Seriously

Status
Not open for further replies.
phoenix said:
Sigh, how many times do we have to go through this? Linux is not UNIX(tm). Nor is it even Unix. It's a Unix-clone, a work-alike, a wannabe. There is no code history with any Unix-like system. It's not even POSIX-compliant. There's a reason Linux is never lumped in with Unix stats.

AIX also is not UNIX, AIX is affectionally known as It Ain't uniX ;)
 
Once you look past all its borrowed mainframe technology, it's pretty unix-y to me. As someone that makes a living maintaining AIX servers I certainly don't feel lost using FreeBSD in my spare time.
 
I could be wrong about this because I've not been able to check for a while, but last time I did check, there are no BSD VMware Tools/drivers, but they are available for most of the major Linux distros. Why do you suppose that is? IMHO, it's because more sysadmins are comfortable with Linux because it's easier to start learning. First, I start with the dumbed-down Ubuntu or Fedora. After time, I work my way up to Debian or CentOS without a GUI, but I need to start with the Barney-style distro first. I, like many sysadmins taught myself how to use Linux by starting with the easy distros. Because there are easy distros to start with, Linux is popular in more small or medium sized IT shops. The Fortune 1000 companies can afford to hire real Unix sysadmins (and yes, I know why Linux is not Unix, so let's not mince words with technicalities). Everyone else hires people like me who were formally trained on Windows servers, and learned Linux on my own. That's an over-simplification/generalization, but you know what I mean.

If it were much more clear what the BSD learning path is; if everyone knew that PC-BSD is the beginner's BSD, then more sysadmins would learn it. Then there would be more demand for it. Then VMware would make guest OS drivers/tools for BSD's. I can & would run FreeBSD vice CentOS on my VMware servers, but because so few VMware customers demand it, there is only limited support for that.

I think that the BSD community could do a better job of making clear what the learning path is: PC-BSD then FreeBSD (or--and don't take offense--OpenBSD, who despite what Torvalds thinks, are NOT a bunch of "masturbating monkeys"). In turn, the popularity of BSD servers would grow among small & medium IT shops. In turn, VMware would support it. In turn, the popularity of BSD's would grow even more.

I've worked in 6 IT shops (all of them "medium" sized, supporting 50 - 250 users). None of them used any BSD. Because I work in a Superior Court in California, I know that none of the other 57 Superior Courts in California, the Supreme Court of California, nor my local county's government use any BSD. Many of those 65 shops use Linux. Some use Solaris. One uses VMS, one uses AIX, and one even uses OS/2. We can improve that. I'm sure we can if we just do a better job of making clear what the learning path is.
 
All the vmware tools and drivers are available in ports and on the vmware site for FreeBSD.

I go to lots of places that use Windows and not Linux but I don't think there's anything wrong with Linux because of it. I do wonder what the problem is that a sysadmin would need PC-BSD in order to get interested in learning how to use FreeBSD. It was available when I first got started but never found a need to use it and I turned out alright.
 
I have to disagree that Linux is easier to start using first. In my personal experience I have found that FreeBSD with it's wealth of quality documentation was much much easier to configure and setup that any Linux distro I have used over the years. I have also learned more about UNIX in general in the past month using FreeBSD than I have using Linux, and I'm mainly a desktop user. I'm kicking myself in the ass for not installing FreeBSD 4x when I downloaded and burned the disc all those years ago.

Wow, I don't usually participate in discussions but this one got me going for some reason.
 
Well, now that we're talking sysadmins rather than desktop users, I'll say that the "learning path" is to stay with FreeBSD, but to get yourself a copy of Michael Lucas's Absolute FreeBSD if the FreeBSD Handbook isn't enough for you.

Seriously. ;)
 
danbi said:
On the other hand, it starts with a sentence like this "Server market share of software sold through commercial channels can be measured by two methods..."

So it obviously does not even consider FreeBSD, which is not sold to anyone.

Maybe you should have kept reading the second paragraph before coming to that conclusion ;)

ta Andy.
 
I find it amazing that this argument still continues. Probably the only reason it still continues is because people in general don't remember history. Most never cared to learn it, most were deluded by promises. It all repeats :)

(some history rambling self-censored)

It is enough to note, that Apple never looked at "Linux" being the foundation of their next generation OS. That would tell a lot. Hardly anyone will buy it, that MacOS X is difficult to learn.

Linux even after so many years continues to be bunch of kludges, without well defined architecture. It may work for users, much as Windows does, but I fail to see how it would appeal to any admin.

It is true, that there is software for "Linux" that is not available for FreeBSD, but this is because of the licensing. Let me clarify it:

If you are an vendor, that has a piece of code, whatever. If you release it under the GPL license, none of your competitors would be able to use it to create competing product. They will have to publish their modifications and additions as well. Thus, you are preventing your competitors to build on your work. Perfect for the large companies, eh?

With the BSD and compatible licenses, once you publish it, the code becomes public. Anyone may do as they please with it, as long as they give due credit. Your competitors may take your code, add to it, fix your bugs, keep parts of their modifications for themselves. It was demonstrated many times, that for a software developer it is stupid to hide the code, because bugs stay undiscovered.

But this is all matter of choice.
 
Nice post. I'm glad someone brought up Apple - which is perhaps almost as good to point someone to as PCBSD. (I've never used OSX btw.)
danbi said:
It is enough to note, that Apple never looked at "Linux" being the foundation of their next generation OS. That would tell a lot. Hardly anyone will buy it, that MacOS X is difficult to learn.
There are a few other important reasons Apple choose FreeBSD over Linux, not having anything to do with design.
  1. BSD license: if you invest a lot of money into putting a good GUI on a solid foundation (FreeBSD), close the source of all your contributions, have a pile of money and a expertise at GUI design, then it will be very difficult for your competition. They will need a pile of money, expertise at GUI design, and the Apple reality distortion field to compete. And there is no head start.
  2. BSD license: You can close the source and charge money for what you started with + your contribution. This allows you to charge what the market will bear. There is no creating a CentOS with your OSX.
  3. BSD license: You still get to take and use millions of dollars of someone else's research for nothing, and charge a mint for it. Xerox PARC anyone?
The last thing they would want to do is something like Ubuntu, where you can just make a trivial change and distribute the same thing for free.
 
Even if Apple would give away it's OS + GUI for free (because they sell hardware) - why would they make their OS like what Windows is: anyone could use just the DOS part of Windows, to have the GUI load their application, or making their OS what "Linux" is: many versions, general conception of poor quality, although some are not "that" bad. Bad OS reputation will surely damage their hardware sales, or their integration efforts. Effectively sticking the label "commodity" to whatever they sell.

It is ironic, that people perceive MacOS to be only the GUI. It is the integration and fine tuning, and polishing that make it appealing. It is also ironic, that people ignore open source contributions of Apple like CUPS (and lots of surrounding technology). How many of the "Linux distributors" have contributed significant code, or technology? I may be wrong, but my belief is that GPL is severely limiting their initiative to do so.

Anyway, we now bark at completely different forest than the topic :)

sysinstall needs replacement, this is already in the works and resolved.
In any case, I believe you should try MacOS X. PC-BSD, however good the foundation and cutting-edge the technologies, has a long way to even try to compete with MacOS X for the desktop. Same goes for any Linux.
 
This thread has gone around in enough circles, wended its way through enough flames, and come back around full-circle to a sufficient conclusion. I'm closing it up now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top