Quote



  • BSD is what you get when a bunch of Unix hackers sit down to try to port a Unix system to the PC.

    Linux is what you get when a bunch of PC hackers sit down and try to write a Unix system for the PC.

    BSD has a design goal, linux is the formation of hundreds of thousands of design goals all poorly cobbled together in a very hack 'n slash way.
    this is why Linus and other kernel developers tend to lash out at people who submit bad things.. they're frustrated that this multi-million line of code has 20,000+ commiters and nobody has a true understanding of all the facets anymore.
    comparitavely BSD has a culture that reenforces cohesion and integration with itself (like proper man pages for docs instead of websites), and are ran by smaller tightly knit groups.

    I think this is indeed what I learned when I managed to destroy my first Linux box within 30 seconds, after installing it (from floppies) back in around '95  ;D

    Now if only BSD made cars (no, not toasters, I know that one).

    https://www.reddit.com/r/unix/comments/2il383/question_about_the_bsd_community_as_a_whole/



  • BSD has a design goal, linux is the formation of hundreds of thousands of design goals all poorly cobbled together in a very hack 'n slash way.

    Personally, I think that opinion is a load of shit and smacks of sour grapes, like someone is pissed off that Linux took over and not *BSD.  I like both and I use both.  If Linux was such shit, how come it now owns most of computing these days?  If Linux was such shit, how come it is the dominant:

    web server
    supercomputer
    phone
    tablet
    kiosk
    embedded systems

    and on and on.  The only thing that Linux has not conquered is the PC desktop, and that space is almost irrelevant these days.

    Edit:  And I get a Smite for this???  Pathetic.  I'm not interested in OS flamewars from fanboys.



  • @KOM:

    Personally, I think that opinion is a load of shit and smacks of sour grapes, like someone is pissed off that Linux took over and not *BSD.  I like both and I use both.  If Linux was such shit, how come it now owns most of computing these days?  If Linux was such shit, how come it is the dominant:

    web server
    supercomputer
    phone
    tablet
    kiosk
    embedded systems

    If you ask me, BSD is the silent force. I do recall vaguely that was once how it was called: "BSD, the silent xxx" (can't recall how it went).

    Linux being most used has little to do with who is best. It's marketing, and crap like that. For a decennium or two we've been bugged with marketing crap about 'Linux soon to hit desktop - Unbuntu, lalalala'. Marketing crap, which of course many people fell for. And then comes in, also known from psychology, the self fulfilling prophecy. Don't admit you were wrong, and stuff like that. So I'd like to counter that argument.

    From a system engineering point of view, BSD wins a 1000 times; not only saying that as an economist, but also as a former SAP "extremely senior consultant" (there's even an official title for that, from SAP): when I worked in and for SAP, we laughed at Oracle, "ms "erp" software" and alikes; tied together like spaghetti. Not how you do systems design (to be honest: pfSense also has some things left on the table we @ SAP would far differently). To me, my first experience with Linux early nineties, and to this day on, Linux still is spaghetti. And that even goes for the much appraised Debian. BSD IS different: what it targets - works, and is smartly designed. The complaints are about what it doesn't target. Because that, 99,999% sure, won't work (even 'though the market wishes BSD's would offer it).

    The only thing that Linux has not conquered is the PC desktop, and that space is almost irrelevant these days.

    How could a desktop EVER be irrelevant? I know the f*arts in msm say that, but they are sponsored by.

    Edit:  And I get a Smite for this???  Pathetic.  I'm not interested in OS flamewars from fanboys.

    I didn't smite you, and, to make sure: I'm not starting an OS flamewar. I simply expressed my love for the BSD's. Too bad I still have to run Win7. 'Been donating to The Foundation for 15 years now, but still no simple FreeBSD on the desktop.



  • I didn't smite you, and, to make sure: I'm not starting an OS flamewar.

    I didn't mean to imply I thought it was you.  No big deal.



  • @KOM:

    BSD has a design goal, linux is the formation of hundreds of thousands of design goals all poorly cobbled together in a very hack 'n slash way.

    Personally, I think that opinion is a load of shit and smacks of sour grapes, like someone is pissed off that Linux took over and not *BSD.  I like both and I use both.  If Linux was such shit, how come it now owns most of computing these days?  If Linux was such shit, how come it is the dominant:

    web server
    supercomputer
    phone
    tablet
    kiosk
    embedded systems

    and on and on.  The only thing that Linux has not conquered is the PC desktop, and that space is almost irrelevant these days.

    Edit:  And I get a Smite for this???  Pathetic.  I'm not interested in OS flamewars from fanboys.

    PHP is popular. Heck, Windows is even more popular. I would never use popularity without taking note of the demographic in which something is popular. You may say Linux is used by a lot of sysadmins, but most Linux servers are not properly maintained, so expect the "sysadmin" to only be one in title.

    Taht being said, the Linux kernel is far superior to the dev community that surrounds it. Linus has his hands full keeping people from ruining it. We don't need Linux turning into OpenSSL.



  • You may say Linux is used by a lot of sysadmins, but most Linux servers are not properly maintained, so expect the "sysadmin" to only be one in title.

    I never said any such thing.  I said that Linux was the dominant computing platform these days.  How it got there can be debated, but for backend infrastructure it is judged on its merits because it can do the job.  As for but most Linux servers are not properly maintained, I don't have any such knowledge, nor do I think it's relevant to anything we're talking about here.

    the Linux kernel is far superior to the dev community that surrounds it. Linus has his hands full keeping people from ruining it.

    I don't know where you're getting this information.  The vast majority of active Linux kernel devs (or at least the majority of commits) are on payroll at places like Intel and RedHat.  There are multiple levels of maintainers that are responsible for specific areas of Linux.  Bad patches don't usually get through.  The hierarchy is in place such that if Linus disappeared tomorrow, everything would carry on without him.