in security features. Does OpenBSD even have filesystem ACLs yet?
Click to expand...

Do not forget that these projects share a lot code between them, for example /etc/rc system in FreeBSD has been incorporated from NetBSD, NetBSD as one and only BSD is capable of doing host virtualization with Xen 3.3, also OpenBSD detects and makes use of wifi and sound at SONY VGN-FW11E while FreeBSD is not able to use anything of that.
 
killasmurf86 said:
also who do you think wrote OpenSSH?
Click to expand...

I guess it's someone else than who wrote all the Security Advisories for it ..
 
vermaden said:
Maybe because Linux is mostly about hype and jerking off about your OS and license instead of focusing on technologies and simple reasonable sollutions.
Click to expand...
Linux works on a wider variety of hardware than BSD does. On a practical, day-to-day level Linux works better than BSD does. Linux has been tailored far more for the desktop (therefore makes a better one) and it is not for nothing that it has a larger presence in the server room than BSD.

You can say any number of things about Linux -but you can't claim it's less pratical than BSD.

It's gotta be said ...there's always been an air of elitism to BSD which has alienated both users and developers over the years -and that's part of the reason that the BSDs are marginalized. (if you don't think they are --simply take a look at how long it's taken NetBSD to even get another release out the door).

Unless you can code like Theo De Raadt, arrogance does you no favors.
 
rliegh said:
Linux works on a wider variety of hardware than BSD does.
Click to expand...

Quantity over quality. Barely functional bug-riddled drivers hacked together by hobbyists. That's what annoys a lot of BSD users when it comes to that old 'works on more hardware' chestnut, I'm afraid.
 
DutchDaemon said:
Quantity over quality. Barely functional bug-riddled drivers hacked together by hobbyists. That's what annoys a lot of BSD users when it comes to that old 'works on more hardware' chestnut, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...
There are cases where that is true, sure -but it's not anywhere close to being as universal as the BSD camp claims.

However,to be perfectly blunt -"barely functional" trumps "non-existant" any day of the week! :e

Also, at this point I'm quite positive that more a greater percentage of people hacking on Linux are actually working for IBM, Redhat and other corporations in a professional capacity. You have Apple throwing the odd bit at FreeBSD and that's essentially it.

Take a look at the number major companies that have paid staff contributing to Linux and then look at the number of major companies that contribute to Free or NetBSD (are there even any companies who submit code to OpenBSD on a regular basis? I'm guessing no, and NetBSD only has Wasabi).

Your crack about Linux only being written by ameteurs hasn't been true for the last 8 years, at least.

There are flaws with Linux, there are stability issues; but it works where BSD doesn't -and that's a lot of places, my friend.
 
People who live in glass houses should undress in the dark? ;)
 
jmhet42 said:
This is not important, but it got me wondering...

Why is it so easy (and common) to start a huge fight just by comparing distros in Linux?
Why do *BSD users not seem to bother with all that?

�e
Click to expand...

Most views on things are religious in nature :)
 
Can somebody close the *beep**beep**beep**beep*ing thread!!! Alo moderators we have a troll
problem here.
 
Linux people are trolling on each other over which distro to use.
BSD people are trolling on the Linux users over the fact they are trolling on each other over which distro to use.

I don't really see any difference.
Also, any posts, words, or thoughts spent on the subject are silly and a waste of time (Including this post).
 
DutchDaemon said:
Not for me personally. I'll buy 'BSD proven' hardware knowing there will be quality drivers for it.
Click to expand...

Spot on. When it comes to running on arbitrary, Linux is going to edge out FreeBSD. But if you spend a little time selecting hardware for the OS, then FreeBSD is going to beat out Linux.

But both FreeBSD and Linux are great operating systems, differentiated more by style than by quality. Arguing over which one is better is silly. I know which one is better for me, but I have absolutely no idea which is better for you.
 
I would probably use Linux if there was such a thing as a Linux OS. So far, all I see is "distros" which is just the result of a couple of people and their opinion. FreeBSD is an actual OS.
 
I actually think OpenSolaris has decent potential to make it in the desktop world. Hardware support and usability are improving with each release. Plus, Sun has more capacity to get ports of proprietary software than Linux does. It would make a far better desktop Unix.
 
:\

Please excuse me for posting the question....which didn't get answered BTW.
I said nothing about *BSD or Linux being better. I was only wondering if someone understood this, or had an intelligent theory.
 
Linux is not Unix. That's the best way to explain it. The GNU-influenced Linux development model does not follow the Unix model. The Unix model ensures quality software. Part of that quality comes with the consistency that an operating system offers as opposed to a distribution. Therefore, it's easy for BSD folks to attack the notion of a distro while Linux people attack Unix people with the saying "Unix is dead." It's basically a difference in development mentality. I've always said this. In my eyes, Linux is only a good platform for introducing new technologies for Unix and Unix-like platforms. Those technologies are refined as reimplementations on Unix. If you want usability, grab an appropriate Unix and run with it. (I use Mac OS X on my MacBook Pro, Mac OS X on my iMac, and FreeBSD remotely on my headless workstation.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top