Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!convex!convex!cs.utexas.edu!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!psgrain!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!ux1.lmu.edu!s069.infonet.net!s069.infonet.net!not-for-mail
From: burgess@s069.infonet.net (Dave Burgess)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: Re: BSD vs Linux
Date: 8 Jun 1994 23:20:10 -0500
Organization: Dave's House in Omaha
Lines: 189
Message-ID: <2t659q$sn@s069.infonet.net>
References: <2sva1p$llr@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> <2t37q2$8q@s069.infonet.net> <Cr31ME.DM2.3@cs.cmu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: s069.infonet.net
Keywords: BSD, Linux
In article <Cr31ME.DM2.3@cs.cmu.edu>, Bhiksha Raj <bhiksha+@CS.CMU.EDU> wrote:
>In article <2t37q2$8q@s069.infonet.net>, burgess@s069.infonet.net (Dave Burgess) writes:
>Perhaps your response was more of a waste of bandwidth than the question dave.
>
Probably.
Tough. I pay for mine.
Of course, the fact that this same thread is RUNNING. RIGHT NOW. In
THIS newsgroup didn't help my attitude. Being late at night and having
just finished posting the 10 section FAQ last Saturday night helped.
Over the past two years, I have done as much as anyone to try and
answer the questions. I specifically took over maintaining the FAQ to
help people understand their BSD systems and help people decide if BSD
is for them.
Here is a brief summary of the best answers I have seen:
1. Linux is more POSIX/SysV. BSD is more BSD.
This one fails rather miserably because the nuance is lost on the
average newbie.
2. Linux is better because it is updated everyday and no cohesive
method to its improvements.
3. *BSD is better because it has an in-fighting, back-biting, rabid
following that can't get along well enough to have a single front.
4. Linux is better because it is what all my friends have.
5. BSD is better because I'm the only person on the planet using it.
6. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux is best.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is Not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is So.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is Not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is So.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is Not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is So.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is Not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is So.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is Not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is So.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is Not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is So.
7. Linux is better because it has a single person acting as the focal
point for all improvements and changes, thus providing a single point
of failure if he stops and takes his toys home.
8. BSD is better because there is a cadre of dedicated computer
professionals who have to deal with each other's egos, thus preventing
them from getting anything done with the OS.
9. OS/2 is best. Why use Unix at all?
10. Minix-386 has everything your system has and more.
11. If you ain't using VMS, you're just wasting your time.
I hope that you see the nearly humorous thread here.
The reason that there doesn't seem to be an answer is simple:
THERE IS NO ANSWER!!!!
Let me provide a simple example that even the most green amongst us can
fathom. If you know nothing about cars, replace the names BMW,
Mercedes, and Porsche with Playmate names from January, February, and
March.
The story so far:
A new driver walks into a European Showroom. There before him are
three very expensive sports cars. The newbie walks up to the man
working at the showroom. The salesman is a volunteer and gets nothing
but grief for even trying to answer the questions of the newbies, but
he keeps on trying. He has just finished putting the final touches on
a list of known problems with the sports car he drives but that will do
him no good since the newbie can't read.
Said newbie strolls up and asks "What is the difference between these
three fine sports cars?" The salesman suggests that the newbie read
the literature available for each, since the subtle nuances of the
differences between these fine machines is hard to define without
teaching an entire semester in comparative operating system theory.
The newbie presses the issue. The salesman finally suggests that the
Porsche, because of its smaller engine, gets better gas mileage in some
circumstances, but may break down more often because of the way that it
was designed. "Does that make it better?" enquires the newbie; who
just completely missed the point. "No. That means it gets better
mileage in some situations" replies the now harried salesman, who is
wondering at this point if his hobby of selling sports cars is worth
all of these interruptions.
The salesman offers the newbie an alternative. "Take them all and try
them out. You may find that one fits your style or needs better than
the others. Without sitting down and doing a detailed analysis of
everything you want the sports car to do, it is impossible for anyone
but you to pick one out."
The newbie replies "But how will I know which is better?"
"You won't." replies the salesman. The newbie STILL doesn't
understand. "Just try them until you find one you are happy with. Be
warned, though, that the one you try first will either seem like the
best, since it will be the yardstick by which you measure all other
sports cars; or it will be the worst, since you will learn more from
learning how to drive it than you will any of the others."
With that, the newbie turned towards the sports cars, and turns back
and asks "So which one is better?"
- - - - - - - -
My little allegory is simply that; a story. From time to time, I feel
like the salesman. I receive E-Mail everyday (since I am the FAQ
maintainer) asking me if *BSD is better then 'X'. I try to politely
answer these missives, one after another. I would rather be working on
the CD-ROM driver for NetBSD, or putting the finishing touches on a
QIC-40 tape interface, or getting X to work right on my machine.
Instead, I spend hundreds of hours a year holding newbies hands while I
try and explain to them that THEY are the only people who can decide
which OS is better for them.
Remember, I was a newbie once, too. Granted it was a long time ago,
and my choice was easier because Linux didn't have networking code and
386BSD did. I was there when the birth of Linux was announced. I was
there when Nate Williams announced that he was abandoning Minix to
follow the *BSD trail. I was one of the chosen few that got a
threatening letter from USL telling me to cease and desist. I don't
need flames from a clown who is so neurotic that he can't even sign his
name to his posts. And I certainly don't need to hear one more person
ask if 'Y' is better than the OS that I have chosen.
Finally (thanks for staying along, BTW) It is impossible to make a
list of strengths and shortcomings of each of the systems. Near as I
can tell, there are something like 3000 programmers working night and
day to improve each one. By the time you got done typing up such a
herculean list, it would be out of date and you would get flamed
mercilessly (Right Jordan?). I know. It's been tried. It wan't
pretty.
To answer the original question:
NetBSD is the OS I use. It is a BSD derived Operating System that has
a very stable operating envelope. The networking code has been stolen
by commercial OS and network vendors the world over. NetBSD has the
advantage of being meant for a wide range of hardware platforms. It is
currently available for something like 10 different CPUs, and has been
laid out such that new architectures can be added relatively painlessly.
FreeBSD is pretty much the same (go ahead a quibble over details, I
don't care anymore). The biggest difference is that NetBSD is a
horizontal system (across platforms) and FreeBSD is a vertical system
(intended to stay on the Intel family). Both are based on code from
386BSD, although neither really resembles it any more.
Linux was developed by Linus Torvalds and has the advantage of being
available in source code form first. Other than that, I have heard
that it is a good OS platform for standalone Unix workstations. It had
a lot of things that made its users rabid before the *BSD folks did,
but the purists insist that *BSD it is (choose two: cleaner, safer,
taller, wider, better, quieter, louder, greener). I even heard a rumor
that Linus had sold the source code license to Novell so that they
could distribute an 'X' terminal package for use in their networks.
The problem with the thread is ALWAYS that people that are happy with
the system they are using are going to say that the decision that they
made was the best for them. Since there is no way to argue that point,
the debate usually descends into name-calling and bickering about
whether theater is spelled with an 'er' or an 're'; or similar nonsense.
Now, with all of that said, I think I can safely say that my first post
was no kind of waste of bandwidth compared to this one.
P.S. Anyone that is STUPID enough to believe that I speak for anyone
but myself (whether I maintain the *BSD FAQ or not) is obviously too
stupid to be able to use Unix in the first place. (Obcosc19v2slam)
--
TSgt Dave Burgess | Dave Burgess
NCOIC, USSTRATCOM/J6844 | *BSD FAQ Maintainer
Offutt AFB, NE | Burgess@cynjut.infonet.net or ...@s069.infonet...