Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!mozart.amil.jhu.edu!blaze.cs.jhu.edu!blaze.cs.jhu.edu!not-for-mail From: bogstad@blaze.cs.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: Why *BSD's have smaller user base ? [WAS: Can we quit with "Linux Sucks" ?] Date: 18 Nov 1994 03:28:32 -0500 Organization: The Johns Hopkins University, Computer Science Department Lines: 102 Message-ID: <3ahojg$iis@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> References: <3ah170$n5o@mall.sinica.edu.tw> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaze.cs.jhu.edu Summary: A Linux user speaks out... In article <3ah170$n5o@mall.sinica.edu.tw>, <ywliu@beta.wsl.sinica.edu.tw> wrote: > > Someone pointed out that why Linux has larger user base : 1st, Linux >came to the world a little bit earlier than NetBSD and FreeBSD, and 2nd >Linux is a slightly international project - coming from Europe, growing >up everywhere. > > Personally I think it sounds true. However, after talking with >some Linux users, I find out they have a lot in common : I'm a Linux user. Let's see how I fit your profile.... > 1) They are new to Unix. I've been using UNIX since 1982. > 2) They don't have access to a Unix workstation or other expensive PC Unices. My day job is managing a network of 40+ Unix workstations. > 3) They just want to learn Unix rather than to write programs. I don't have any time to write programs at work, but would like to do so at home using a system like the one that I use during the day. > 4) They happen to know there is a beautiful Slackware 2.0 distribution, > which looks like a typical MS-DOS installation program. So they think > Linux is another MS-DOS. I started using Linux when it was spelled 'Minix' and it wasn't easy to install. I knew it wasn't MS-DOS. I didn't even own a computer at home until I could get a relatively inexpensive 32-bit machine (386DX) and run a Unix-like OS with source code (Minix). > 5) They love the huge HOW-TOs. They don't want to go to bookstore to > find BSD books on the large bookshelves. I have V7, PWB, and BSD4.2 manuals. Who needs to go to the bookstore? > As for *BSD, the users are somewhat advanced. Probably true on the average. I think there are quite a few advanced Linux users, but the MS-DOS converts tend to reduce the average... Okay, I don't think I fit your profile. Here are some of the reasons that I think Linux is (seems to be?) more popular with the masses. (Well, some of them are my personal reasons...) 1. Linux has always had a history of working better with the other PC based operating systems. For example: A. It has always used the 'standard' PC method of partitioning a hard disk. Early versions of *BSD did not and required you to give up an entire disk. Even though I prefer Unix I wanted the option of using 'industry standard' OSes on my machine. B. *BSD (as far as I know) has no equivalent of the dosemu software available for Linux (runs MS-DOS applications). C. The Wine project (runs MS-Windows applications) started development under Linux. (I believe it is now also being developed under *BSD as well). D. Linux has MS-DOS FAT, OS/2 HPFS, and System V/Coherent filesystem support. Linux now even has a filesystem which runs on top of the MS-DOS filesystem and allows you to install it right into your MS-DOS filesystem. I don't believe that this is available in *BSD. (It's interesting to note that neither *BSD nor Linux supports the 'standard' FS of the other...) E. Linux has the iBSC2 project. (runs commercial 386 Unix applications) 2. Linux seemed to be much more interested in being POSIXlike then *BSD. I thought it would be easier to port software I wrote under Linux to commercial Unices then if I used *BSD. I'ld be surprised if Linux wasn't the first free UNIXlike system to pass the X/Open requirements to be called 'UNIX'. (BSDI might beat Linux...) 3. Linux has a much more visible development process. People are aware that new versions of software come out on a regular basis. I may not have the time to get actively involved in the system development; but it seemed to be easier to keep up with changes. 4. Linux is covered under GPL not the BSD Copyright. 5. Linux had shared libraries first which reduced disk requirements. Making it easier for new users to 'try it out'. 6. The Linux community didn't fracture into multiple groups like the *BSD community did. I was at the USENIX BSD BOF several years ago when Jolitz (I think) stood up and denounced the BSDI (UCB) people for going commercial. Then there was the 386BSD vs. NetBSD vs. FreeBSD wars. Linux users may argue about which distribution is the best; but they consider it to be one OS (and it is one kernel). Anyway those are my perceptions on why Linux has gotten more visibility (and apparently users) then the *BSD OSes. It's very possible that some of the things that I mention aren't even true. Some would argue whether some of the things I mention are good or not. It doesn't really matter. I have the perception that they are true (and good). If after watching the free UNIX community from its beginnings I have these perceptions, imagine what a newcomer sees. We may all agree that MS-DOS/Windows sucks rocks; but with the masses its the thing to get. Linux has become the 'thing to get' for people who want something UNIXlike which is better then MS-DOS/Windows... Bill Bogstad bogstad@cs.jhu.edu