Re: Why Linux instead of BSD?
From: RonG (rgesell_at_mb.sympatico.ca)
Date: 08/17/03
- Next message: rand_int: "Re: Lindows 4.0 drive thrashes all the time"
- Previous message: Cindg88_at_nospamhere.com: "Lindows 4.0 drive thrashes all the time"
- In reply to: Bill Oliver: "Why Linux instead of BSD?"
- Next in thread: Jim Haynes: "Re: Why Linux instead of BSD?"
- Reply: Jim Haynes: "Re: Why Linux instead of BSD?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 15:34:58 -0500
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 20:22:25 +0000, Bill Oliver wrote:
>
> This is *not* a religious question of "which is better." I'm
> starting with the assumption that Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc.
> are all roughly equivalent for the general user at the kernel
> level.
>
> Anyway, I'm getting the impression that Linux is starting
> to take off. My question is, why Linux instead of the
> BSD variants? It seems to me that *any* of them would
> do the trick. I'm not sure that the response of "Linux
> has more apps" is a cause or result (i.e. Linux is getting
> more apps because it's more popular).
>
> Nonetheless, it's Linux mags being sold at Borders, it's
> Linux you hear about, etc. What made Linux special.
>
> billo
Linux has more programmers working on it, BSD generally has better
programmers working on it ( but that may just be statistics : in a
smaller group it is easier to shift the mean. In a larger group which
attracts new users the mean will get shifted down ).
BSD is more stable and secure.
Linux is better on multi-cpu computers.
>From my programmers tools classes, BSD offers a more secure programming
environment with more feedback.
The reason Linux took off?
At the time BSD was fighting some lawsuits, and it scared people away.
Also, GNU/Linux allows everyone and anyone to contribute and sign their
name.
It's a combination of what Merlin, Siltala, and others have said.
Another big point is that the BSD license permits straight copying and
selling. If you want to start a company ( let's say "Blue Toque") and
wanted to market an operating system, you would want to differentiate it
from others, and keep control of the features you add. Would you use a
kernel which was under legal attack, and in which development was
jealously guarded, or would you use s system which didn't come with that
kind of baggage and where you could market the work of others for free
and still differentiate it with your own activities ( with little or no
acrimony among all the participants) ?
- Next message: rand_int: "Re: Lindows 4.0 drive thrashes all the time"
- Previous message: Cindg88_at_nospamhere.com: "Lindows 4.0 drive thrashes all the time"
- In reply to: Bill Oliver: "Why Linux instead of BSD?"
- Next in thread: Jim Haynes: "Re: Why Linux instead of BSD?"
- Reply: Jim Haynes: "Re: Why Linux instead of BSD?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
