Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:57:54 -0500 (EST) From: Kenneth Wayne Culver <culverk@wam.umd.edu> To: Assad Khan <assad.khan@usa.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD-VS-Linux---Some Venting from Linux's side! Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0101251546450.25316-100000@rac1.wam.umd.edu> In-Reply-To: <20010125201654.28780.qmail@nw176.netaddress.usa.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I have been seeing a FreeBSD-VS-Linux war on this mailing list and > it has disturbed me beyond tolerance. Which drove me to write this > e-mail. > > First I want to tell everyone that I love everything thats opensource > and free, that includes FreeBSD,Linux,OpenBSD and NetBSD. But my most > loved OS is Linux for the following reasons. > For its age Linux has gone farther than any other OS has, including > *BSD's. The BSD's have a history of 20+ years and you are trying to > prove that its superior as compared to Linux? Give me a break! If they > werent superior even now, then they did not deserve to be used at all. > Plus Linux was written from scratch, even though it was derived from > Minix it did not contain any foreign source code. While the BSD's > contained actual AT&T code for quite some time and then they built > upon that when they 'migrated' to 4.4BSD. Linux has a more open model > of developement as compared to any of the BSD's. With the release of > kernel 2.4.0 for Linux, its now an official gladiator in the arena of > Enterprise computing (although it is already running one of the most > heavily visited sites namely google.com,freshmeat.net...). Microsoft > hates Linux's guts while it seems to embrace the BSD's, for this > reason alone is Linux worth using! Where do you think the 2.4 kernel got it's networking and vm code? FreeBSD! OF course most linux zealots like yourself would not stop to realize this. Linux's model of development is FAR from being more open than FreeBSD's and it could be argued that FreeBSD's model is FAR more open. The BSD License allows anyone do do anything with the code that they want to do, without even disclosing it, as long as they include a notice about the University of California, Berkley or something. However, the GPL (what linux falls under) maintains that everything must remain open source, and the source for all work and all changes to the code must be published with the product. This isn't that open because while it forces the source to be released, it limits it's usability to companies because companies don't always want to release their intellectual property to the masses. So FreeBSD's licence is more open and flexible. The reason that FreeBSD is better than linux is because it's code is very mature. The main reason for linux's relative instability and it's flakiness under large loads is because it is so new. The ONLY reason that linux 2.4 is going to be any better is because linus took most of the Tcp/ip stack and most of the vm code from FreeBSD. Get your facts straight before you send flamebait to lists. > This discussion could go on without an end, but my point is not to > prove that Linux is better than FreeBSD or any other BSD but to say > that Linux has done much to improve and its BETTER than NT (for some > of you falmers kind info). And watch out, Linux is fast improving and > *very* soon the BSD's might seem redundant with Linux around. You are writing as if FreeBSD is not improving anymore. FreeBSD's development is just as active as linux's and in some cases progressing at a faster rate because of it's superior organization. In some places linux's 2.4 kernel was being called vaporware because it took SOOO long to come out. Ken 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?Pine.GSO.4.21.0101251546450.25316-100000>