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!news.idt.net!enews.sgi.com!fido.asd.sgi.com!refugee.engr.sgi.com!sca From: sca@refugee.engr.sgi.com (Steve Alexander) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.sys.sgi.misc Subject: Re: no such thing as a "general user community" Date: 1 Apr 1997 00:37:51 GMT Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA Lines: 89 Message-ID: <5hplcv$6lf@fido.asd.sgi.com> References: <331BB7DD.28EC@net5.net> <333EE416.ABD322C@FreeBSD.org> <5hn00k$dio@fido.asd.sgi.com> <333F45A6.41C67EA6@FreeBSD.org> Reply-To: sca@sgi.com NNTP-Posting-Host: fddi-refugee.engr.sgi.com Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:38285 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:6547 comp.sys.sgi.misc:29611 In article <333F45A6.41C67EA6@FreeBSD.org>, Jordan K. Hubbard <jkh@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >Why in the world we would want to do all this over again, especially >when the Linux camp evidently doesn't even hold a lot of those things to >be too terribly important (I'm thinking of things like SCM tools and a >united will to use them, or a unified GNATs database for all kernel >hackers), is really a mystery to me. Isn't there enough work to do in >UNIX without reinventing the wheel? There are 15 years worth of work in >BSD and we've PROVEN that it's highly portable (re: NetBSD), prove that >it can perform very well under load (re: FreeBSD and >cdrom.com/Yahoo/etc) and proven that can be a commercial success (re: >BSDI). Geeze, what more do you want, an endorsement from some famous >basketball player? Would that make us cool and hip enough to get on >board with? :-) Let me point out that I don't own a computer and have no real opinion about any of the free UNIX versions, before making a few points... I work at SGI because I want to work on high-end hardware and the software scaling and performance problems (especially networking-related) that go with it; SGI is a nice place to do that. So, consider me pretty much un-biased (and to some degree, un- informed ;->) about any of this stuff. I happen to work in the same group as Larry, but if you ask around, we disagree about a lot of things; don't assume that we are of the same mind. - Your statement above would look a lot more compelling if it just said "FreeBSD" instead of "NetBSD," "FreeBSD," and "BSDI." If you have to pull out three different releases to make the same point, it weakens your position somewhat, IMO. - An established code base is just as likely to be an albatross as it is an advantage. I've worked on BSD-based protocol stacks for 10 years; frankly, the stuff's not *that* great. It has a lot of miles on it, which is good, but it has a lot of Bondo too, which is not so good. - Since virtually all of the utilities and the compilers and the window system and the user-level stuff are basically the same (GNU, X11, etc.) on both Linux and *BSD, it seems to me that at some point what you're really arguing about (being better) is the kernel. Since the kernels more or less implement the same set of system calls and features (file systems, networking, etc...), at some point it seems like what you're really competing on is: - performance (+ scaling) - reliability - hardware platform/driver support - availability of third-party applications All of the other stuff is in the noise. The only non-kernel feature that seems like it might be a differentiator is packaging, since an OS that's easier to get installed is more likely to get used. With that in mind, it seems like the *BSD folks would be pretty motivated about showing off their performance advantages. I don't care personally; I only pay attention to SGI and its competitors, since SGI pays my rent. So, why not show that FreeBSD can crush Linux on things like performance, if that's the case. If not, what other compelling advantages do you offer? Since I can't run FreeBSD, NetBSD, and BSDI at the same time, I hope that they're all in one particular variant... - It's also not clear to me what you're talking about "doing over." The Linux folks must have already done most of it, or the OS wouldn't be useful for much. For example, they must have some way of doing source management; they do put out releases. You might like it, or not like it, but if I were choosing an OS to run, assuming that both were stable, the source control system used by the developers would be the last thing that would affect my decision process. As a customer, I just don't care. NOSTRADAMUS=1 export NOSTRADAMUS - If the *BSD folks don't converge, they will definitely become irrelevant at some point. I don't understand why the infighting goes on. Hang together, or hang separately, as the saying goes. It doesn't matter to me, but it seems like it should matter to y'all. unset NOSTRADAMUS Well, if I wasn't getting enough e-mail before, this should fix it, I think, so I'll stop here ;-> Please don't interpret this as a slam on your efforts; I offer it more as my thoughts on why the *BSD folks are not effective at selling people on the fruits of their labor. If you're going to work hard, it would be nice to get some payoff, or so it seems to me. -- Steve Alexander | Silicon Graphics, Inc. | +1 (415) 933-6172 (Voice) sca@sgi.com | http://reality.sgi.com/sca | +1 (415) 933-0513 (FAX) "O2: Ignite Your Toast."