Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!ais.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!news-master!not-for-mail
From: Rkevans@cris.com (Rick Evans)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: BSD or Linux?
Date: 31 Mar 1997 20:17:59 GMT
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
Message-ID: <5hp65n$fd1@chronicle.concentric.net>
References: <3341d1a6.6644689@news.uni-mannheim.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: voyager.cris.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0]
Lines: 91
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.misc:2919 comp.os.linux.misc:167468
Steffen Mueller (steffen@mind.net) wrote:
: Hi!
:
: What UNIX for PCs is better? FreeBSD or Linux? Why?
:
: Thanks
: Steffen
: P.S. Please reply using steffen@mind.net
1. Linux isn't Unix. It just looks and acts in a manner many people
associate with Unix...(grin).
Some smart kid in Finland (Linus Torvalds) decided to write a free
version of unix because it sounded like fun. He asked if anybody
wanted to help him. A whole lot of people thought it sounded like a
fun project, too. So they (this big happy, fun-loving group
of people who communicated via the internet) developed Linux from
scratch.
At some point, probably near the very beginning, they started using
programs from the Free Software Foundation because the FSF programs
were downright nifty and free. To be honest, the FSF stuff is almost
radically devout about being free. The source code to all FSF stuff
is free. Anybody is free to change the source code and give away
their changes, which are also this special kind of free. The one
thing you can't do with FSF programs is try to steal them from their
original owners. Many people charge money for the service of copying
the programs (putting them on CD-ROMS in a nice format, etc.), but
that doesn't change the ownership... This whole policy of freeness is
called the GNU Public License, and I will freely make a copy for you
if you ask (grin).
So the two guiding rules of Linux are that anyone can contribute, and
the whole thing is controlled by the Gnu Public License.
2. BSD was once Unix. In a time long, long ago, when the world was a
simpler place, the owner of Unix let universities have the source code
for a reasonable price. Many of these universities (and there were
more than the one I'll name in a moment...) made changes to Unix to
improve it in some way. Some people, (a whole lot of people?)
preferred the changed version over the original. One of these
universities (the University of California, Berkeley (that's in
north California, USA)) started distributing the changes to other
people so that they could use the new version. This was generally
known as the Berkeley System Distribution or BSD version of Unix.
Time passed, and there was more than one set of BSD tapes, but the
details aren't important here... Until people who didn't have a
license to the original Unix started using BSD, thinking that it
had so many changes from the original that it was a 'different
thing' altogether.
Then the owner of the Original Unix (in this case, AT&T) got real
angry and filed a lawsuit about it. The core of the lawsuit was
that despite the numerous changes, SOME parts of BSD were still
intact from the 'Real Unix' and couldn't be given away or sold
without AT&T's permission (which usually involved a transfer of
money to obtain).
So a group of people looked at the sections in dispute and rewrote
them from scratch. So now the entire thing was written by people
who were not AT&T lackeys. The Regents of the University of
California also have some claim to ownership to parts of the source
code, because they paid people to write it, but they don't want
money, they just want to keep their name associated with it. You'll
see their name over and over if you look at the source code...
So now BSD is solidly not really Unix (which has also changed
meanings since that story started, but that's not important right
now).
Current versions of Net/Free/Open BSD are developed by a relatively
small group of developers. They don't mind if you suggest changes
to them, but they can ignore you if they want. BSD is not controlled
by the GPL, which is exactly how the the developers want it to stay.
You'll have to look elsewhere for a flame war on this issue... It
shouldn't be hard to find. I use both Linux and NetBSD, and
try to stay out of the flamewars.
3. Better? Well, despite the fact that neither is really Unix, many
people (I'm one of them) consider either one of them better than
the current offerings from Microsoft.
4. Linux is currently more popular. *BSD has a rich history of
development, and may be more 'mature' in some areas. Both are
monolithic kernels, which makes either equally offensive to the
microkernel crowd...
Rick