Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:05:17 +0200 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: David Jackson <djackson452@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Warning - FreeBSD (*BSD) entanglement in Linux ecosystem Message-ID: <20120822160517.36d8c2d5.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <CAGy-%2Bi8ue9r7FJsE8=0hGyjCuTAfNAo=5X46P5pnGT%2BUUQc3Tg@mail.gmail.com> References: <20120822102956.GA43074@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <20120822110356.GA91189@kontrol.kode5.net> <CAGy-%2Bi8ue9r7FJsE8=0hGyjCuTAfNAo=5X46P5pnGT%2BUUQc3Tg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:41:05 -0400, David Jackson wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Jamie Paul Griffin <jamie@kode5.net> wrote: > > > [ Michel Talon wrote on Wed 22.Aug'12 at 12:29:56 +0200 ] > > > > > > > > David Jackson said: > > > > > > In reference to the claims that systemd developers "do not care about > > > > portability", this is deceptive and misleading. > > > > > You should read the following interview of Lennart Poettering > > > http://linuxfr.org/nodes/86687/comments/1249943 > > > The amount of hubris and self confidence he deploys is really > > > astounding. I will just quote two extracts: > > > > > " LinuxFr.org : Systemd use a lot of Linux only technologies (cgroups, > > > udev, fanotify, timerfd, signalfd, etc). Do you really think the Linux > > > API has been taking the role of the POSIX API and the other systems are > > > irrelevant ? > > > > > Lennart : Yes, I don't think BSD is really too relevant anymore, and I > > > think that this implied requirement for compatibility with those systems > > > when somebody hacks software for the free desktop or ecosystem is a > > > burden, and holds us back for little benefit. " > > > > > > > That sort of shows my point in fact. There is nothing stopping FreeBSD from > implementing cgroups, udev, fanotify, timerfd, signalfd, its not like > Linux is going to enforce patents on these things, its software, and > freebsd can easily add code to support these things, and as well, systemd. A problem might be that the Linux world is constantly changing. Do you remember the HAL and DBUS problems? When FreeBSD had implemented it, it has been abolished in Linux. There are of course Linux-oriented software solutions that heavily rely on Linux-specific things to fully function. Xfce is an example. In case FreeBSD doesn't offer "low level functionality" like kernel interfaces or library calls that are addressed by that software on Linux, it will make that software unusable (or at least limited in function) on FreeBSD. Assuming that more and more software _will_ be primarily developed ON and FOR Linux, it implies that FreeBSD will soon be out of that software. Of course FreeBSD can implement those requirements. I just think it's not _that_ easy because FREEBSD IS NOT LINUX. Many dependencies will be resolved, many things added to the kernel and system libraries, and when they are in a working state, Linux will already use something else. FreeBSD puts emphasize on durability, stability, the ability to predict things, and the UNIX principle to have small functional parts that do _one_ thing, and do it well, and to interconnect those parts, instead intending to build an egg-laying-wool-milk-sow, a "one size fits all" thing that "does everything". Of course it's nice to have a system where different functionality can be "plugged into" to have basically the same purpose (e. g. "start or stop something"). FreeBSD has -- in ITS environment! -- such a system. Linux has a different system, has different systemS. The more the functional parts "the OS" and "the applications" are merged, as it is the case in Linux (where no "the OS" exists, even the kernel and the system tools are "additional packages"), the more problems this implies to systems like FreeBSD that have this functional distinction. However, integrating the OS more with the installed GUI (!) programs is massively important to attract desktop users with limited knowledge about basic computer operations. This seems to be a growing majority. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/08/fewer-and-fewer-people-want-to-know-about-computers-says-google/261271/ Not sure where this leads to... > What this is about is FreeBSDs refusal to implement equivalent > functionality as Linux has. I'm not competent to make a statement regarding the amount of work to do that, the benefit it brings and for how long it will work until the whole thing has to be replaced by something completely different. Still it would make sense to assume that it's "not that easy". > As for FreeBSDs market share, [...] FreeBSD _does not have_ any market share. It's not a commercial undertaking per se. It has usage share and even mind share. There is no way you could bring _any_ numbers regarding market share because (1st) it doesn't apply (e. g. like "Which market share has air in comparison to coal?" - stupid question, I know), and (2nd) as per the BSD license, you wouldn't even notice all the BSDs running in network gear, storage appliances, electric control units, display devices and so on. You have _zero_ chance to find any numbers here you could compare. > [...] it is vanishingly small on the desktop with > far less uptake than Linux. You mean usage share. Okay, agreed. FreeBSD is not a typically known desktop system (even though _I_ am using it on the desktop exclusively since 4.0). It's much more prominent in servers where durability and stability are much more important than bleeding edge features. You have no idea how many FreeBSD boxes are still out there, running 4.x, 5.x or 6.x, acting as a file server, and not going to stop doing so. :-) > It is also shrinking in the server area, there > is increasingly little reason to use an OS that has worse hardware support, > less functionality. Depends on what functionality you need on your server (as software feature), and what server you are actually using - standard hardware or short-life consumer stuff. > Linux is just as reliable as FreeBSD and has more > functionality by far. Again, it depends on your setting if you need them, and if you are willing to take the risk they might imply by their presence. > I have been a supporter of FreeBSD for some time, but it was becoming clear > that Linux distributions can offer much more and are just as reliable, in > addition to offering more capabilities, power and features. On the other hand, as a developer, I might argue that Linux often has inferior documentation (which is _essential_ to developers) and suffers from massive fragmentation, starting at directory layout and not ending at what initialization system to use. Of course I can understand that attitude: Why put time and money into documentation that nobody will be interested in reading it, or which would require manpower for continuous changing, and that will be obsolete and not applying anymore in few years? > all of this has > left little reason to keep using FreeBSD. Why use an OS that has less > features and capabilities when there are more powerful alternatives with > more capabilities that are just as reliable, available? Because it JUST WORKS(tm). :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120822160517.36d8c2d5.freebsd>