Return to BSD News archive
#! rnews 3101 bsd Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.ysu.edu!news.radio.cz!voskovec.radio.cz!news.radio.cz!CESspool!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.orst.edu!news.nero.net!not-for-mail From: Steve Logue <logue@engr.orst.edu> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.admin Subject: Re: Linux, Bsd Against NT bullshit Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 16:55:05 -0800 Organization: Network for Education and Research in Oregon Lines: 46 Message-ID: <32ED4E69.6D70602A@engr.orst.edu> References: <5c08da$r2t@nntp1.best.com> <5c30ac$9v1@web.nmti.com> <5c4oo2$jad@nntp1.best.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: logues.rhn.orst.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (X11; U; Linux 2.0.28 i586) Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.misc:1926 V.S. Senthilkumar wrote: > > Peter da Silva (peter@nmti.com) wrote: > : In article <5c08da$r2t@nntp1.best.com>, V.S. Senthilkumar <vss@best.com> wrote: > : > Why not Linux and Bsd merged so that it can become a > : > big force against NT. > > : Linux is GPL restricted. FreeBSD is (with few exceptions) unrestricted [1]. > : This makes it tough to combine the code trees. Politics. > > : However, FreeBSD 2.2 runs Linux executables, so why not just go with that? > : You should even be able to install the Red Hat RPM manager and install > : Linux packages automagically. > > : [1] Ironically, most of the Linux distributions include restricted tools > : and tools for which the source isn't available, while the FreeBSD release > : contains all the installation and release tools. > > If what you are saying is true, FreeBSD looks like clear choice for long run! > > If they had source code restriction, Linux might become something like > netscape later, and start charging money when people use it widely. > > -vs senthilkumar Give me a break! - Read the GPL, and then read the LGPL. There is nothing theatening here at all except _towards_ profiteers like Netscape. Linux has more users than the _sum_ of all the current BSD's, and it is not at all progressing towards secrecy, and being a commercial offering. This still has no bearing on the quality of Linux. You are correct in your meaning that Linux distributions come with some restricted tools, but your language is all wrong. Some Linux dists. come with some _commercial_ tools such as RedHat including Metro X, and Spyglass's browser. Every non-commercial tool in the RedHat dists has source code provided. There are no requisite tools that are commercial either. Just because they provide Metro-X doesn't mean that they don't ship XFree86. FreeBSD does the exact same thing. If you at all care about the solutions that a particular OS provides for you then the licensing is irrelevent. Licensing is not functionality! Try them both and make an educated decision, and ignore the crap. This advice comes mutually from the people who know their respective OS's the best -Jordan Hubbard of FreeBSD, and Linus Torvalds of Linux. -STEVEl