From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jun 1 8:47:54 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from obie.softweyr.com (unknown [204.68.178.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDD6C14E08 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 08:47:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from softweyr.com (homer.softweyr.com [204.68.178.39]) by obie.softweyr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA16556; Tue, 1 Jun 1999 09:46:14 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Message-ID: <37540045.8836986@softweyr.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 09:46:13 -0600 From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr LLC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bill Huey Cc: David Scheidt , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Kernel config script References: <199905312250.PAA00420@mag.ucsd.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Bill Huey wrote: > > > Inter-UNIX rivalries are one of things that has kept unix healthy for so > > long. Linux tends to pick up most of the 3L1t3 dudez, who don't know > > You must be joking me. Just about every other systems person I've talked > to in past 5 years, (including me) would highly disagree with that citing > that Unix fragementation is the main reason why Unix isn't more successful > commericially. No, he isn't joking, and you are making the mistake of equating commercial success with health. That leads to systems like WinNT, which is obviously much more commercially successful than any UNIX. (This isn't true, by the way, but I defy you to learn that from the popular press.) > Linux can be cited as the main unifying force propelling > Unix's come back. This of course assumes that one buys into the notion > that NT would obsolete Unix in a few years, which I never did in the first > place. Linux can be cited as any damn thing you please, when you're quoting yourself or a bunch of Linux fanatics. That certainly doesn't make it so. > It's doing so by unifying various fragmented group of people and is the main > movement forcing folks like Apple release their source code publically to > other devs. It's doing so by the exact same mentality that Microsoft has brought us through the years: least common denominator functionality that runs on the widest array of garbage hardware. > This is a very powerfully set of indicator of the Linux phenomenom and it > *must* be respected. Only if you're in this for money. Again, you seem to be equating commercial popularity with success. This is an attitude not necessarily shared by many here. It is puzzling to watch this mindset overtake the Linux crowd, who two years ago completely shunned commercialism of any sort. I for one will be amused as the commercial success of Linux becomes its downfall. > > anything but how to follow a How-To. I don't have a problem with letting > > HOW-TOs are useful and I person don't see why FreeBSD folks still talk down > to Linux folks. Even kernel tweekers that I know find those things useable. You don't understand: we're happy that Linux exists to server those users. Every Linux user is a user who isn't being raped by Microsoft. Since Linux exists to serve the less technically sophisticated who want to opt out of the Microsoft treadmill, we don't feel ANY need to help them, because Linux fits their needs perfectly and their wants and desires are less interesting to us than the wants and desires of the "technical elite." FreeBSD and Linux have always co-existed, and this is a good thing. > > someone else deal with annoying lusers. When they get a clue, and realize > > that FreeBSD has substantial advantages over Linux, then we can deal with > > them. It would be nice if there were some migration documentation. (And > > Well, the claim above seems overstated to me at this time and won't be clear > until I monitor various kernel discussions and explore/test FreeBSD. Linux > and FreeBSD have more similarities than differences from what I can tell. You haven't looked that closely. They're both UNIX-like systems that run on small computers. Beyond that, they start diverging pretty quickly. > This debate seems to artificially create a difference between the 2 kernels > that I don't really see existing except possibly with kernel memory allocation > and management. The differences seem to be created out of something emotionally > reactive than concretely tangible. You'll learn this is not true as you delve more deeply into the subject. The biggest overall difference between FreeBSD (or any BSD system) and Linux is in depth. Linux is a relatively new system, and has still had relatively few design cycles under it's belt, and still contains a lot of single positive-path coding. In other words, it works fine until you stress it, but when you really push it, it just returns errors instead of degrading performance reasonably. One of the beacons of the "Freenix" movement is the ability to turn castoff machines into workable computers again, but Linux often falls over with load when you try this, in situations where FreeBSD (or NetBSD) would still perform adequately. > That's what I firmly think at this time and is subject to change as I experience > the FreeBSD community. > > Like with any technology, that'll just take time to fix like any other problem > that has a competent group maintaining it. > > > yes, that *is* an offer. Who do I talk to?) Someone used to have a .sig > > that summed the difference between Linux and *BSD pretty nicely: "Linux is > > for people that hate Microsoft. FreeBSD is for people who love Unix." > > You probably don't know this but that attitude above isn't helpful for FreeBSD > nor the Linux folks. Contrary to the derogatory point of view that FreeBSD have > of Linux folks, Linux folks are *not* terribly stupid and see Linux as a valued > and legitimate variant of Unix. I certainly see Linux in this way, as happy Linux > user exploring the merits of FreeBSD for the first time. You've misinterpreted our collective feelings towards Linux. We also see Linux as a valued and legitimate variant of UNIX, for people who are new to UNIX or who don't YET fully understand what UNIX is. Once they do (*if* they do), they will end up wanting more than what Linux has to offer, and they will find FreeBSD. The feelings of the FreeBSD community, which you have already recognized, are that FreeBSD is tangibly better than Linux in many ways, and if it is perhaps a little more difficult to master, that is not a problem because those who will never master such difficulty will always have Linux to fill their needs. Those who can master it, who will eventually come to revel in their mastery, and who need the additional stability and performance, will come to FreeBSD. As I have written before, Linux is OUR most fertile recruiting ground. The Linux community is where we go to find talented people who have already made the leaps into UNIX-think and open systems think, and who are ready, willing and able to learn. Linux is invaluable to us in the way it has and will continue to grow our userbase. That does not mean we need to turn FreeBSD into Linux. We don't feel the need to burden our somewhat limited development and support resources into hand-holding the clueless newbies and the perpetually clueless, because Linux has already addressed that quite well. Let Linux teach them what a kernel configuration is, what it does for the system, and how to use a text editor, then when they move on to FreeBSD, configuring the kernel by editing a file won't be that much of a barrier to them because they will already understand what a kernel configuration is. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC http://www.softweyr.com/~softweyr wes@softweyr.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message