Return to BSD News archive
#! rnews 5121 bsd Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!news1!not-for-mail From: root@dyson.iquest.net (John S. Dyson) Subject: Re: Linux vs FreeBSD X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dyson.iquest.net Message-ID: <4ajdbq$gn@dyson.iquest.net> Sender: news@iquest.net (News Admin) Organization: John S. Dyson's home machine References: <489kuu$rbo@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> <49rm0g$o8o@daffy.anetsrvcs.uwrf.edu> <DJ2IBL.71t@nntpa.cb.att.com> <4ah39c$mt3@klaava.helsinki.fi> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 08:09:30 GMT Lines: 85 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:30110 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:10314 comp.unix.advocacy:12110 comp.unix.misc:20051 In article <4ah39c$mt3@klaava.helsinki.fi>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@cc.Helsinki.FI> wrote: > >I might as well say the Linux kernel is unencumbered by the BSD >copyright. It cuts either way, and I happen to think that the GPL is >better suited to linux (especially judging by BSD development history). > >John, you've seemed a reasonable person before, why this endless tirade >now? > I am reasonable but I am tired of the silly arguments that the FreeBSD development and/or sources being closed. If Linux is open -- so is FreeBSD. It is not that Linux is somehow BAD -- but there are zealots out there that have some sort of agenda. There was so darn much "spin" in the past about the Linux "open" development and the "closed" BSD development that it had to stop. My counter arguments have shown that the BSD development is not closed and is as open (plus or minus) as Linux. > >I'll be the first to admit that I'm a dictator when it comes to linux: I >_don't_ like the core-team approach, and no, nobody else ever gets to >change _my_ kernel without my approval first. I go through every little >patch before it taints my personal kernel sources. > That is the point that I have been making above. People have been saying that, for example, the FreeBSD CVS tree is not available and there were no reasons other than some "guild" or "dictator" trying to keep control. FreeBSD is now in the process of opening up the CVS tree for all the world to see. We have been pushed into that position because of all of the silly "spin". I doubt that CVS access is going to help anyone all that much anyway... and the logistics associated with that are not trivial. > >So if you want to bandy political terms, this makes linux an >"enlightened dictatorship" when it comes to the kernel, as opposed to >the FreeBSD monarchy and/or anarchy. I happen to think that this is the >best system for linux. > The FreeBSD kernel development "team" is NOT a free-for-all, but a consortium of very competent developers who have direct read/write access to the CVS tree. (BTW, there are individuals who work on the FreeBSD kernel directly who are NOT on the core team.) > >But being a "dictatorship" doesn't make it less open, or less free. I >don't take any rights _away_ from you: I only give you the _choice_ of >using my kernel development. And I do make kernels availables at >reasonably regular intervals and the fact that I don't use "sup" is just >a technical thing, not an issue of "openness" or "freeness". > But we allow a group of people who have proven competency and larger numbers of people to "learn" about kernel development RESPONSIBILITY. > >Where linux is really open is not perhaps the kernel as much as the >whole _system_: Linux (not the kernel, the whole thing) development is >really a matter of a lot of different people working more-or-less >independently of each other - and they may all use completely different >development stategies depending on what they feel is appropriate. > FreeBSD is pretty much the same... There is a much much larger group that contribute to FreeBSD either directly or indirectly than who just do the kernel. The FreeBSD developers do work independently -- for example the ports work is totally independent of my work -- except when header files change for system utilites like "top"... This whole thing got started with an unfavorable and incorrect conclusion that the FreeBSD development is somehow closed -- and obviously it isn't. Some people greatly admire Linux -- in a way very similar to the Windows/DEC-VMS/etc zealots. They have been blinded such that they can't apparently see the truth. Recognize, that I did not say (or imply) that Linux is "junk", but significant parts of the development are LESS open than FreeBSD, and you have made my point by describing how you do the Linux kernel. It definitely is not that bad that you do it that way, but the "guild" or "secret society" comments had to STOP!!! They were simply not true... If you took my statements as putting Linux down -- well, perhaps I went a bit too far -- but the bottom line is that some of the silly things that are said on the net become "the truth", and now at least there are some real counter arguments. John dyson@freebsd.org