Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 09:46:13 -0600 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: Bill Huey <billh@mag.ucsd.edu> Cc: David Scheidt <dscheidt@enteract.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Kernel config script Message-ID: <37540045.8836986@softweyr.com> References: <199905312250.PAA00420@mag.ucsd.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?37540045.8836986>