Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!inferno.mpx.com.au!news.mel.aone.net.au!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!csn!news-1.csn.net!csn!nntp-xfer-2.csn.net!symbios.com!southwind.net!complete.org!not-for-mail
From: jgoerzen@complete.org (John Goerzen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Historic Opportunity facing Free Unix (was Re: The Lai/Baker paper, benchmarks, and the world of free UNIX)
Date: 23 Apr 1996 12:51:47 -0500
Organization: Communications Centre (+1 316 367 8490)
Lines: 171
Message-ID: <4lj5bj$6h@complete.org>
References: <NELSON.96Apr15010553@ns.crynwr.com> <4l2fl2$7hk@sidhe.memra.com> <4l5qp1$1eam@news.missouri.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: complete.org
X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0]
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.development.system:22355 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:844 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:3523 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3379 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:18179 comp.os.linux.advocacy:47147
I'd like to interject a few comments here.
I do not think that either FreeBSD or Linux must "win" the battle. In fact,
I don't think that there even is a battle.
The battle is basically Us against Them, with Them being Microsoft. Linux
and FreeBSD, while similar in some areas, have two different aims: Linux for
the home user, FreeBSD for corporate users or people needing more
reliability. This is why Unix and the free software market are doing as
good as they are today: not a "one size fits all" approach like Microsoft is
taking.
I think it's clear that if you only consider FreeBSD and Linux that Linux
will win for individual uses and FreeBSD for corporate or networking uses.
That is due to the fact that Linux generally has newer software and FreeBSD
generally has more reliable software. (software meaning the OS and support
binaries like networking). Individual users sacrifice rock-solid
performance for newer features. Corporate users need rock-solid performance
and sacrifice newer features for it.
It is not possible to have both.
We should all take a step back and look at how good Linux and FreeBSD are.
Both are, IMO, better than any Microsoft operating system out there. Both
offer many, many features. Both are great values.
Why must we pit Linux and FreeBSD against each other? The people running
Linux and FreeBSD can collaborate on projects (as we've seen on WINE) and do
things to benefit both OSs and the free software community in general.
I do not believe that either will "win" so to speak. There is no battle.
Both have their strong points. There is no clear all-out winner.
John Goerzen.
Justin "Rhys Thuryn" McNutt (rhys@vortex.cc.missouri.edu) wrote:
: Michael Dillon (michael@memra.com) wrote:
:
: : >In order to create a market for Linux, we need to say, and say again,
: : >that Linux is THE ONLY RELIABLE 32-bit desktop operating system. The
: : >only other choices simply are not up to the task.
:
: : But it's not. FreeBSD and NetBSD are also reliable 32-bit desktop
: : OSes as is OS/2. And WINE is anything but reliable and my personal
: : opinion from several years of reading Microsoft Systems Journal and 2
: : years of watching the WINE project is that WINE will never be a reliable
: : and fully compatible Windows execution environment
:
: That's not the point. FreeBSD, NetBSD, WinNT, and (maybe) OS/2 are all
: reliable alternatives, but the consumer doesn't want to be confused with
: choices. He or she wants you to say, "This is the answer. There aren't
: any others." Ever do sales in a computer store? Unless you get a
: technically oriented buyer (rare), that's the way things work. If you
: give the customer all kinds of choices, they don't appreciate it. They
: get confused, then they get mad, then they leave. No sale.
:
: I agree about WINE, kind of. It could work, but it would require *far*
: too much work, and it really isn't worth it. Windows 3.1/95 need to die
: completely. WinNT might be worth keeping around, but being able to run
: its programs aren't exactly a requirement in an OS.
:
: : >THIS IS HOW MICROSOFT MARKETS ITS PRODUCTS. Why do you think there
: : >was sooooo much hype about win95? It's because there HAD to have
: : >been, otherwise people might start evaluating operating systems.
:
: : People evaluated OSes anyway. Even if cluefulness is only found in a
: : small proportion of the computer-using population, the absolute number of
: : clueful people increases as they gain experience with the tech.
:
: I disagree. Lots of people that I know personally who are very
: technically oriented still went blindly out and got Win95. They struggle
: with it each and every day, convinced that with just a little more
: tweaking, it'll work just fine.
:
: The absolute number of people who understand computers is growing, but
: there isn't a whole lot of practical difference between 0.001% and 0.003%
: of the population. :)
:
: : >Bad, bad, bad. It confuses people. There is room for only one free
: : >32-bit operating system. Which is it to be, Linux or *BSD*?
:
: : Who cares. Time will tell. Right now neither one dominates because
: : neither is mature enough. I have especially noted that Linux users are
: : more friendly and open to FreeBSD now than they were a year ago and
: : people who run networks that only used Linux a year ago will now admit
: : that they are either using FreeBSD for some things or are evaluating FreeBSD.
:
: That's fine for us techies who don't mind installing three or four OSs on
: a single machine to try and play with, but the original poster was
: talking about the end consumer, who uses *one* OS to get things done.
:
: Actually, after all this debate, you know what I'm thinking about doing?
: I'm going to clean up my DOS/Win 3.1 crap and "update" it to Win95. Then
: I'm going to make some room for Warp and FreeBSD. All four OSs on the
: same machine. Just for fun, to give them some real comparisons...
:
: : > Linux
: : >already has a big head start, given that there have been Linux
: : >conferences and a Linux magazine, and multiple companies distributing
: : >competitive versions of Linux (but it's always Linux).
:
: : It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings.
:
: Agreed, but Linux is still ahead. I haven't seen "FreeBSD Unleashed" in
: Waldenbooks lately. :)
:
: : >This might sound like bullshit to you, but that's okay, because it's
: : >marketing. Technoids traditionally do not understand marketing, or
: : >the value of it.
:
: : As you very aptly demonstrate here. People don't want OSes, they want
: : application execution environments. In other words, number one is the
: : application and its interface. Number two is the environment and its
: : interface. The underlying OS is a distant third.
:
: : Right now neither the applications nor the environment exist for free
: : UNIXes and I know of no developpers working on a credible environment or
: : toolset. This kind of thing needs architecture work done first, then
: : detailled design, then programming.
:
: Okay, so who is capable of doing that kind of work, and what subset of
: those people is *willing* to do that work? That's the solution, so let's
: do it.
:
: : >desktop: Linux. We need to shout this from the rooftops. This is not
: : >blind advocacy, this is a CRUCIAL step to overcoming the Microsoft
: : >hegemony.
:
: : Don't start shouting until you have your troops amassed or you *WILL* get
: : slaughtered and the survivors may find it hard to raise a new army.
:
: Linux needs a smoother install and a WYSIWYG word processor. Other than
: that, Linux is just as ready as Win95 was when it came out. More so,
: actually...
:
: : >But you didn't answer my question: what is wrong with Linux that you
: : >cannot fix?
:
: : Nothing. And the FreeBSD project *IS* fixing Linux in two major ways.
: : One, by making FreeBSD compatible with Linux file systems and binaries so
: : that it will soon be possible to run a FreeBSD/Linux using the FreeBSD
: : kernel. Secondly, by providing the competitive edge needed to keep both
: : Linux and FreeBSD improving so that someday the combined forces *WILL* be
: : powerful enough to destroy the hegemony of Microsoft and any other
: : would-be succesors.
:
: : This isn't about playing games here; this is about the future of Western
: : civilization. Twenty years from now, around the time when packet-switched
: : network access is as ubiquitous as telephones are today, there won't be
: : big commercial software comapnies and packages with proprietary and
: : incompatible OSes. Instead, everything will interoperate more or less
: : smoothly and under the hood, ticking away will be OSes based upon the
: : work of both the FreeBSD and Linux projects.
:
: : The feudal lords of software will only be a bad memory.
:
: I agree. I just hope that we can get that going sooner rather than
: later. I want Micro$oft to be *more* transient. :)
:
: --------
: If you can lead it to water and force it to drink, it isn't a horse.
:
: Got a Linux problem? Or can you help others solve them? Visit the Linux
: Common Problems page at http://vortex.cc.missouri.edu/~rhys/linux.html
:
: rhys@vortex.cc.missouri.edu
--
John Goerzen Custom programming | Preserve our 1st Amendment Rights |
| Free Power! Run you computer faster|
Main e-mail: jgoerzen@complete.org | with FreeBSD! http://www.freebsd.org|