Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 00:10:24 -0500 From: "Frank Pawlak" <fpawlak@execpc.com> To: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: BSD vs Linux Message-ID: <199805130010240788.00CCE456@mailgate.execpc.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I have been watching the unfolding of recent events in the "Open Source" world and the various postings regarding FreeBSD not getting its' deserved recognition with great interest. There is a sense of a great deal of frustration with Linux getting all the press and BSD sits there like the frog waiting to be kissed by a princess and turned into a prince. The thought occurs that something is wrong here, something fundamental that goes back to the advent of Linux. I think if we can understand what that something is we may be able to get a grip on the issues and get FreeBSD the recognition it deserves. Yes, I am playing the part of the curmudgeon. Yes I expect this post to get shot all to hell. But my intention is to stimulate some serious thinking as to why things are as they are in the world of open source operating systems. What was it that attracted all the attention to what was in essence a make over of Minux, given that BSD was already in existence? It doesn't appear that there were or are restrictions in BSD on kernel and subsystem development or were there? It appears that BSD hackers as well as users are for the most part an older group in contrast to the Linux community. What was or is it that attracted the attention of the young hackers to Linux and not to BSD? That fundamental something that I am seeking is the key to the almost fanatical growth and creation of the illusion that Linux is the "cream" of the "open source" operating systems. Or, is it in fact not an illusion at all? Why did Linux, late to the game, blow by BSD like shit through a tin horn, and now is everybody's darling? Why is it that every time the question of why one or the other is the better OS comes up, even on the BSD NG, no definitive answer is given? Does all of this condense into just a matter of hackers tearing at each other's throats? There is an on going flame war over the benefits of the GPL vs the Berkeley License. I am not an expert on this issue, but it is readily apparent that the differences are significant as to which allows the greater freedom, yet the Linux hacker opts for the more restrictive license. I don't get it! A System V clone with more restrictive licensing is attracted to a group of vocal "young turks" that go on and beat the bejabbers out of a better, more mature, operating system with less restrictions on licensing. Something is terribly wrong here. Something doesn't square. The answer appears to be that when Linux was first released to the Internet community there was a lot of stuff to be hacked, and hack people did. The hackers turned into a cultist camp following. BSD meanwhile was already there, old wood, a basically finished product with a few holes to be filled where AT&T code had been stripped. For some reason the young hacker were not attracted to the development of BSD and thus no camp following developed. The story does not end there. Linux attracted no press, it was still a hackers OS. The Linux hackers published, founded their own journal, the BSD crowd did not. Until Caldera and RedHat were formed Linux was still an unimportant OS. Didn't show up on any radar screens. Slackware was there, but commercial use, no. Arises that ugly word, marketing. Marketing. That's what we are looking for. Linux is now actively marketed. There is money behind it. And now it is attracting more attention and money. Outside of BSDI, BSD marketing is a no show. We clamor amongst ourselves for more marketing efforts, and good ideas have come and gone, yet nothing concrete has happened in the past five or six weeks. The fact remains that FreeBSD is either not actively market, mis-marketed or both. I, in the recent past, got the hell slapped out of me for proposing a marketing plan to the group. I liked the pain so much that I'm going to do it again. FreeBSD Advocacy is never going to amount to a tinker's damn until those of use willing to actively work at marketing are united with the development team in common goals and objectives. Anything less is nothing more than rant secessions..... We have to put a stake in the ground as to where we are going to be in the future, set mile stones to be met to keep us on track, and then we'll have something to release to the press. The idea that the advocacy group does their thing and the development team does theirs is pure eyewash. Allow me to re-phrase that, pure horse shit. Jordan has suggested that those with a penchant for writing create a document that defines the qualities that distinguish FreeBSD from other operating systems, and from the above it appears that this is long over due. This document could well become the vehicle to attract the attention of product managers and get software ported to FreeBSD and get our just rewards. Ranting to product manager after business plans have been set will not get it done, and is very unprofessional. I have read in an article listed on BSDI's web page that they have something like 7,000 customers running over 75,000 servers. We must have at least that number, yet much commercial server software is either included in their release or is available for it. I look at this and think why! Why not us? Is our BSD different significantly different than theirs? I wonder if it is not a matter of getting in the face of product managers with FreeBSD. Past posts to this mailing list indicate that it is the core team's intention to go after the server market, and leave the desktop market to Linux. I would question the soundness of going solely in that direction. Sun is losing market share to NT in the low end of the workstation market, an it appears that there could be an opportunity to get a piece of that action. FreeBSD on Intel offers a large advantage in terms of cost and performance over NT, and keeps UNIX in the workstation market. The problem is the dearth of commercial FreeBSD apps just as in the server market. So what to do?? I am toying with the idea of getting in front of product managers and educating them to the advantages of porting to FreeBSD. The cost of FreeBSD compared to BSDI or NT would give them price and performance advantages over their competitors. This is where Jordan's suggestion could bear fruit. This is an idealistic idea, but what the hell is there in life if not idealism. In my time I have campaigned new products to market, but in candor have never attempted something of this magnitude. I am not sure how to approach product managers to get their attention. However, I wonder if installed base or product quality is what really matters in getting commercial stuff running on an OS. In the office suite arena, yes the numbers game applies, but in terms of firewalls, mail systems, development tools, CAD/CAM tools, and the like, is it numbers or the quality of the platform that matters. Is it possible to flesh out and work a plan of this nature? If we can make something like this work, it may mean and end run to commercial recognition.. It is to an extent true that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Linux is doing a great job of getting open source recognition in the commercial world, and this is to our mutual benefit. But sooner or later that friend could turn and bury us under its' glitter. I fear that process may already be under way. OK now get out the silver bullets Frank 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?199805130010240788.00CCE456>