Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!metro!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!news-xfer.netaxs.com!hammer.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!super.zippo.com!zdc!szdc!szdc-e!news From: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@freebsd.org> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc Subject: Re: Linux vs BSD Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 10:17:31 -0500 Organization: John S. Dyson's home machine Lines: 72 Message-ID: <32EB758B.41C67EA6@freebsd.org> References: <32DFFEAB.7704@usa.net> <5c155c$p6u@raven.eva.net> <5c19pg$rf6@lynx.dac.neu.edu> <5c39sk$ddl@troma.rv.tis.com> <5c8jlm$50u@cynic.portal.ca> <m23evrulla.fsf@desk.crynwr.com> <32EA25AB.41C67EA6@freebsd.org> <m2zpxxtagf.fsf@desk.crynwr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (X11; I; FreeBSD 3.0-CURRENT i386) Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:154437 comp.os.linux.networking:66277 comp.os.linux.setup:94056 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:5746 comp.unix.bsd.misc:2043 Russell Nelson wrote: (We should probably remove bsdi from the distribution list -- they are probably not interested in this discussion -- agreed?) > > "John S. Dyson" <dyson@freebsd.org> writes: > > > Again, FreeBSD is a fully integrated tool and OS, with runtime that > > can be put into embedded product without redistribution > > encumberances, > > I deal with this issue all the time while wearing my Crynwr packet > driver hat. Anyone who is concerned about using Linux in an embedded > system without getting into the software distribution business need > only contract with a RedHat or Walnut Creek CDROM or Infomagic to > distribute their software for the requisite three years. > > Don't make the GPL into a larger issue than it is. > Actually, it is the redistribution encumberances of added IP that is evil about GPL. It makes using GPLed code + added IP more complicated. Of course, there are those that don't believe in IP rights or ownership (or those who write a little bit of code, releasing it for public use, and want to compel others to do so also.) I don't want to get into this argument again (except to say that the argument is not going to be solved here.) > > > I guess that the lack of evangelizing by FreeBSD people is probably > > due to many of our careers being so long, that we have seen OSes > > come and go, and we know that the "answers and tools" of today are > > going to be the curiosities of tomorrow. > > Um-hum. Sure. I guess the lack of evangelizing by FreeBSD people is > because they don't understand the necessity for it. Here's a clue, > John: Bill Gates understands it. Linux users understand it. That's > why FreeBSD is going to be a footnote in the history of free software. > It is an ethics issue to me (leave that to marketeers). Sorry, but I DONT think that FreeBSD is the best thing ever created, but nor is NT or Linux. Frankly, NT and Linux are much more similar than FreeBSD is. FreeBSD is popular in spite of the relative lack of evangelizing. Linux needs it, and NT needs BG to push it. We do have ONE person on our team whose responsibility appears to be to "network" to get FreeBSD recognized in the trade press, etc. However, that is NOT my job on the team. Of course, I am responding to something that sounds a little like FUD. > > If you don't like this, and you think FreeBSD is so wonderful, then > how about improving Linux so it's as good as FreeBSD? > I have been asked that before -- and Linux is making progress in many areas, but is still not a full product. Of course, Red Hat, Slackware, Debian (the splintered products) are "full products." AFAIK, those products don't publish their source code revision trees, making them freely available, and there is still a problem of mixing and matching shared libs for commercial developers. > > There is NO > REASON why you cannot produce a fully-compilable-from-source, CVS tree > server distribution of Linux. > I have discussed this before -- expunge the (IMO: "evil, seductive") GPL from the Linux sources, and then I'll be VERY interested. GPL in runtime code is undesireable to many developers especially where there are so many authors that side-commercial agreements are impossible. In your case, Crynwr, the problem is less complex where the number of owners is limited. John