Re: *BSD

[Sean Jewett <sean@rimboy.com>]

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, L. V. Lammert wrote:

> One other, highly esoteric, reason that *BSDs are better than Linux - as 
> *BSDs are based on original BSD 4.4 code, SCO has nothing to do with them 
> <g>! Also, with OS-X and original Windows code based on BSD, BSD's lineage 
> is a tad more robust.

Couple of things.  If you look around long enough you'll find that Linux 
development started before all of the details of the BSD settlement(s) 
were made.  As such Linus is on record that he avoided the BSD's initially 
because of the uncertainty of the legality of the code.  That's a major 
portion of the reason why the BSD TCP/IP stack is/was not used in Linux.  

While I agree that SCO has no right to tangle themselves up with the BSD's 
they have indicated that if they have any success with Linux the BSD's are 
next in line.  SCO is just crazy enough to do it.  

Also, what part of Windows is based on BSD?  The only thing I'm aware of 
in Windows that has a BSD base is the TCP/IP stack.  WinNT is largely 
thought to be a decendant of VMS, if not direct in design.  

> *BSD communities are also more 'tight knit', with access to core developers 
> just an email away (beware of getting flames, however, .. be SURE to do 
> your homework first).

While I agree that they're more tight knit, I fail to see where emailing
them and getting flamed is an advantage.  I've been in plenty of flame
wars with a couple of BSD developers.  Eventually they start throwing
around the GPL is viral and other name calling (ie, hobbiest OS) that I'd
expect from Microsoft.  Don't get me wrong.  It's important to do your
homework.  I just fail to see where thinking you might get flamed is a
plus.

> We're OpenBSD supporters here, .. use it for all our servers. Haven't tried 
> a desktop yet, however, but there are a number of folks that seem to be 
> using by traffic on the lists.

This is where I find the BSD's especially the OpenBSD types most 
interesting.  I've seen plenty of flames about about RMS being the root of 
all evil and yet Theo is ok.  Nevermind what prompted the formation of 
OpenBSD.

That said, I respect both RMS and Theo.  They both have made important if 
idealist contributions to software.  The BSD's would not be able to 
compile with out GCC, we'd not get to run those compilers remotely in a 
relatively secure environment were it not for OpenSSH.  

> One downside of *BSDs, however, is a lack of 'glitz & glitter'; e.g. 
> support for 64 bit processors is just now finding it's way into OBSD 3.5, 
> .. and MP support is nowhere to be seen. Doesn't mean anything to us, but 
> it might to others.

FreeBSD has MP support does it not?  Likewise, FreeBSD runs on the Alpha, 
it's 64bit is it not?

Sean...

--
The punk rock will get you if the government don't get you first.
	--Old 97's
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
KG4NRC  http://www.rimboy.com  Your source for the crap you know you need.


-
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.