Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:13:45 -0700 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: "Glenn Johnson" <glennpj@charter.net> Cc: "David Xu" <bsddiy@21cn.com>, <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: BSDi Acquired by Embedded Computing Firm Wind River Message-ID: <000901c0be60$bc644680$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <20010405161526.A1968@gforce.johnson.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>-----Original Message----- >From: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG >[mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Glenn Johnson >Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 2:15 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: David Xu; freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG >Subject: Re: BSDi Acquired by Embedded Computing Firm Wind River > > >I do not understand the sentiment that FreeBSD is not good for a >desktop (workstation) machine. This has been illustrated time and again. Look at the guy complaining on the list because he got a cheap NEC IDE burner that works "just great" under Linux but not under FreeBSD. Linux takes pains to support poor quality, shoddy hardware. There's been other examples in the past, such as floppy-controller tapedrives. People (that are smart, that is) don't purchase servers with inferior components. However, most people, smart or not, _do_ purchase _desktop_ systems with inferior quality components, on the theory that the more expensive components aren't worth the money for mere desktop systems. It's a given in the computer industry that if you produce a desktop OS that it must support all the crappy hardware out there, like winmodems, winprinters, crummy video cards, USB network cards, etc. etc. because most users won't be able to run it otherwise. Look at how Micorosoft approached this with Windows NT. NT didn't support crummy floppy-controller tapedrives, or supliferious junk like soundcards, or plug-n-pray for years. It's the same idea: when writing server OS code, don't waste your time supporting junk hardware because nobody running a server OS is going to be running junk hardware. Besides drivers, take a look at all the gooey Linux install programs. This is all end-user driven, for the desktops. Server administrators aren't afraid of the command-line, dumbusers are. So, if you want to aim the OS at the endusers, it cannot speak command-line and must speak GUI. FreeBSD has problems if you slap it down in front of a completely green end-user to install. However, Red Hat and other Linux distros have enough hand-holding that you can get away with doing this. > I would also disagree that Linux is >concentrating on the desktop at the expense of the server market. >Certainly there are Linux distributions that cater more to the desktop >and others to the server markets. Your making a common mistake, your assuming this is a _technical_ argument. It is not. It's a perceptual, marketing argument. Let me illustrate: As a server admin, I have complete confidence that if the FreeBSD core project were asked to make a design decision on some aspect of FreeBSD, that was a design decision that would either favor the desktop at the expense of compromising system integrity, or favor system integrity at the expense of the desktop, I am completely confident they would shaft the desktop every time. With the Linux crowd, I don't have this confidence. I believe that if the Linux community had to make a tradeoff between system integrity and something that would improve the desktop, if some large commercial organization was pushing them to shaft system integrity to gain something for the desktop, they would do it. You can argue the technical aspects all you want, but what is important here is perception. The perception is that Linux is aiming at the desktop market and that FreeBSD is aiming at the server market. When people like Steve Ballmer make the statement that Linux is threat number one, and Microsoft owns the desktop, it's obvious that Linux is marketing to the desktop. >Others maintain dual product lines >but I think the people working on the Linux kernel itself are not >thinking they are providing an inferior kernel for a server. This may sound evil, but it doesen't matter a whit what they think. What matters is market perception. >Nor do >I think people deploying Linux in a server environment think it is >inferior. I'm sure the (few) people deploying Macintoshs as servers think they are superior too. However, the software market doesen't give a damn about what a few people think, they look at where the masses are going. And, I think you will find that FreeBSD occupies a majority of the very high-end "Open Source UNIX" server market, most espically Internet servers. Where is the Linux server on the Internet today can do what ftp.cdrom.com can do? >I quite happily use FreeBSD on both server and workstation >machines. You know, you CAN use Windows 95 as a file and print server quite successfully - in the right (small) network. But, the vast majority don't do this. >Finally, although Microsoft may have failed in making an >OS that can function as both a server and a workstation I think that >FreeBSD and Linux have succeeded. > Yes - _with_enough_configuration_ However, let me point this out: With Linux, you have to expend effort to strip away the gingerbreading. With FreeBSD, you have to expend effort to _apply_ the gingerbreading. Already, there's the beginnings of a different focus here. While the standard answer from the Open Source community is "I don't care about all this marketing crap" the issue is that marketing is what determines whether people spend millions of dollars on helping you or not. Right now, we have a multi-million dolar laboratory being installed right here in Beaverton OR that's being funded by a consortium of software and hardware developers for ONE reason: to assist people doing _Linux_ research. Not FreeBSD, but Linux research. This is the tangible result of "all this marketing crap" Ted Mittelstaedt tedm@toybox.placo.com Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000901c0be60$bc644680$1401a8c0>