From: "Martin Skou" <mar...@infoserv.dk>
Subject: FreeBSD or Linux and *why*?
Date: 1997/12/02
Message-ID: <6617q9$9rh$1@news.dknet.dk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 294535519
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
X-Complaints-To: use...@news.dknet.dk
X-Trace: news.dknet.dk 881074825 10097 (None) 194.192.214.250
Organization: Customer at DKnet A/S
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Hi, I have been using Windows NT 4.0 as web and mail server
for 6 month now, and I'm wondering if I should change to a Unix
system.
In case I change, which system should I choose, Linux or FreeBSD?
Any advice would be great!
With respect
Martin Skou
From: da...@dana.oz.net (Dana Booth)
Subject: Re: FreeBSD or Linux and *why*?
Date: 1997/12/02
Message-ID: <66241i$id5$2@hourglass.oz.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 294664472
References: <6617q9$9rh$1@news.dknet.dk>
Organization: Sense Networking Seattle (http://www.oz.net)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
In article <6617q9$9rh$1...@news.dknet.dk>,
"Martin Skou" <mar...@infoserv.dk> writes:
> Hi, I have been using Windows NT 4.0 as web and mail server
> for 6 month now, and I'm wondering if I should change to a Unix
> system.
When in Rome, do as the Romans. When running internet services, use Unix!
> In case I change, which system should I choose, Linux or FreeBSD?
It doesn't matter, either one will do fine.
--
-----------------------------
Dana Booth <da...@dana.oz.net>
-----------------------------
From: Jarek Luberek <ja...@swipnet.se>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD or Linux and *why*? (why don't they merge)
Date: 1997/12/04
Message-ID: <34864E6E.65EB0E1B@swipnet.se>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 295146496
References: <6617q9$9rh$1@news.dknet.dk>
<66241i$id5$2@hourglass.oz.net> <34849d47.5519698@news.amrcorp.com>
Organization: -
NNTP-Posting-User: s-221603
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Hi,
I do wonder why the free unix world has two roughly
equivalent versions.
Is it impossible for linux kernel developers to use e.g. the
networkning code
of FreeBSD (or is this to involved with the gory details of
the kernel internals ?).
Is a future merge of these unices pure science fiction or is
it possible if somebody
was willing.
I would prefer to see one strong free unix than two weak
ones.
/Jarek
From: anthonp...@mail.idt.net (TonyP)
Subject: Re: FreeBSD or Linux and *why*?
Date: 1997/12/04
Message-ID: <MPG.ef0df6399d5cd5d9897d9@news.idt.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 295274710
References: <6617q9$9rh$1@news.dknet.dk> <66241i$id5$2@hourglass.oz.net>
<34849d47.5519698@news.amrcorp.com>
Organization: IDT
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
In article <34849d47...@news.amrcorp.com>, cbbr...@hex.net says...
> On 2 Dec 1997 23:02:10 GMT, da...@dana.oz.net (Dana Booth) wrote:
> >In article <6617q9$9rh$1...@news.dknet.dk>,
> > "Martin Skou" <mar...@infoserv.dk> writes:
> >> Hi, I have been using Windows NT 4.0 as web and mail server
> >> for 6 month now, and I'm wondering if I should change to a Unix
> >> system.
> >
> >When in Rome, do as the Romans. When running internet services, use Unix!
> >
> >> In case I change, which system should I choose, Linux or FreeBSD?
> >
As only a distant observer at this point, my research indicates that the
Linux regime is more of the marketing type (flood the channels with as
much "stuff" as possible) and FreeBSD is more of the quality type (soft-
spoken elegance). Kind of like MS and Borland used to be for compilers.
If you desire quality vs. quantity and more standards vs. more choices,
choose FreeBSD, else choose Linux. I'm going to purchase "The Complete
FreeBSD 2.2.5" as soon as it is shipping.
Tony
From: acah...@saturn.cs.uml.edu (Albert D. Cahalan)
Subject: Re: FreeBSD or Linux and *why*?
Date: 1997/12/05
Message-ID: <vc74t4o47ei.fsf@saturn.cs.uml.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 295398480
References: <6617q9$9rh$1@news.dknet.dk> <66241i$id5$2@hourglass.oz.net>
<34849d47.5519698@news.amrcorp.com>
<MPG.ef0df6399d5cd5d9897d9@news.idt.net>
Organization: UMass Lowell CS
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
anthonp...@mail.idt.net (TonyP) writes:
>>>> In case I change, which system should I choose, Linux or FreeBSD?
>
> As only a distant observer at this point, my research indicates that the
> Linux regime is more of the marketing type (flood the channels with as
> much "stuff" as possible) and FreeBSD is more of the quality type (soft-
> spoken elegance).
Quality, hmmm? My research indicates that many FreeBSD users had
an unfortunate exposure to Slackware. Slackware is indeed slack.
Real quality: www.redhat.com, or perhaps www.debian.org.
> Kind of like MS and Borland used to be for compilers.
> If you desire quality vs. quantity and more standards
STOP. You can get a _certified_ POSIX standard Linux.
> I'm going to purchase "The Complete
> FreeBSD 2.2.5" as soon as it is shipping.
Redhat Linux 5.0 is already shipping. Save $20 at www.lsl.com.
Among other things, you get an X server with support for the
latest hardware.
From: Chris Waters <cwa...@systems.dhl.com>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD or Linux and *why*?
Date: 1997/12/05
Message-ID: <ckog1o7mikd.fsf@systems.dhl.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 295614372
Sender: cwaters@tango
References: <6617q9$9rh$1@news.dknet.dk>
<66241i$id5$2@hourglass.oz.net> <34849d47.5519698@news.amrcorp.com>
<MPG.ef0df6399d5cd5d9897d9@news.idt.net>
<vc74t4o47ei.fsf@saturn.cs.uml.edu>
Organization: DHL Systems, Inc.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
acah...@saturn.cs.uml.edu (Albert D. Cahalan) writes:
> anthonp...@mail.idt.net (TonyP) writes:
> > Kind of like MS and Borland used to be for compilers.
> > If you desire quality vs. quantity and more standards
> STOP. You can get a _certified_ POSIX standard Linux.
One of my biggest complaints about BSD for *years* has been their
tendency to ignore standards, except for "standards" they themselves
invented. Much like Microsoft.
I'm sorry, but when I have to struggle with a non-ISO-compliant libc
nearly a *decade* after the C standard is ratified, I don't want to
hear this *crap* about how BSD is "more standard." Makes me wonder
just what the "BS" in "BSD" really stands for!
Defining yourself as a "standard" and then measuring everyone else by
how well they meet up with *your* "standard" is the sort of thing I
expect from Microsoft, not from the Unix community.
(For the record, yes, I understand that BSD's libc is finally
compliant, but it's too little, too late as far as I'm concerned.)
--
Chris Waters |
cwa...@systems.DHL.COM | pneumonoultra- -osis is too long
xt...@dsp.net (personal) | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single
www.dsp.net/xtifr/ (web) | volcaniconi- standalone haiku.
From: Theo de Raadt <der...@zeus.theos.com>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD or Linux and *why*?
Date: 1997/12/05
Message-ID: <cwwhjt8i1.fsf@zeus.theos.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 295664056
References: <6617q9$9rh$1@news.dknet.dk> <66241i$id5$2@hourglass.oz.net>
<34849d47.5519698@news.amrcorp.com>
<MPG.ef0df6399d5cd5d9897d9@news.idt.net>
<vc74t4o47ei.fsf@saturn.cs.uml.edu> <ckog1o7mikd.fsf@systems.dhl.com>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Chris Waters <cwa...@systems.dhl.com> writes:
> One of my biggest complaints about BSD for *years* has been their
> tendency to ignore standards, except for "standards" they themselves
> invented. Much like Microsoft.
This is not true.
For instance, when we run the PCTS POSIX test suites against OpenBSD
these days we find 2 or 3 violations out of what is it, a few thousand
tests.
Meanwhile, the accept() and connect() system calls in Linux are not
standard, and do not act as one expects them to. Which causes people
using Linux to write non-standard code.
Now, the important point is this: the previous generations of BSD
which you are bitching about existed _before_ the POSIX standard did.
You know, a little research of of history would make it pretty clear
that the order of a set of events is an important piece of information
when you pass a judgement.
The time line is roughly
4.2
4.3
POSIX drafts
SunOS shows up as one of the first attempts
POSIX starts being seen more
4.4 shows up, noone uses it of course
Linux shows up saying they're THE posix operating system
4.4 systems start showing up from the free groups and they are
JUST about equally posix conforming
So, since 4.4BSD, the conformance to POSIX and other standards is
pretty close. It's as close as Linux is. Linux is no more POSIX than
OpenBSD is; I would say that 2-3 violations is pretty much lost in the
noise. We had to fix a bunch of things, but they were not major.
Come on; show me a current POSIX violation we have (you'll never find
those 2-3 violations unless you run the PCTS).
These days, I would say that modern and _maintained_ systems compare
equally when it comes to standards conformance.
--
This space not left unintentionally unblank. der...@openbsd.org
www.OpenBSD.org -- We're fixing security problems so you can sleep at night.
(If it wasn't so fascinating I might get some sleep myself...)
From: eug...@cs.umb.edu (Eugene O'Neil)
Subject: Re: FreeBSD or Linux and *why*? (why don't they merge)
Date: 1997/12/08
Message-ID: <66haop$2q6@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 296319822
References: <6617q9$9rh$1@news.dknet.dk> <66241i$id5$2@hourglass.oz.net>
<34849d47.5519698@news.amrcorp.com> <34864E6E.65EB0E1B@swipnet.se>
Organization: MORE Systems
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Dec 08 11:28:57 AM CST 1997
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
In article <34864E6E...@swipnet.se>, Jarek Luberek <ja...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>Hi,
>I do wonder why the free unix world has two roughly
>equivalent versions.
[...]
>I would prefer to see one strong free unix than two weak
>ones.
We need a little friendly competition amongst ourselves: FreeBSD is
just about the only personal operating system that can really compete with
Linux on a technical level (and vice versa).
God knows, maintaining our technical superiority to Windows isn't a challenge.
If that is all we had to aim for, we would still be bragging about how our
file system handles long filenames correctly!
In short, I would prefer to see two strong free unixes than one weak one.
-Eugene
From: cbbr...@news.amrcorp.com (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: FreeBSD or Linux and *why*? (why don't they merge)
Date: 1997/12/08
Message-ID: <66he34$dde6@george.sabre.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 296335148
References: <6617q9$9rh$1@news.dknet.dk> <66241i$id5$2@hourglass.oz.net>
<34849d47.5519698@news.amrcorp.com> <34864E6E.65EB0E1B@swipnet.se>
<66haop$2q6@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
Organization: AMR / The SABRE Group
Reply-To: cbbr...@hex.net
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
On Mon, 08 Dec 97 17:29:59 GMT, Eugene O'Neil <eug...@cs.umb.edu> wrote:
>In article <34864E6E...@swipnet.se>, Jarek Luberek
<ja...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>>Hi,
>>I do wonder why the free unix world has two roughly
>>equivalent versions.
>[...]
>>I would prefer to see one strong free unix than two weak
>>ones.
>
>We need a little friendly competition amongst ourselves: FreeBSD is
>just about the only personal operating system that can really compete with
>Linux on a technical level (and vice versa).
No doubt the NetBSD and OpenBSD people would take issue with the second
half of that; they seem fairly credible to me as possible alternatives
as well. And there's a fair bit of common code between the *BSDs.
>In short, I would prefer to see two strong free unixes than one weak one.
Agreed.
The OSes are all sufficiently stable that the proportion of "kernel
hackers" is diminishing, which is not necessarily a bad thing, and
doesn't indicate less interest, as the *number* of "kernel hackers" is
probably still increasing.
It is somewhat unfortunate that there is duplication of kernel-oriented
effort that results; fortunately there is an increasing number of
significant pieces of "application framework" that can happily run atop
any of the free unixes.
XFree86 and sundry graphics frameworks come first to mind; virtually all
FSF software runs on any of the free unixes. Programming languages and
tools, "server" software, and applications tend to be pretty portable.
There are system specific things; GGI, for instance, isn't as portable
as it hopefully will soon be.
In a large and growing community, there's ample room to "waste" some
efforts creating additional kernels (whether this be work on *BSD,
MkLinux-PPC versus PPC-Linux, HURD, or other microkernelled systems)
when you consider two factors:
a) It may only be 2% of the developers that are "wasting" their time,
and
b) If things are learned from the efforts that can get applied to other
OSes, the time isn't wasted even if [Pick-least-favorite-OS] never gets
"popular."
In *my* opinion, GNU HURD is unlikely ever to be more than a curiosity.
But if peoples' experimentation with HURD suggests some ideas for OS
features that are later fitted onto Linux and FreeBSD, then the exercise
can still have been worthwhile. There's value to building prototypes,
even if they are later thrown away.
Learning that "This is a bad feature to put in an OS" can be worthwhile,
and it's particularly worthwhile to attain this knowledge *without*
integrating it highly into production kernels and thus injuring innocent
users...
--
cbbr...@hex.net, <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/>
Windows95, Word97, Excel95: With all the criticisms of Microsoft, at
least they provide "best-before" dating on many of their products...
From: sou...@xipdev1.tampa.advantis.com (John R. Campbell)
Subject: Re: FreeBSD or Linux and *why*? (why don't they merge)
Date: 1997/12/08
Message-ID: <slrn68ol09.3isk.soupjrc@xipdev1.tampa.advantis.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 296366752
References: <6617q9$9rh$1@news.dknet.dk> <66241i$id5$2@hourglass.oz.net>
<34849d47.5519698@news.amrcorp.com> <34864E6E.65EB0E1B@swipnet.se>
<66haop$2q6@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <66he34$dde6@george.sabre.com>
Reply-To: so...@jtan.com
Organization: ISSC South Region, RTP, NC
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
On 8 Dec 1997 18:25:40 GMT, Christopher Browne <cbbr...@news.amrcorp.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Dec 97 17:29:59 GMT, Eugene O'Neil <eug...@cs.umb.edu> wrote:
>>In article <34864E6E...@swipnet.se>, Jarek Luberek
><ja...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>>>I do wonder why the free unix world has two roughly
>>>equivalent versions.
>>[...]
>>>I would prefer to see one strong free unix than two weak
>>>ones.
>>We need a little friendly competition amongst ourselves: FreeBSD is
>>just about the only personal operating system that can really compete with
>>Linux on a technical level (and vice versa).
>No doubt the NetBSD and OpenBSD people would take issue with the second
>half of that; they seem fairly credible to me as possible alternatives
>as well. And there's a fair bit of common code between the *BSDs.
Actually, there are important philosphical differences between
the two *nix systems; *BSD follows the Berserkeley way of
doing things while L*nux follows the SysV model.
Neither os these systems can _ever_ be described as weak.
*BSD tends to place more functionality into the kernel than
Linux does (look at the sheer quanitity of networking code
that has to live in the kernel; PPP is, pretty much, completely
kernel resident). While this has some advantages (especially
when you need SHORT code path lengths, for instance) it reduces
the "comfort zone" when experimenting.
Linux has better means to support external add-on daemon programs
which act on the networking code; Linux is a far more dynamic
and reactive system than *BSD (at least in this respect). New
functionality is easier to deploy on Linux so it can be challenged
and hardened before it is integrated into the *BSD hegemony (which
helps the image of *BSD's "stability").
I've worked in both. *I* can't pick a favorite for *all* possible
applications.
And calling either *BSD or Linux weak is bullsh*t; A single kernel
(like SVR4, where SysV and BSD were folded together) would then
be more easily dissed (especially since such a system qualifies
as a turkey, IMHO). No one system is optimized for all environments.
Just as Linux deserves it's own identity, so does *BSD. As long
as these two systems maintain a healthy (and FRIENDLY) competition
they will remain stronger than any of the commercial efforts.
>>In short, I would prefer to see two strong free unixes than one weak one.
>
>Agreed.
Damn straight.
>The OSes are all sufficiently stable that the proportion of "kernel
>hackers" is diminishing, which is not necessarily a bad thing, and
>doesn't indicate less interest, as the *number* of "kernel hackers" is
>probably still increasing.
>
>It is somewhat unfortunate that there is duplication of kernel-oriented
>effort that results; fortunately there is an increasing number of
>significant pieces of "application framework" that can happily run atop
>any of the free unixes.
Just remember that with systems under the challenge of the 'Net
provide a level of cyberdiversity (and evolution) you will not
see elsewhere. Because these systems are "open" they are often
challenged by hostile (ab)users- This provides most of the
selection pressure placed on branches of the systems (by branches
I'm more referring to new functionalities being added) which
then helps cull out the "bad" or "weak" ideas and reinforces
the "good" memes we accept.
How's that for authentic internet gibberish?
>Learning that "This is a bad feature to put in an OS" can be worthwhile,
>and it's particularly worthwhile to attain this knowledge *without*
>integrating it highly into production kernels and thus injuring innocent
>users...
Sounds like the way I've been thinking these days...
--
John R. Campbell Speaker to Machines so...@jtan.com
- As a SysAdmin, yes, I CAN read your e-mail, but I DON'T get that bored!
Disclaimer: I'm just a consultant at the bottom of the food chain, so,
if you're thinking I speak for anyone but myself, you must
have more lawyers than sense.
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <j...@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD or Linux and *why*? (why don't they merge)
Date: 1997/12/08
Message-ID: <348CAF2D.167EB0E7@FreeBSD.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 296465781
References: <6617q9$9rh$1@news.dknet.dk> <66241i$id5$2@hourglass.oz.net>
<34849d47.5519698@news.amrcorp.com> <34864E6E.65EB0E1B@swipnet.se>
<66haop$2q6@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <66he34$dde6@george.sabre.com>
<slrn68ol09.3isk.soupjrc@xipdev1.tampa.advantis.com>
X-Trace: 881635124 17533 jkh 206.86.0.12
Organization: Walnut Creek CDROM
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
John R. Campbell wrote:
> *BSD tends to place more functionality into the kernel than
> Linux does (look at the sheer quanitity of networking code
> that has to live in the kernel; PPP is, pretty much, completely
> kernel resident). While this has some advantages (especially
> when you need SHORT code path lengths, for instance) it reduces
> the "comfort zone" when experimenting.
Actually, and I probably won't be the only person to correct you on
this, we do realize certain balances like this in the*BSD world as
welll. We have, for example, both kernel mode and user mode ppp and I'd
say that the user mode ppp is probably the most widely used, of the two,
though a good number of folks will "prototype" their link with usermode
ppp and then transition to the slightly better-performing kernel ppp
once they're satisfied with the connection methods. New techniques, like
Predictor-1 compression or built-in NAT, are also indeed prototyped and
developed using the user mode version.
We're also working aggressively with Loadable Kernel Modules and things
like DEVFS to achieve a higher degree of modularity in the system, where
Linux certainly holds the current edge. At the same time, however, we
need to balance this against the needs of security and make sure we
don't leave the door wide open for things which can be dynamically
loaded into the kernel for the express purpose of fundamentally changing
its behavior in ways that can't easily be detected. In all things, a
balance.
And for the record, I'm also glad that Linux exists and don't think that
we'd have been spurred to go anywhere near as fast or as far if the
other *BSDs had been our only competition. Linux has also opened a
number of doors in companies who were totally opposed to the idea of
free software until some number of very vocal and determined Linux
advocates inside got a machine or two set up, this leading in turn to a
couple of FreeBSD servers going in from another set of internal
advocates and finally resulting in an eventual mixture of Linux &
FreeBSD machines inside a company that was formerly big-vendor-centric
only.
The real question for most folks isn't "FreeBSD vs Linux", it's "Free
Software vs Commercial software" and once you've got someone sold on the
idea of a free OS, be it *any* of the current alternatives, then your
battle is already 90% won and you should be happy, not annoyed that your
personal favorite free OS wasn't the one selected. Big picture, folks,
big picture! :-)
--
- Jordan Hubbard
FreeBSD core team / Walnut Creek CDROM.
From: Russell Nelson <nel...@crynwr.com>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD or Linux and *why*? (why don't they merge)
Date: 1997/12/09
Message-ID: <m24t4io8aw.fsf@desk.crynwr.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 296616673
References: <6617q9$9rh$1@news.dknet.dk> <66241i$id5$2@hourglass.oz.net>
<34849d47.5519698@news.amrcorp.com> <34864E6E.65EB0E1B@swipnet.se>
<66haop$2q6@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <66he34$dde6@george.sabre.com>
<slrn68ol09.3isk.soupjrc@xipdev1.tampa.advantis.com>
<348CAF2D.167EB0E7@FreeBSD.org>
Organization: Crynwr Software
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
"Jordan K. Hubbard" <j...@FreeBSD.org> writes:
> The real question for most folks isn't "FreeBSD vs Linux", it's "Free
> Software vs Commercial software" and once you've got someone sold on the
> idea of a free OS, be it *any* of the current alternatives, then your
> battle is already 90% won and you should be happy, not annoyed that your
> personal favorite free OS wasn't the one selected. Big picture, folks,
> big picture! :-)
All true enough. However, what Microsoft is selling is The One True
Way. For a vendor selling product, this is a BIG advantage. You know
that 1) you don't have to support the OS (unless you're selling a
vertical product, in which case you have to support everything, even
the hardware, in which case you may as well choose a freed OS), and 2)
your box only has to have one version of the product, and 3) your tech
support knows what the issues are going to be, because it's only
running on OS. Same thing (only much worse) goes for a hardware
vendor who wants a Unix driver for his hardware.
Multiple freed unices are VERY unattractive to any commercial vendors.
You'd get a lot more people using FreeBSD if you switched to the Linux
kernel. Not to mention the increase in brainpower, and increase in
talented hackers behind Linux.
--
-russ <nel...@crynwr.com> http://www.crynwr.com/~nelson | Freedom is the
Crynwr Software supports freed software | PGPok | primary cause of peace.
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | Obedient, Christian, statist:
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | you only get to pick two.
From: ro...@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson)
Subject: Re: FreeBSD or Linux and *why*? (why don't they merge)
Date: 1997/12/09
Message-ID: <66kdg4$nvq@snews2.zippo.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 296753486
References: <6617q9$9rh$1@news.dknet.dk> <66241i$id5$2@hourglass.oz.net>
<34849d47.5519698@news.amrcorp.com> <34864E6E.65EB0E1B@swipnet.se>
<66haop$2q6@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <66he34$dde6@george.sabre.com>
<slrn68ol09.3isk.soupjrc@xipdev1.tampa.advantis.com>
<348CAF2D.167EB0E7@FreeBSD.org> <m24t4io8aw.fsf@desk.crynwr.com>
Organization: Zippo News Service [http://www.zippo.com]
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
In article <m24t4io...@desk.crynwr.com>,
Russell Nelson <nel...@crynwr.com> writes:
>
> Multiple freed unices are VERY unattractive to any commercial vendors.
> You'd get a lot more people using FreeBSD if you switched to the Linux
> kernel. Not to mention the increase in brainpower, and increase in
> talented hackers behind Linux.
>
The odd thing about your statement, is that many of the "switches" from
Linux to FreeBSD have been due to Linux not working very well under
load for that user. We get alot of people, paraphrased, saying that they
didn't want to switch to FreeBSD, but finally their system works after their
changeover.
Frankly, if Linux could have somehow dropped GPL, it would have worked
much better under loads, would have better real networking, and would
generally have been better software with more mature experienced workers
on it. That is the reason that I specifically declined working on Linux;
and it still isn't as good as it would have been if I would have worked on it
for one month (and that was 2yrs ago.)
Yes, I do believe that Linux has alot of "talented hackers" working on it.
With some training and experience in about 10 to 20 yrs, they'll be more than
that.
--
John
dy...@freebsd.org
jdy...@nc.com
From: han...@stack.nl (Han-Wen Nienhuys)
Subject: Re: FreeBSD or Linux and *why*? (why don't they merge)
Date: 1997/12/10
Message-ID: <66lrcs$rld@turtle.stack.nl>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 296881435
References: <6617q9$9rh$1@news.dknet.dk> <348CAF2D.167EB0E7@FreeBSD.org>
<m24t4io8aw.fsf@desk.crynwr.com> <66kdg4$nvq@snews2.zippo.com>
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
In article <66kdg4$n...@snews2.zippo.com>,
John S. Dyson <ro...@dyson.iquest.net> wrote:
>Frankly, if Linux could have somehow dropped GPL, it would have worked
>much better under loads, would have better real networking, and would
>generally have been better software with more mature experienced workers
And if Linux had dropped the GPL, the moon would be made of of green cheese.
(mature workers? Like you?)
>on it. That is the reason that I specifically declined working on Linux;
>and it still isn't as good as it would have been if I would have worked on it
>for one month (and that was 2yrs ago.)
I'd rather spend 20 years hacking bytes to bits in the dungeons of Linux
sourcecode, cursing that bewitched GPL because it shackles me with free
software, than to be associated with zealots like you.
Arrogance is an art, welcome to my killfile.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys, han...@stack.nl | LilyPond - The GNU Project music typesetter
http://www.stack.nl/~hanwen | http://www.stack.nl/~hanwen/lilypond/
From: ro...@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson)
Subject: Re: FreeBSD or Linux and *why*? (why don't they merge)
Date: 1997/12/10
Message-ID: <66mdpr$rct@snews3.zippo.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 296960257
References: <6617q9$9rh$1@news.dknet.dk> <348CAF2D.167EB0E7@FreeBSD.org>
<m24t4io8aw.fsf@desk.crynwr.com> <66kdg4$nvq@snews2.zippo.com>
<66lrcs$rld@turtle.stack.nl>
Organization: Zippo News Service [http://www.zippo.com]
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
In article <66lrcs$r...@turtle.stack.nl>,
han...@stack.nl (Han-Wen Nienhuys) writes:
> In article <66kdg4$n...@snews2.zippo.com>,
> John S. Dyson <ro...@dyson.iquest.net> wrote:
>>Frankly, if Linux could have somehow dropped GPL, it would have worked
>>much better under loads, would have better real networking, and would
>>generally have been better software with more mature experienced workers
>
> And if Linux had dropped the GPL, the moon would be made of of green cheese.
>
I have serious and real-world business reasons for not investing much of my
time in GPLed code. I sometimes play with GPLed code during hacking or
fun time.
>
> (mature workers? Like you?)
>
How old are you, how many years of experience, and how much have you contributed
to both the free (untainted), encumbered (GPL) and commercial communities.
Please specify your time in integral decades.
>
> I'd rather spend 20 years hacking bytes to bits in the dungeons of Linux
> sourcecode, cursing that bewitched GPL because it shackles me with free
> software, than to be associated with zealots like you.
>
> Arrogance is an art, welcome to my killfile.
>
Sounds like personal invective, and there is absolutely no reason for this
behavior on the net. Frankly, you (like many true zealots) cannot accept
the fact of other cultures in this world. There are cultures that do not
like coercive and repressive licenses. I belong to that culture.
--
John
dy...@freebsd.org
jdy...@nc.com
From: e_l_...@hotmail.com (Eric Lee Green)
Subject: Re: FreeBSD or Linux and *why*? (why don't they merge)
Date: 1997/12/10
Message-ID:
<53EAC2881EF2A38F.2BAA8F4B16DB667C.16597DEF652CC6D8@library-proxy.airnews.net>
#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 297002612
References: <6617q9$9rh$1@news.dknet.dk> <348CAF2D.167EB0E7@FreeBSD.org>
<m24t4io8aw.fsf@desk.crynwr.com> <66kdg4$nvq@snews2.zippo.com>
<66lrcs$rld@turtle.stack.nl> <66mdpr$rct@snews3.zippo.com>
X-Orig-Message-ID: <slrn68tsj4.h...@pamslnx.pams.com>
NNTP-Posting-Time: Wed Dec 10 13:49:17 1997
Reply-To: e_l_...@hotmail.com
Organization: INTERNET AMERICA
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library.airnews.net
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
On 10 Dec 1997 15:51:23 GMT, John S. Dyson <ro...@dyson.iquest.net> wrote:
>How old are you, how many years of experience, and how much have you contributed
>to both the free (untainted), encumbered (GPL) and commercial communities.
>Please specify your time in integral decades.
Is that a Size 10 or Size 11 I see in your mouth?
I fail to see the deal. There have always been young "hackers" around,
they've always been too "full of themselves" according to us oldsters,
and they have this disturbing tendency to do wild and wonderful
things. Right now I'm using an entire graphics system originally
written by a bunch of college students... gosh, isn't "X" great?
(BTW, answer to above questions from me: a) some free assembler tools
for 6502 processors and occasional bug patches, b) occasional bug
patches, c) two large commercial projects and a bunch of consulting on
smaller projects, d) 1.2 decades).
--
Eric Lee Green ex...@softdisk.com Executive Consultants
Systems Specialist Educational Administration Solutions
You might be a redneck if you put on insect repellant prior to a date.
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <j...@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: FreeBSD or Linux - enough already!
Date: 1997/12/10
Message-ID: <348F7B03.41C67EA6@FreeBSD.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 297139870
References: <6617q9$9rh$1@news.dknet.dk> <348CAF2D.167EB0E7@FreeBSD.org>
<m24t4io8aw.fsf@desk.crynwr.com> <66kdg4$nvq@snews2.zippo.com>
<66lrcs$rld@turtle.stack.nl> <66mdpr$rct@snews3.zippo.com>
<53EAC2881EF2A38F.2BAA8F4B16DB667C.16597DEF652CC6D8@library-proxy.airnews.net>
To: e_l_...@hotmail.com
X-Trace: 881818369 9241 jkh 206.86.0.12
Organization: Walnut Creek CDROM
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Eric Lee Green wrote:
> I fail to see the deal. There have always been young "hackers" around,
> they've always been too "full of themselves" according to us oldsters,
> and they have this disturbing tendency to do wild and wonderful
> things. Right now I'm using an entire graphics system originally
> written by a bunch of college students... gosh, isn't "X" great?
Actually, as someone who was "there" and involved in the process, I
think the biggest contributors to X were folks like Bob Scheiffler and
Jim Gettys, not to mention the folks at DECWRL who brought us the X
toolkit and the whole "widget" paradigm, and all are older than either
John Dyson or myself. But I suppose that's not the point.
The point seems to be that there's a lot of needless antagonism here, be
it in the area of OS evangelism or ageism. One the Linux side we have
folks like Albert and Russell spouting a lot of "FreeBSD should not
exist!" evangelism which I daresay that even some of the other more
die-hard Linux boosters would not agree with and, on the FreeBSD side,
we have folks like John who doesn't, erm, always express himself very
well and has now antagonized a lot of the Linux people. We also have
me, someone who doesn't suffer fools gladly and is often prone to use a
thermonuclear weapon where a rolled-up newspaper, administered far more
discretely, would do the job just as well. It's a shortcoming I admit
to freely.
Anyway, and as I've already told Russell (more than once) in private
email, I think it's time for all this nonsense to stop since through all
this flaming, we're only tearing down what fragile alliances have been
built up through the years. We're about to do a joint session at USENIX
together ("FREENIX"), we're both involved in the 86open effort and have
otherwise been enjoying one of the more peaceful periods of our
coexistance for quite some time. Now we want to screw all that up? I
don't think so. PAX, people, PAX! I suggest that the fighters return
to their respective newsgroups and stop trying to needlessly antagonize
the other team. I'll talk to John Dyson and I hope that someone on the
Linux side will talk to Albert and Russell. As the subject says, enough
already!
--
- Jordan Hubbard
FreeBSD core team / Walnut Creek CDROM.
From: ro...@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson)
Subject: Re: FreeBSD or Linux - enough already!
Date: 1997/12/11
Message-ID: <66o10e$411@snews2.zippo.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 297157754
References: <6617q9$9rh$1@news.dknet.dk> <348CAF2D.167EB0E7@FreeBSD.org>
<m24t4io8aw.fsf@desk.crynwr.com> <66kdg4$nvq@snews2.zippo.com>
<66lrcs$rld@turtle.stack.nl> <66mdpr$rct@snews3.zippo.com>
<53EAC2881EF2A38F.2BAA8F4B16DB667C.16597DEF652CC6D8@library-proxy.airnews.net>
<348F7B03.41C67EA6@FreeBSD.org>
Organization: Zippo News Service [http://www.zippo.com]
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
In article <348F7B03...@freebsd.org>,
"Jordan K. Hubbard" <j...@FreeBSD.org> writes:
> Eric Lee Green wrote:
>> I fail to see the deal. There have always been young "hackers" around,
>> they've always been too "full of themselves" according to us oldsters,
>> and they have this disturbing tendency to do wild and wonderful
>> things. Right now I'm using an entire graphics system originally
>> written by a bunch of college students... gosh, isn't "X" great?
>
>....
>
> The point seems to be that there's a lot of needless antagonism here, be
> it in the area of OS evangelism or ageism. One the Linux side we have
> folks like Albert and Russell spouting a lot of "FreeBSD should not
> exist!" evangelism which I daresay that even some of the other more
> die-hard Linux boosters would not agree with and, on the FreeBSD side,
> we have folks like John who doesn't, erm, always express himself very
> well and has now antagonized a lot of the Linux people.
>
Actually, Jordan, I have expressed myself very well in this discussion. I
am saying things that some people just don't want to hear, and am being
quoted out of context, or very purposely misrepresented with the purpose
of spin.
The sad thing is that we are suffering excessive intolerance on the part
of certain individuals who are trying to make others look bad by being
so evangelical as to take a public position that nothing else should
exist except Linux. Those people should keep that in their bedrooms
where it belongs, or perhaps worship it on Sundays (or whatever their
Sabbath is.) :-).
Sadly, we will be hearing that Linus invented the computer, if this continues
on much longer. :-(.
--
John
dy...@freebsd.org
jdy...@nc.com
From: Colonel Panic <lo...@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD or Linux - enough already!
Date: 1997/12/11
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.971211204517.608B-100000@localhost.localdomain>
#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 297470242
References: <6617q9$9rh$1@news.dknet.dk> <348CAF2D.167EB0E7@FreeBSD.org>
<m24t4io8aw.fsf@desk.crynwr.com> <66kdg4$nvq@snews2.zippo.com>
<66lrcs$rld@turtle.stack.nl> <66mdpr$rct@snews3.zippo.com>
<53EAC2881EF2A38F.2BAA8F4B16DB667C.16597DEF652CC6D8@library-proxy.airnews.net>
<348F7B03.41C67EA6@FreeBSD.org> <66o10e$411@snews2.zippo.com>
X-Sender: michael@localhost.localdomain
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016
Reply-To: lo...@teleport.com
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
On 11 Dec 1997, John S. Dyson wrote:
> Actually, Jordan, I have expressed myself very well in this discussion. I
> am saying things that some people just don't want to hear, and am being
> quoted out of context, or very purposely misrepresented with the purpose
> of spin.
> The sad thing is that we are suffering excessive intolerance on the part
> of certain individuals who are trying to make others look bad by being
> so evangelical as to take a public position that nothing else should
> exist except Linux. Those people should keep that in their bedrooms
> where it belongs, or perhaps worship it on Sundays (or whatever their
> Sabbath is.) :-).
Indeed, coming from a guy who has expressed contempt for the linux OS
and by extension, for its users ... this really made me laugh.
> Sadly, we will be hearing that Linus invented the computer, if this continues
> on much longer. :-(.
The unix OS was conceived and developed in the late 1960s and was an
operational inhouse system at Bell Labs by 1971. The system was made
public in 1975. Thus, there are almost 30 years of development built
into modern unix systems.
The linux OS was conceived in the late 1980s by a university student
who put it forth as a public project in 1990. Thus, it has, if we are
generous, 10 years of development built into it.
Mr. Dyson's contention has been that linux is a poor OS developed by
inferior programmers; and his reasoning for this judgement (aside from
the fact that he himself did not work on it), is that linux developers
did not do in 10 years what it took 30 years for unix developers to
do.
While Mr. Dyson belittles the work of Linus Torvalds, et al, and
praises himself to the skies -- "realistically," of course -- I hope I
may be excused if I do not put him in the category of Thompson,
Ritchie and Bourne. In other words, while Linus did not invent the
computer, neither did Mr. Dyson invent unix. (He may disagree with me
on that, I fear.) I believe he would do well to recall the words of a
famous scientist: "If I have seen farther than other men, it is
because I have stood on the shoulders of giants."
After reading through this whole long thread, I really have only one
question left: just how many lemons <do> you suck a day, Mr. Dyson?
mp
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
| Linux 2.0.32 -> AMD 5x86-133 | pgpk -a finger://teleport.com/looie |
+=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
| Michael Powe lo...@teleport.com |
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
From: ro...@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson)
Subject: Re: FreeBSD or Linux - enough already!
Date: 1997/12/12
Message-ID: <66qlfm$ho0@snews3.zippo.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 297488787
References: <6617q9$9rh$1@news.dknet.dk> <348CAF2D.167EB0E7@FreeBSD.org>
<m24t4io8aw.fsf@desk.crynwr.com> <66kdg4$nvq@snews2.zippo.com>
<66lrcs$rld@turtle.stack.nl> <66mdpr$rct@snews3.zippo.com>
<53EAC2881EF2A38F.2BAA8F4B16DB667C.16597DEF652CC6D8@library-proxy.airnews.net>
<348F7B03.41C67EA6@FreeBSD.org> <66o10e$411@snews2.zippo.com>
<Pine.LNX.3.96.971211204517.608B-100000@localhost.localdomain>
Organization: Zippo News Service [http://www.zippo.com]
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.971211204517.608B-100000@localhost.localdomain>,
Colonel Panic <lo...@teleport.com> writes:
>
>> Sadly, we will be hearing that Linus invented the computer, if this continues
>> on much longer. :-(.
>
> The unix OS was conceived and developed in the late 1960s and was an
> operational inhouse system at Bell Labs by 1971. The system was made
> public in 1975. Thus, there are almost 30 years of development built
> into modern unix systems.
>
I used to work at AT&T. I know the entire story. In fact, I have worked
at AT&T for a big part of the time that you mention above. It was really
neat when we had the source code floating around all of the time, able
to hack modifications of an existing codebase. It is the free U**X
clones that allow that again.
>
> Mr. Dyson's contention has been that linux is a poor OS developed by
> inferior programmers; and his reasoning for this judgement (aside from
> the fact that he himself did not work on it), is that linux developers
> did not do in 10 years what it took 30 years for unix developers to
> do.
>
The Linux developers reimplemented an OS that took more than 30yrs to
develop. There is alot of CS history before the late '80s. If you have
read my postings carefully, I have said that *we* have taken an existing
code base. Linux has chosen the path of "not invented here." Recognize
also, that the smallest part of programming is coding from a specification.
There already is a U**X specification (both formal and informal), with lots
of example source code out there. So, yep, Linux is not responsible
for the 30+ years of computer (and more specifically UNIX) software
development. The various Linux developers would have been silly
if they didn't use existing literature for input into their design process.
In fact, I KNOW that they have used the BSD source code for the basis of
alot of their code.
If you think that the above is untrue, then what is true?
>
> While Mr. Dyson belittles the work of Linus Torvalds, et al, and
> praises himself to the skies -- "realistically," of course -- I hope I
> may be excused if I do not put him in the category of Thompson,
> Ritchie and Bourne.
>
Wrong. That is a misstatement of the facts. Remember, the invention
has happened over many years, and much of it has happened in BSD lineage.
Linux is an obvious reimplementation. You infer value judgement, where
there is none. It is in your mind. Grep the Linux kernel for "breada"...
who would make that name up? Of course, it comes from the original
usage in the U**X sources. That is only a very simple example of
the reimplementation phenomena. We have used the symbol name also, for almost
the same reason.
Please show the quotes where *I* have said that Linux is a terrible OS. In
retrospect, it was a mistake to waste the effort, reimplementing
code that didn't need all that much work, and could have been subsumed
into a codebase with whatever restrictive license the developers want.
(GPL is the license that makes it difficult to accomodate the BSD license,
because it says that you cannot add any more terms than what GPL specifies.)
My guess is that Linus wanted to practice implementing a new kernel, and it
just happened to take-off, and he chose a unix API (which was already pretty
much defined)... But who cannot implement a kernel? Again, there is no
value judgement, it is only obvious.
There are areas where Linux doesn't perform or work as well as FreeBSD,
and numerous individuals have testified to that. Some, but not all, of the
reason is the years I have spent on the code. There are other developers who
also have spent as much or more time on the codebase, including the original
BSD developers. Where is it that I have taken more credit than is simply
due? Can't Linus take credit for his work also?
I have chosen not to work on Linux due to licensing terms, and frankly the
zealotry is also part of the reason (and the reason that I could not come
to terms with the "recruiter.")
--
John
dy...@freebsd.org
jdy...@nc.com
From: Colonel Panic <lo...@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD or Linux - enough already!
Date: 1997/12/13
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.971212212607.2701B-100000@localhost.localdomain>
X-Deja-AN: 297794054
References: <6617q9$9rh$1@news.dknet.dk> <348CAF2D.167EB0E7@FreeBSD.org>
<m24t4io8aw.fsf@desk.crynwr.com> <66kdg4$nvq@snews2.zippo.com>
<66lrcs$rld@turtle.stack.nl> <66mdpr$rct@snews3.zippo.com>
<53EAC2881EF2A38F.2BAA8F4B16DB667C.16597DEF652CC6D8@library-proxy.airnews.net>
<348F7B03.41C67EA6@FreeBSD.org> <66o10e$411@snews2.zippo.com>
<Pine.LNX.3.96.971211204517.608B-100000@localhost.localdomain>
<66qlfm$ho0@snews3.zippo.com>
X-Sender: michael@localhost.localdomain
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016
Reply-To: lo...@teleport.com
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
On 12 Dec 1997, John S. Dyson wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.971211204517.608B-100000@localhost.localdomain>,
> Colonel Panic <lo...@teleport.com> writes:
> > Mr. Dyson's contention has been that linux is a poor OS developed by
> > inferior programmers; and his reasoning for this judgement (aside from
> > the fact that he himself did not work on it), is that linux developers
> > did not do in 10 years what it took 30 years for unix developers to
> > do.
> The Linux developers reimplemented an OS that took more than 30yrs to
> develop. There is alot of CS history before the late '80s. If you have
> read my postings carefully, I have said that *we* have taken an existing
> code base. Linux has chosen the path of "not invented here." Recognize
> also, that the smallest part of programming is coding from a specification.
Linux is an OS designed from the start for the x86 architecture and
subsequently ported to others. Certain interesting structural and
theoretical design decisions were based on prior developments of unix.
Something that seems to be overlooked here is that linux is not unix
- -- and that the fact that it takes some of its design from unix should
not be allowed to obscure this important fact.
> There already is a U**X specification (both formal and informal), with lots
> of example source code out there. So, yep, Linux is not responsible
> for the 30+ years of computer (and more specifically UNIX) software
> development. The various Linux developers would have been silly
> if they didn't use existing literature for input into their design process.
> In fact, I KNOW that they have used the BSD source code for the basis of
> alot of their code.
That's not really the point, though, is it? The point is, linux is a
"unix clone" developed specifically for the x86 and its development is
guided, not only by theoretical concerns, but by the practical
concerns of the millions of PC users -- their hardware, their
peripherals, their uses. The linux development team is developing, as
fast as possible, a system that will be used and usable by as many
people as possible. This is "market research" with a vengeance.
This is also in direct opposition to the development program at
freeBSD, which, as far as I can see, is still basically a commercial
product, intended for a commercial market.
> Please show the quotes where *I* have said that Linux is a terrible OS. In
> retrospect, it was a mistake to waste the effort, reimplementing
> code that didn't need all that much work, and could have been subsumed
> into a codebase with whatever restrictive license the developers want.
> (GPL is the license that makes it difficult to accomodate the BSD license,
> because it says that you cannot add any more terms than what GPL specifies.)
Please show the quote where I said that you said linux was 'terrible'
OS. What you have said, over and over again, is that it is an
'inferior' OS, e.g.:
"Frankly, if Linux could have somehow dropped GPL, it would have worked
much better under loads, would have better real networking, and would
generally have been better software with more mature experienced workers
on it. That is the reason that I specifically declined working on Linux;
and it still isn't as good as it would have been if I would have worked on it
for one month (and that was 2yrs ago.)"
I think you falsely assume that everyone working under the GNU license
is an ignorant nincompoop and that all "experienced" developers shun
it. Admittedly, I know only a handful of GPL developers, but they're
all in their 40s & have 20+ years experience. They know their jobs
and they're good at them.
> My guess is that Linus wanted to practice implementing a new kernel, and it
> just happened to take-off, and he chose a unix API (which was already pretty
> much defined)... But who cannot implement a kernel? Again, there is no
> value judgement, it is only obvious.
Linux is based originally on minix, the OS that Andrew Tanenbaum wrote
as a design and test module for his university courses in OS design.
Minix itself is a kind of "mini-unix." That is to say, that
Tanenbaum's theoretical basis for OS design begins from or is based on
some of the unix design ideas -- viz, that the OS should buffer the
programmer & user from the hardware, implement processes, use a
command interpreter or shell, &c. From what I have read, Torvalds
started from the ground up, writing his own device drivers &c. It was
only after he had a very basic operational system that he offered it
up publicly, as "something you might want to look at."
> I have chosen not to work on Linux due to licensing terms, and frankly the
> zealotry is also part of the reason (and the reason that I could not come
> to terms with the "recruiter.")
This turned out to be a good discussion for me because I went out and
spent some time looking around at various aspects of these issues.
The 20 minutes or so I spent at the freeBSD website this morning
before going to work were a complete turnoff. It's clear that a goal
of Mr. Hubbard in his comments, is to discourage readers from using
GNU software. Every time I saw gnu mentioned, it was with a snide
remark attached about the GPL. There's clearly some kind of a problem
at the freeBSD unit with Stallman, the FSF -- I don't know. Whatever
it is, I want nothing to do with it.
The preamble to the GPL states:
" When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if
you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it."
It is not my concern that you have an objection to being prevented
from denying to the user the rights stated in the above paragraph. It
is my concern when your advertising falsely portrays this protection
as somehow being a bad thing for users, that somehow, GNU software is
not the best, but it's the only thing available; and worse, in my
opinion, your web page clearly means to imply that using GNU software
is a "necessary evil." It is certainly a bad thing for people who
want to make money off the users -- and possibly a bad thing for
consultants who want to make a profit off what the user doesn't know.
If it wasn't for the GPL, there would be no freeBSD. I don't doubt
that you believe that the world would be better off if the GNU Project
and the FSF would just disappear. But you're wrong. GNU software,
much of it top-of-the-line, got that way because developers knew that
no one could successfully bootleg their work into a commercial
enterprise -- it was legally protected.
Your repeated complaints about "restrictions" and claims of concern
for free software ring hollow when one realizes just what those
onerous restrictions actually are.
Ironically, GCC actually has (or had at one time) code written at
AT&T, which used it as part of an R&D project. Under the BSD license,
AT&T would simply have kept the "proprietary" code to itself & no
other users would have been allowed to benefit from the enhancement.
The FreeBSD Group seems to be living in some kind of dream world. An
hour or so spent cruising through magazine databases earlier this
evening turned up 120 references to linux ... and 6 references to
FreeBSD. In November, 1996, PC Week asked users to respond to a
survey about use of free software in their companies/organizations.
100 people answered -- 75 of them used linux; 25 used FreeBSD. All
were enthusiastic about the operation of their system. When a guy
from Arkansas writes that he was able to network his entire school
district with linux & that it works "beautifully," -- I don't know why
I should disbelieve him. And I don't understand why The FreeBSD Group
refuses to take him seriously. You guys seem to be so wrapped up in
the idea that linux users are basically a bunch of wanks, even cold
facts can't slap you out of it.
My look-around today seemed to establish pretty clearly the dividing
line between the two systems. I don't see that there's any real
competition between the two, except possibly in one respect. A lot of
so-called linux activists have their heads in a place where the sun
don't shine; and there's a lot of FreeBSD'ers right along side 'em.
Frankly, in that position, I can't tell one from the other. They all
look equally stupid to me.
I do know one thing for sure: I myself am not going to buy or install
software from a group of individuals who never miss a chance to piss
on the GNU project.
mp
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
| Linux 2.0.32 -> AMD 5x86-133 | pgpk -a finger://teleport.com/looie |
+=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
| Michael Powe lo...@teleport.com |
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <j...@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD or Linux - enough already!
Date: 1997/12/13
Message-ID: <349268C9.15FB7483@FreeBSD.org>
X-Deja-AN: 297813040
References: <6617q9$9rh$1@news.dknet.dk> <348CAF2D.167EB0E7@FreeBSD.org>
<m24t4io8aw.fsf@desk.crynwr.com> <66kdg4$nvq@snews2.zippo.com>
<66lrcs$rld@turtle.stack.nl> <66mdpr$rct@snews3.zippo.com>
<53EAC2881EF2A38F.2BAA8F4B16DB667C.16597DEF652CC6D8@library-proxy.airnews.net>
<348F7B03.41C67EA6@FreeBSD.org> <66o10e$411@snews2.zippo.com>
<Pine.LNX.3.96.971211204517.608B-100000@localhost.localdomain>
<66qlfm$ho0@snews3.zippo.com>
<Pine.LNX.3.96.971212212607.2701B-100000@localhost.localdomain>
To: lo...@teleport.com
X-Trace: 882010305 17228 jkh 206.86.0.12
Organization: Walnut Creek CDROM
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
[posted & mailed]
Colonel Panic wrote:
> Linux is an OS designed from the start for the x86 architecture and
> subsequently ported to others. Certain interesting structural and
> theoretical design decisions were based on prior developments of unix.
> Something that seems to be overlooked here is that linux is not unix
> - -- and that the fact that it takes some of its design from unix should
> not be allowed to obscure this important fact.
Which is an important fact and I agree with you and, in fact, was
reading this entire posting of yours with the general impression of
"Hmm, this guy's not so bad! He's lucid, he seems to make his points
without hyperbole or invective and, even if I don't agree with every
position he states, I can at least say that the time I invested in
reading this was worth it."
That was the impression, at least, until I ran into the following like a
Cessna 150 striking high-tension power lines:
> This turned out to be a good discussion for me because I went out and
> spent some time looking around at various aspects of these issues.
> The 20 minutes or so I spent at the freeBSD website this morning
> before going to work were a complete turnoff. It's clear that a goal
> of Mr. Hubbard in his comments, is to discourage readers from using
> GNU software. Every time I saw gnu mentioned, it was with a snide
> remark attached about the GPL. There's clearly some kind of a problem
> at the freeBSD unit with Stallman, the FSF -- I don't know. Whatever
> it is, I want nothing to do with it.
Whoa! At this point we left the road of "indignant rebuttal" and
swerved suddenly into the quicksand of "raving paranoia" I was
completely nonplussed by this paragraph, I can tell you that, and went
immediately to a cached version of our web pages in search of whatever
text there might be which could possibly set you off like that. I found
only 2 references, one in the FreeBSD Handbook and one in the FAQ.
In http://www.freebsd.org/handbook/contrib.html
section 17.2.4: "New code or major value added packages", I state:
"This [The GPL] license is not quite as popular with us due to the
amount of extra effort demanded of anyone using the code for commercial
purposes, but given the sheer quantity of GPL'd code we currently
require (compiler, assembler, text formatter, etc) it would be silly to
refuse additional contributions under this license."
Now maybe that raised your hackles a little, but geeze, I'm really no
more than stating something that even RMS would agree on (it takes extra
effort to dual-license stuff that you want to release under both GPL and
commercial licenses), and I even go so far as to make it pretty clear
that we're not *adamant* about it and use quite a bit of GPL code
already. My personal opinion of the GPL is also nowhere near as
vitriolic as you paint it - just look at any of the old X contributed
software collections (R4/R5) and you'll find various things I've written
there over the years, all under the GPL. Just because the GPL does not
suit my purposes now doesn't mean I've decided it's something to be
despised and scorned - the last guy to flame the GPL was John, not me,
so go yell at him or something. :-)
Now to be fair, in the FAQ, which was written more in haste than care,
there is indeed:
http://www.freebsd.org/FAQ/FAQ4.html#4
section 1.3: "What are the goals of FreeBSD?" where I state, with
perhaps less political sensitivity than I could have, the following:
"The goals of the FreeBSD Project are to provide software that may be
used for any purpose and without strings attached. Many of us have a
significant investment in the code (and project) and would certainly not
mind a little financial renumeration now and then, but we're definitely
not prepared to insist on it. We believe that our first and foremost
"mission" is to provide code to any and all comers, and for whatever
purpose, so that the code gets the widest possible use and provides the
widest possible benefit. This is, we believe, one of the most
fundamental goals of Free Software and one that we enthusiastically
support.
That code in our source tree which falls under the GNU Public License
(GPL) or GNU Library Public License (GLPL) comes with slightly more
strings attached, though at least on the side of enforced access rather
than the usual opposite. Due to the additional complexities that can
evolve in the commercial use of GPL software, we do, however, endeavor
to replace such software with submissions under the more relaxed BSD
copyright whenever possible."
Now I can see how _some_ folks might read this as a big "f**k you!" to
the GPL but, if so, then that's truly an overreaction and they'd
definitely be failing to take it in context. Even you stated in your
own message that you considered FreeBSD to be a "commercial product"
and, while that might not be precisely true in the strictest sense of
commerce (we do give it away, after all), it is true enough in being how
we're trying to *focus* the product and that has certain ramifications.
One way in which we are trying to be "commericial friendly" is in being
as careful as possible about about keeping our licensing terms as
straight as possible and the more relaxed the better (simply less work).
Like I said in the quoted text, the only goal here is for our software
TO BE USED and that means dispensing with as much of the legalese as
possible. If it weren't for potential liability reasons, I'd be
releasing everything of mine into the public domain and urging other
project members to do the same. As it is, we've at least managed to
agree on a newer, even simpler BSD copyright which has shaved off the
last 2 clauses since, quite honestly, what people print in their
documentation is up to them. :-)
In any case, that's why we'd naturally favor a BSD copyrighted utility
over a GNU one if we had a choice and that's all I meant when I said
that we "endeavor to replace such software whenever possible." It was
possibly not the most Politically Correct way to say it, but that's the
pain software-engineering truth of it and I in no way meant to imply
that the software released under said license was in any way inferior or
otherwise "not the best", as you put it, because of this.
This is not just an abstract issue for us either. Companies like
Whistle Communications (the InterJet) and others among their many
competitors are using FreeBSD in essentially embedded applications where
they don't want to have to think about shipping the source code to some
customer who suddenly decides that he wants to know how the box works
inside. The whole point of the box was to try and *hide* that part of
the picture in the first place! :) Our current source structure allows
them to ship a minimal system that doesn't need a compiler toolchain or
any of the GPL'd libraries, utilities or kernel features and bingo,
their lawyer is suddenly much happier and not sweating so hard since the
BSD license doesn't really address him so much as the developers ("don't
say you wrote this, you guys!") The GPL, by contrast, terrifys the crap
out of your typical corporate lawyer and I've seen it happen personally.
:)
**That's not to say that I hate the GPL**
Anything which scares the crap out of lawyers can't be all bad, after
all, it's just that it's not what I want to do today. I can totally get
behind the concept of writing software which constitutes a sort of
"uncorruptable brain trust" and is passed from generation to generation
of programmers like some set of indian legends, don't get me wrong, and
I have spent real time in contributing software to that effort to show
that this is an important idea which I support. Now, however, I want to
go write some software which can be used for anything and everything
just to see what it does freely or commercially, and I don't see these
two goals as mutually exclusive at all. I certainly don't see it as
proof positive that I'm a GPL hater now and frankly, all I know for sure
is that this:
> I do know one thing for sure: I myself am not going to buy or install
> software from a group of individuals who never miss a chance to piss
> on the GNU project.
Is clearly the sign of someone in dire, dire need of a vacation.
Dude, go. Go before you become a danger to yourself and others! :-)
--
- Jordan Hubbard
FreeBSD core team / Walnut Creek CDROM.
From: "Brian" <brian_t...@rocketship.com>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD or Linux - enough already!
Date: 1997/12/13
Message-ID: <66uoca$95f@van1s03.cyberion.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 297910788
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <6617q9$9rh$1@news.dknet.dk> <348CAF2D.167EB0E7@FreeBSD.org>
<m24t4io8aw.fsf@desk.crynwr.com> <66kdg4$nvq@snews2.zippo.com>
<66lrcs$rld@turtle.stack.nl> <66mdpr$rct@snews3.zippo.com>
<53EAC2881EF2A38F.2BAA8F4B16DB667C.16597DEF652CC6D8@library-proxy.airnews.net>
<348F7B03.41C67EA6@FreeBSD.org> <66o10e$411@snews2.zippo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
Organization: English Bay
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Hello Linux & FreeBSD Advocates Alike:
I primarily inhabit the Linux NGs and have done the majority of my
Unix-like education with a multitude of Linux distributions. (my
eclectic MB bios appears to have a problem with FreeBSD 2.2.2)
When I first contacted some folks at freebsd.org with some really
tactless questions and statements of fact (in my always sooo humble
way) I was greeted with courtesy and temperance. The folks that
communicated with me explained in plain language how to overcome some
problems and when I failed to twig on the solution, they employed even
simpler language while taking personal responsibility for my
misunderstanding (I was thick as a brick). I have communicated with
some of the FreeBSD individuals who appear in this thread and also
found them helpful and courteous to a fault despite the fact I was an
obvious newbie to unix and Linux.
I have tremendous personal respect for the FreeBSD creative group as a
whole as I do for Linus Torvalds and the many contributors that have
made Linux what it is. The constant trolling by some individuals can
be a cause for light humor amongst our groups and a competitive spirit
can be healthy between the FreeBSD and Linux communities as it is
between the divergent Linux distributions (RedHat v Slackware v
Debian). We all appear to share an abiding love for unix and
unix-like systems.
My point is that on occasion post and counterpost can quickly
degenerate to acrimony and abuse. Let us not allow these threads and
posts to degenerate into a W95-MacOS religious war. Our OSs are an
open book for all the world to see - anybody who cares to can
download, tear apart and analyze reams of code if they care to. I have
infinitely more faith in the collective genius of the unix/unix-like
community than in the tastefully compartmented halls of
MS/Apple/IBM/Novel.
I have no axe to grind with any of the aforementioned companies
including the much demonized MS - I am betting that server technology
is the new target for operating systems and that the open
unix/unix-like OSs are way ahead in price/functionality.
Competitive cooperation is the keyword and future for the FreeBSD and
Linux communities.
Regards,
Brian