Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 09:39:50 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> To: "Brandon D. Valentine" <bandix@looksharp.net> Cc: "Jamie Oulman" <jamie@techsquare.com>, "Brad Knowles" <brad.knowles@skynet.be>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Just lost one to Linux. Compaq server support. Message-ID: <017201c18931$e44933d0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <20011220030636.C21508-100000@turtle.looksharp.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brandon writes: > I agree with that sentiment wholeheartedly. It was a significant factor in my choice of FreeBSD. I really did not wish to become tied to a new vendor after being tied to Microsoft--what would be the point? One of the things that has really worried me about Linux from the start has been the obvious and rapid move towards proprietary versions of the software. It amazes me that nobody else has seen this. Are users of Linux so inexperienced in IT that they really don't recognize the pattern? Do they really believe that Red Hat or Mandrake are in it just for the altruistic satisfaction of serving mankind? Do they really think that any of these distributors will resist the temptation to move towards proprietary, commercial products and increasingly away from anything that is public and free? The mere fact of existence of any commercial concern distributing any operating system is a serious danger to its open-source status. With FreeBSD, I'm trying to avoid anything that I have to pay for, or for which I do not receive source. The only exception has been Domain Time client, because I use that same product on my Windows machine to hold the time correctly, and I wanted both machines to be synchronized in the same way. > It's difficult these days for someone in this > industry not to come into contact with linux > systems on a regular basis. Linux has been dramatically overhyped and overmarketed--and these are always bad signs for any type of software product, as they demonstrate that there are people with ulterior motives promoting them. My impression is that Linux appeals to people who have no previous exposure to UNIX, and do not know just how scraggly and primitive Linux is compared to established versions of the operating system. Many of them seem to be the classic, clueless young males with a hatred for MS and not much else (certainly not much IT background). I honestly do not see any advantage to Linux over other versions of UNIX, but I do see disadvantages. > I cringe at the way RH and its derivatives do > things. It will only get worse. As Thomas Andrews said in _Titanic_, "It is a mathematical certainty." > I would add however that, when I must deal with > linux and I have a choice I prefer using Debian. Hmm ... it looks sort of free, for the time being. Anyway, if Linux were a real OS, you wouldn't have to buy or acquire anyone's distribution; the OS would be complete in itself, just like FreeBSD. As soon as you have to _buy_ something from someone to get the OS to work, you've shot yourself in the foot--you are tied to one organization. > Some people's largest complaint about Debian > is that the stable release is so far behind the > linux mainstream but others would argue that > this is what makes it so good. The latter group probably has a lot more IT experience than the former. Anyone who salivates over every new release has never had to maintain production computer systems. The more experience a person has as a system administrator, the more likely he is to be extremely reluctant about upgrading to a new release except when absolutely, unavoidably necessary. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?017201c18931$e44933d0$0a00000a>