Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!not-for-mail
From: mmcg@heraclitus.cs.monash.edu.au (Mike McGaughey)
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: 3 Apr 1997 05:24:21 GMT
Organization: Monash University
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <5hveu5$rhj$1@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>
References: <331BB7DD.28EC@net5.net> <5g9hjp$api@flea.best.net>
<5gmb58$6jd$1@news.clinet.fi> <5gn3ig$83d@flea.best.net>
<5goqrq$5ak$1@news.clinet.fi> <5hd29s$e7t@fido.asd.sgi.com>
<333C1614.ABD@sgi01.grn.aera.com> <5hhv1k$jh9@fido.asd.sgi.com>
<333E3530.794B@sgi01.grn.aera.com> <333EA3EF.41C67EA6@consys.com>
<333EE416.ABD322C@FreeBSD.org> <5hn00k$dio@fido.asd.sgi.com>
<333F45A6.41C67EA6@FreeBSD.org> <5hpolu$9t2@fido.asd.sgi.com>
<3340CC28.167EB0E7@FreeBSD.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: heraclitus.cs.monash.edu.au
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Newsreader: knews 0.9.7
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:38327 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:6558 comp.sys.sgi.misc:29627
Last Tue, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> Larry McVoy wrote:
>> Because the *BSD people can't elect a leader. Let's see - the set of
>
> We need a Maximum Leader in order to succeed?
With Linux, you get to choose from six or so distributions. With
FreeBSD, there are two distributions serving two distinct and
well-defined markets - and an assurance that the good stuff from
one will generally be integrated into the other. Open/NetBSD serve
different markets again.
Despite the `committee design' thing, FreeBSD manages to be pretty
stable and coherent. It doesn't matter to me how many people are
arguing about how stuff should work. They're not still arguing by
the time they reach my hard drive. Thus, to us outsiders that just
run the damn thing, the FreeBSD core team + contributors collectively
constitute a pretty good `leader'.
This makes my job (of choosing an O/S distribution) that much easier:
I may not get the latest hardware support - but at least I know that
what I'm getting is of consistently high quality.
>> anyone off. He's got millions of seats and you have millions of
>> arguments.
>
> I don't notice any arguing in the FreeBSD core group. We're fine when
> one of the other OS camps isn't firing their catapults at us, and since
> catapult fire seems to go with the territory (and I've seen more than a
> few rocks heading to and from the Linux kingdom, so don't try and tell
> me it's a *BSD exclusive), what's the point in complaining about it?
It occurs to me that the single major obstacle to the `business world'
embracing Linux is the evangelical attitude of its adherents. It means
they come across as young, brash, and arrogant - which, to my mind, is
subconsciously associated with `unreliable'. It's not fair at all, but
that's how it looks to the outsider. Thus, despite the fact that Linux
is much better than many commercial unixes, people run SCO instead.
FreeBSD looks less that way because it's traditionally been viewed less
of a `young hacker's' kernel and more of an organised development
effort. It's just a reputation thing, but it's important to people
who want stability and reliability (aka `security'). And, yes, I find
the various BSD camps less evangelical and more organised - which is
why I rely on FreeBSD.
The conclusion? Argue all you want about which is better. They're
both good, but, in the long run, more commercial bums on seats are
going to come from being viewed as a stable, focused product than from
being viewed as being on the bleeding edge of development.
Cheers,
Mike.
--
Mike McGaughey AARNET: mmcg@cs.monash.edu.au
"Thousands at his bidding speed,
And post o'er land and ocean without rest" - Milton.