Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 19:50:38 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> To: "Brian Raynes" <brian_raynes@dnr.state.ak.us> Cc: <freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Prevalence of FreeBSD and UNIX among servers Message-ID: <010001c17cf4$954228d0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <00ef01c17cda$6b419760$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <3C0D0426.BEC515D7@dnr.state.ak.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brian writes: > ... I believe that the trend is to dump Solaris > on Sun Microsystems machines for Linux on cheaper > Intel machines. I believe this is a cost issue > - virtually free, with little administrative > cost difference is tough to compete with. That seems logical, but why would they choose Linux specifically? Everything I've seen thus far during my brief newbie experience with FreeBSD suggests that it is significantly superior to Linux for any kind of serious production use, and FreeBSD doesn't cost any more than Linux (perhaps less, since you don't have to purchase complete distributions). Indeed, any of the BSD clones would seem to be a better bet than Linux. Is hype alone driving the feverish interest in Linux? > I was hearing my fellow Comp. Science students > predicting Unix would crush Microsoft back in 1988, > when Windows 3.0 was in beta testing. That point of view has traditionally been common in academic circles, since students usually don't know any better. I've never even come close to thinking that UNIX would ever "crush" Windows, particularly on the desktop, where UNIX is a poor substitute for the Microsoft OS, but even today it seems that UNIX provides a much better cost/performance/reliability ratio than Windows for very large and critical server configurations. The main disadvantage to it is that UNIX requires technically sophisticated support staff, but in a large installation, that's not a problem (it might be a problem for a small business, though, in which case Windows would be the favored choice). > Now, I'm predicting their aggressive anti-customer > license control policies, along with outrageous > pricing for applications with functionality that > can mostly be duplicated for free will serve to > bite them very hard in the next few years. I feel exactly the same way, at least with respect to licensing. In fact, it was in part the recent, ominous change in licensing that came with Windows XP that prompted me to finally seriously invest in FreeBSD; I bought a second computer and FreeBSD the same day Windows XP was released. You might say that I'm just covering the bases. UNIX is primarily a server operating system, but it will do for the desktop in a pinch, and by having a UNIX system on hand, I am much better protected against any potentially unpleasant developments in the Microsoft camp. I think that many other people may feel similarly motivated to look outside Microsoft, now that .NET and XP are being marketed aggressively. The advocacy question specific to FreeBSD is: How can persons coming to UNIX be persuaded to adopt FreeBSD instead of the much over-hyped Linux? Of course, the flavor of UNIX that a person runs doesn't matter, as long as applications and drivers and the like remain compatible across all flavors; but if Linux becomes too specialized and proprietary, and too predominant, eventually people will be forced to use Linux and will be locked into it, without any option of running any other UNIX clone. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?010001c17cf4$954228d0$0a00000a>