This is a read-only archive. Find the latest Linux articles, documentation, and answers at the new Linux.com!

Linux.com

Feature: Linux

Linus compares Linux and BSDs

By Joe Barr on June 13, 2005 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

I recently asked Linus Torvalds for his thoughts on the relative strengths and weaknesses of Linux and BSD, and about how much synergy there might be between the Linux kernel and the BSDs.
I prefaced my query to Linus by recounting my observations from a Usenix conference in San Diego a few years ago. He was a speaker that day, and a group of BSD users came right down to the front row to hear him. In fact, they laughed and joked with him, and eventually gave Linus one of the beanies with horns on it they were wearing, a familiar symbol to BSD fans.

They may have been surprised by his reaction. I was. He took the beanie they offered, put it on, and wore it during his entire presentation. No big deal, the leader of the Linux kernel wearing BSD colors. He defused what could have been a contentious moment.

NewsForge: I want to ask you a few uninformed questions about the similarities, differences, and synergy -- if any -- between the Linux kernel and the BSDs.

Torvalds: I really don't much like the comparisons. In many ways they aren't even valid, since "better" always ends up depending on "for what?" and "according to what criteria?".

NF: BSD is still considered by some to be more "technically correct" than the Linux kernel. Do you think the BSDs are better technically than the Linux kernel?

Torvalds: Linux has a much wider audience, in many ways. That ranges from supporting much wider hardware (both in the driver sense and in the architecture sense) to actual uses. The BSDs tend to be focused in specific areas, while I have always personally felt that any particular focus on any particular use is a bad thing.

Which one is "better"? To me, Linux is much better, since to me, the important thing for an OS is how well it performs under different patterns, be they embedded, server, or desktop, or just some totally crazy person in a basement trying something new.

But some people disagree with me, and like to limit their work to specific areas, and like the fact that developers have one cohesive goal, and don't care about anything else. Some people consider the Linux development model "too permissive," in other words -- they want the project to concentrate on X, where X is some random area that they care about.

Which mindset is right? Mine, of course. People who disagree with me are by definition crazy. (Until I change my mind, when they can suddenly become upstanding citizens. I'm flexible, and not black-and-white.)

NF: If the BSDs were better technically five years ago, has the playing field leveled since then?

Torvalds: I don't think they were better five years ago (see above), and I don't think the question really makes sense.

Are there areas where you could point to "X does Y better"? Oh, sure, that's inevitable. But exactly because Linux tries to be "good enough" for everybody, you'll find a lot of areas where Linux is better (often a lot better -- as in "it works"), and then you'll find a few narrow areas where one particular BSD version will be better.

To me, it's largely a mentality issue. I said "good enough," and that's really telling. The BSD people (and keep in mind that I'm obviously generalizing) are often perfectionists. They hone something specific for a long time, and then they frown on anything that doesn't meet their standards of perfection. The OpenBSD single-minded focus on security is a good example.

In contrast, one of my favorite mantras is "perfect is the enemy of good," and the idea is that "good enough" is actually a lot more flexible than some idealized perfection. The world simply isn't black-and-white, and I recognize a lot of grayness. I often find black-and-white people a bit stupid, truth be told.

NF: Is sharing between BSD and the Linux kernel a common occurrence? And if so, does it go both ways?

Torvalds: It's quite rare on the kernel level. It happens occasionally, mainly in drivers, and sometimes on the "idea" level (don't get me wrong -- it's not an acrimonious setting, and people do talk about things). But the fact is, it's usually more effort to share things and try to synchronize and agree on them than it is to have independent projects.

On a user level, there's obviously tons of sharing, since there you don't have the communication issues, and user projects tend to be pretty independent of each other (and the kernel) anyway.

NF: Are there parts of BSD today that you would like to see adopted in the kernel?

Torvalds: I certainly don't have any specifics, but that's not saying that I'd be against it. It just means that I don't know anything about BSD technical internals, so I'm the wrong person to ask. Ask somebody who uses both.

Note: Tune in Wednesday for the views of BSD leaders as they answer the same questions posed to Linus.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on Linus compares Linux and BSDs

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

The world is better with both

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 13, 2005 07:29 PM
I think its a dumb premise to ask which is better. The world is far richer for having both (linux and bsd kernels) than it would be with just one of these.

#

Re:The world is better with both

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 13, 2005 11:03 PM
While I agree that the world is richer for having both of the, I do consider it quite valid to ask which is better "for a given task." For firewalling and high security applications, OpenBSD, in my opinion, takes the cake. As SELinux continues to mature, it too will be very good for this. Not that GNU/Linux can't be made very secure--it can--but OpenBSD simply does it out of the box and is therefore quicker to implement. Yes, I know about Trustix, which I like a lot and use at work on servers.

I tend to give end-users some distribution of GNU/Linux, usually something like SuSE 9.x Professional or Slackware, since I've made myself very familiar with them and can easily support them. All of my Power Macs run Yellow Dog Linux. My "main" home workstation and my work laptop run Slackware Linux, and my terminal server is LTSP. My firewall strategy at home relies heavily on OpenBSD (I've come to really like pf and CARP).
Can you use OpenBSD, or any other (Free Software) BSD, as a desktop OS? Of course you can; I've done it. Which one's better? The OpenBSD project itself addresses this very question in their FAQ:

<a href="http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq1.html#Desktop" title="openbsd.org">http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq1.html#Desktop</a openbsd.org>

So yes, the world is richer for both of them, but I find that each has different "best" applications.

#

Truth in interviewing

Posted by: SarsSmarz on June 13, 2005 08:42 PM
I just love it when the interview-ee tells the reporter that it's a stupid question! Of course, it's rare that the reporter actually then prints it....

#

Re:Truth in interviewing

Posted by: Joe Barr on June 13, 2005 08:53 PM

There's a very fine line between stupid and, oh, what's that other thing.

#

Re:Truth in interviewing

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 13, 2005 09:54 PM
Never a stupid question, only stupid answers. If we discourage people from asking, we may never find answers. Someone may actually be considering a choice between Linux and BSD, and this article offers them some basic information they may need to choose wisely per their situation.

#

Re:Truth in interviewing

Posted by: blindcoder on June 13, 2005 10:14 PM
I sure hope that someone who's considering whether to use Linux or *BSD will never find this article!

On one side: Linus, who thinks everyone who does not agree with him is "by definition crazy" and who think that "good enough" is okay.

On the other side: BSD who are pictured as perfectionists and security enthusiasts which in a world of Phishing, Pharming, Virii and other kinds of malware noone would consider being a bad thing.

I'm not trying to say that any is better than the other (noone cares about my opinion about that anyway) but I'm saying that this article is to be considered Bad (and that's "Bad" with a capital "B") as a basis for a decision.

#

Re:Truth in interviewing

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 13, 2005 11:03 PM
The sarcasm filter is missing in your mainframe. Please compile it next time you update the FreeBSD kernel. If you know anything about Linus and if you read the WHOLE sentence, it is obvious to anyone that he was joking.

#

Re:Truth in interviewing

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 13, 2005 11:57 PM
It's actually only obvious to people who know Linus (whether in person or because they've read a lot about him). You obviously have been in contact with him enough to know that it's his style of humour. Someone who reads about Linus for the first time may not have this perception.

L

#

Re:Truth in interviewing

Posted by: WarPengi on June 14, 2005 01:16 AM
It is actually obvious to anyone who has a sense of humour and is accomplished at reading the english language. If english is not you mother tongue then you are forgiven for missing it. If english is you mother tongue and you are 25 or older and missed the irony and self - mockery then you are just plain lazy or stupid.

#

Re:Truth in interviewing

Posted by: blindcoder on June 14, 2005 02:00 PM
And that's exactly the point I'm trying to make.

Having read "Just for fun", lots of Linus' emails and other interviews with him _I_ know his humor and I at least think I know what he _means_ rather than what he _says_.

Someone who is thinking about whether to use Linux or the BSDs (as the OP suggested) probably doesn't which makes it a bad thing to read for that person.

#

Re:Truth in interviewing

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 14, 2005 12:35 AM
"On one side: Linus, who thinks everyone who does not agree with him is "by definition crazy" and who think that "good enough" is okay."

Never heard about irony?

#

Re:Truth in interviewing

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 14, 2005 08:22 AM
Never a stupid question, only stupid answers.

Hogwash. There are lots of stupid questions.

Anything that you could answer yourself with 20 seconds of thought is a Stupid Question.

#

Thanks Linus!

Posted by: dingletec on June 13, 2005 09:34 PM
I for one had become confused in that same debate, and have started running OpenBSD and FreeBSD at home so I can learn about them. Since they are so different from the way Linux does things, I'm glad I've taken the opportunity to learn, but it didn't take me long to come to the same conclusion as Linus.

I can simply do more with Linux, quicker and easier. That isn't an insult to the BSD's, I feel the same way about Windows and OSX. I will not hesitate to use either of the BSD's in the future, but it's hard to give up the flexibility of Linux.

#

Re:Thanks Linus!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 13, 2005 09:52 PM
You came that conclusion because you know Linux better.

Being a BSD fan, every time i check out linux i come to the conclusion that i can get work done more easily on BSD.

So its just a matter of which one you know better IMHO.

#

Re:Thanks Linus!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 13, 2005 11:49 PM
And that is the problem we (OSS) people have trying to "convert" Windows users.

There is nothing more user friendly than the system you already know.

#

Re:Thanks Linus!

Posted by: WarPengi on June 14, 2005 01:18 AM
Don't forget intuitive. The system you know is also more intuitive. Funny how that works;~)

#

Re:Thanks Linus!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 14, 2005 02:34 AM
Which is one reason I get so annoyed at Windows and OS X users. They insist their OS is easier to use where as somebody that is reasonably expert in all of them might find them similar in level of ease. Likewise a total newbie might find learning any of them to be of similar effort. I've used dozens of OS's and am expert in several of them so at least I have some right to make a choice as to which is best for an expert user. For non-expert users I think it doesn't matter. Average people used to manage to use computers by making punch cards so I think most people should be able to easily adapt to any of the modern GUI systems (Windows, OS X, GNOME, KDE, BeOS). I personally think it's best not to dumb down interfaces to much because I have faith in the intelligence of average users. I often feel that experienced Windows and OS X users are more computer illiterate than total newbies because the newbies haven't learned that they can't do it.

#

Re:Thanks Linus!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 14, 2005 08:02 PM
"They insist their OS is easier to use where as somebody that is reasonably expert in all of them might find them similar in level of ease. Likewise a total newbie might find learning any of them to be of similar effort."

To the point. I've seen how desperate people were, when they had to change from DOS and WP 5.1 to WinXP & Word (because of decisions made in upper level). On the other hand, I've seen completely non-IT-people change from XP to Linux without any problems. They barely noticed the difference<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

#

Re:Thanks Linus!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 15, 2005 07:47 AM
"To the point. I've seen how desperate people were, when they had to change from DOS and WP 5.1 to WinXP & Word (because of decisions made in upper level)."


I think I understand what you are getting at, but it's a poor example, at least for advanced operators of word processing software. Newer isn't necessarily better or even equal. Moving from WP 5.1 to Word is moving from relative freedom to a straight jacket. There is an enormous difference between a sophisticated document automation development platform and Microsoft's "my way or the highway" approach to word processing, from working directly with markup code (and the ability to manipulate the markup definitions themselves) to an inflexible and very poorly implemented OOP metaphor. Most folk highly skilled in WordPerfect 5.1 would have no difficulty moving to TeX, for example, and would probably find that a liberating experience.

#

Re: beers' party!!!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 14, 2005 05:38 AM
Beers for the Linux fans!!!
Beers for the BSD fans!!!

Sharing information, sources codes,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
Thanks to everyones!!!

I believe the God saves to the Queen Berkeley's University of California!!!

Gluuuppppp!!!
Hooowwwww tooooo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..... my mother ¿?¿?¿?
I'm drUnK.

#

Pointless article.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 14, 2005 02:41 AM
I honestly believe this article is pointless.

Clearly, Linus wishes NOT to start a flame war with the BSD community, as it is unproductive and a complete waste of time. It is better for both sides to focus on attacking the "real" enemy.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

Re:Pointless article.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 14, 2005 04:15 AM
You are right that article is pointless. Question what is better for me always sounds like question to kid: "who you like more - father or mother".

On second that Linus tries to avoid flame wars you are wrong. He just have enough experience to be flexible: he doesn't reject the fact of existence of BSD, he just never used it, so he cannot comment.

It is just sign of experience.

#

Re:Pointless article.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 14, 2005 05:37 AM
Perhaps the next time someone gets in a flame war over it, the fact that someone who knows what they're talking about is on record saying 'it depends' may cool it down a bit.

#

Re:Pointless article.

Posted by: hazza on June 15, 2005 07:08 AM
It is better for both sides to focus on attacking the "real" enemy


This statement displays your ignorance. The "enemy" as you call them has uses too.

You could just about delete BSD (or Linux) in the article and insert "MS Windows" and it would be just as valid.

#

Thank you Joe Barr!

Posted by: Rick Stanley on June 14, 2005 02:45 AM
For offering the same set of questions to both developers! I would like to see a followup set of questions later to both camps, after hearing the responses from both.

#

Re:Thank you Joe Barr!

Posted by: Joe Barr on June 14, 2005 05:20 AM
No, please, don't thank me. Thank Jem Matzan and Roblimo, that was their idea.

#

platform agnostic

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 14, 2005 03:59 AM
Why does it matter? I use both.. The point is its *NIX baby, not winblowz. And that, my friends, is all that should matter.

#

Re:platform agnostic

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 14, 2005 04:39 AM
Winblows?

You're actually not *that* platform agnostic then?

#

Re:platform agnostic

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 14, 2005 04:44 AM
You're right- I should have clarified. Platform agnostic when it comes to *nix variants.

My bad<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)

#

In BSD, hardware support is often more graceful

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 14, 2005 06:31 AM
Open and Net BSD in particular I am very impressed with. If you'll look at their wireless support, or USB, or some of the more "modern" style hardware, it is often more gracefully and robustly supported, stable, etc. Plus, you don't have to build a myriad of modules, because the pre-built kernels work fine out of the box.

I've been using OpenBSD in routers and servers for 5 years, and recently switched to it (from Linux) on my laptop. It's a much better system in my opinion.

#

Re:In BSD, hardware support is often more graceful

Posted by: baypos on June 14, 2005 12:49 PM
I've tried different linux distros, and freeBSD. Recently started using OpenBSD and find it a cleaner install, not GUI and not a lot of packages to work with. Runs great and I can add packages and ports of what I am going to use the system for.
I like OpenBSD.

#

Re:In BSD, hardware support is often more graceful

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 14, 2005 05:33 PM
You like it because it doesn't use modules? This is a pretty ignorant statement. Modules are a strength, not a weakness. Without them you need to compile all kinds of unused drivers into the kernel, causing kernel bloat. To get rid of the extra drivers you need to compile a custom kernel. That's how Linux used to operate before they added module capability to the kernel.

#

Re:In BSD, hardware support is often more graceful

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 14, 2005 11:59 PM
The OpenBSD kernel on i386 is less than 5MB. I could care less about having a kernel taking less than 3MB when I've got 1GB RAM. Now, not dicking around with compiling modules is a blessing. It just works.

#

Re:In BSD, hardware support is often more graceful

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 15, 2005 01:58 AM
Yes I agree. I find OpenBSD to be so clean (code, filesystem layout and documentation) and robust that I prefer to buy hardware for it, rather than massaging it into working with some obscure, crappy, possibly closed device.

Regardless of this, it is not often that I find something does not "just work" with OpenBSD. As people have stated, wireless cards and USB support is fantastic. With OpenBSD, a wireless card is just another network card with the extra configuration options which go with wireless. Very very simple to set up. "dhclient wi0" will get you connected to an open AP in range for example, right after install. As is typical of OpenBSD, a foundation has been laid down (for wireless support) and cards attach to that foundation with their driver and all work as expected in standard fashion.

I use OpenBSD on x86 PC's, PPC Mac's and SPARC64 Sun's and the experience is the same and solid across them all. No quirks outside of certain hardware limitations, things just work.

For firewalls, pf is the absolute bomb. Packet filtering, prioritization, bandwidth throttling and NAT all in-kernel with a configuration file you can quickly read and write as if it is plain English.

As Linus said, when BSD devs do something, they do it right.

You won't see ad-hoc changing of foundations between releases or shock horror mid-stable release with OpenBSD. Linux on the other hand, the "enterprise" class OS, cannot make the same claim. It's mad science all the way.

As far as I am concerned, Linux and Linus are giving OSS a bad name.

#

Re:In BSD, hardware support is often more graceful

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 21, 2005 07:07 AM
But how much CPU cache do you have? Chances are its alot less than 3 MB. Since it is the cache on the CPU that the data must be loaded to, the CPU will spend less cycles loading a smaller kernel to the cache than bringing a larger kernel to the cache. Also considering that the kernel is the most use process in the OS, larger kernels will greatly reduce performance because of extra CPU cycles it need to read all the kernel data.

This was if I remmember correctly, one of the main reasons microkernels were created, because monolithic kernels were getting too large.

#

why didnt he ask

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 14, 2005 09:44 AM
if BSD is dying?

or if they used BSD in soviet russia???

#

Fair discussion

Posted by: Brian Masinick on June 14, 2005 10:20 AM
I don't think that Linus is at all threatened by these kinds of questions. He just sees the whole argument as fruitless. I happen to like using GNU/Linux software, probably for the same reasons that Torvalds wrote them. I'd agree that BSD probably focuses on certain things and does them very well, but from my vantage point, when I simply want to do the every day things that my work entails, (reading Email and Web pages to research information and keep up on correspondence), edit files, browse stuff, Linux seems to do it effortlessly. Does that suggest that I can't do such things with BSD based systems? Not at all, and I don't have anything against BSD based systems, either. In fact, most of my early UNIX experiences were on BSD based real UNIX systems (with somewhat less work on the original UNIX V6, V7, and later System V implementations). While I could (and can) do all the kinds of things that I can do on any of them, I can do them easier and with less effort on Linux software. I can download it, build it, install it, and use it in minutes with a four year old PC. The same PC generally works fine with other systems, but I can honestly tell you that I don't have to worry much about details when putting a commodity Linux desktop system together (unless I WANT to worry about details). In contrast, I generally MUST worry about details with a BSD based desktop system in order to get it to do what I want it to do. Once done, it's effective, but fiddling around (unless it's my job to fiddle around) just takes too much time. Yeah, once in a while, I do it "Just For Fun". Frankly, though, I have a family, and today they count more.

#

... Umm.... NetBSD?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 14, 2005 12:24 PM
"...That ranges from supporting much wider hardware (both in the driver sense and in the architecture sense) to actual uses.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...since to me, the important thing for an OS is how well it performs under different patterns, be they embedded, server, or desktop, or just some totally crazy person in a basement trying something new."

Say it with me: N-E-T-B-S-D

Honestly, if you replace Linux with NetBSD in those first couple paragraphs virtually everything would still hold true, possibly truer...

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love my Ubuntu GNU/Linux system (and certainly prefer it to BSD as a personal preference) but lets make sure we can back things up here though..

That said, good interview. It's always entertaining to see what Linus has to say. His mix of straight talk ("That's a stupid question") with excellent diplomacy is something that people should definately try to follow suit with.

#

Re:... Umm.... NetBSD?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 14, 2005 04:54 PM
Kernel-wise the NetBSD sources are way more portable . All platform code in one tree and compilable instead of X different sorts of fork-and-merge projects.

And I didn't consider Linus' words so diplomatic. If you read the answers he gives he is clearly saying Linux is better (which is, given he's the principal architect quite understandable).

#

Re:... Umm.... NetBSD?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 21, 2005 07:14 AM
perhaps, what about about drivers?

The single reason i switch from freeBSD back to linux was that freebsd (as well as netBSD) didn't have decent support for my graphic card,

#

It should be Berkeley guys next Wednesday.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 14, 2005 06:15 PM
In my opinion, next week interviews should be with Berkeley guys , the creator of BSD kernel, not the leaders of any BSD flavored projects.

On another note, both of the systems are open source , thus the comparison should not lead to any flame war , because if anyone not happy they can always tailor them to their needs , look at MacOSx with BSD kernel.. better or not is not really a question here.IMHO.

buckrey - malaysia

#

Racism

Posted by: Tall Mario on June 14, 2005 06:56 PM
I often find black and white people a bit stupid, truth be told
Once again racism in Open Source rears its ugly head. I know that Linus Torvalds is highly respected as an engineer and the architect of GNU/Linux, but comments like this are inexcusable, even for him. People should be allowed to contribute to Open Source regardless of the color of their skin.


I call on Linus to make a public apology for his comments.

#

Re:Racism lol

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 14, 2005 07:06 PM
"I often find black-and-white people a bit stupid, truth be told." You left out the all important hyphens.


            This was in terms of yes/no and right/wrong. He also mentions gray area, which is somewhere in between, and beyond the black-and-white mindset. Now you might think that "gray" was a reference to the 3 sister witches (they popped up in MacBeth for example), that share one eye and one tooth. Anyway... sort of funny post. Take care.

#

Re:Racism lol

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 15, 2005 05:40 AM
Oooh... grey, perhaps some ageism slipping into your reply there....!

#

Re:Racism - HUMOUR - WATCH OUT!!!

Posted by: SarsSmarz on June 14, 2005 09:48 PM
In this forum, we should put up a little humour flag for the literal fundamentalists. Of course, that probably won't help.....

#

Re:Racism

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 14, 2005 11:38 PM
It's not "black and white people", it's "black-and-white people". He was saying people who say you can only use one thing or the other are idiots, not people of different races to himself are idiots.

"Once again racism in Open Source rears its ugly head."
Since when has there been racism in Open Source?

#

Re:Racism

Posted by: Tall Mario on June 15, 2005 07:36 PM
One of the leaders of the Open Source movement, Eric S. Raymond, is a <a href="http://esr.ibiblio.org/index.php?p=127" title="ibiblio.org">notorious racist</a ibiblio.org>.

#

Re:Racism

Posted by: SarsSmarz on June 15, 2005 12:00 AM
case in point.

#

Two necessary approaches

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 15, 2005 02:43 AM
Interesting bit. It's good to see that Linus keeps it calm. Still, it seems to me that he's kind of beating around the bush. What about a full scale comparison? His 'perfect' versus 'good enough' thingy doesn't make much sense to me. Isn't 'perfection' what drives any kind of development (whether perfection is ultimately attainable or not)? How could it be harmful to try to perfect a certain area? The whole system profits from it. The whole issue is that people *restrict* themselves to certain areas. Surely, it's important to see the big picture but Linus' approach is too black and white for me. We need perfectionism in specific areas which then are linked into the bigger system. Perfect is the friend of good, just as is 'good enough' is. It's not a black or white world... as somebody stated in that interview. I see a lot of mixing (i.e. grey).

#

Re:Two necessary approaches

Posted by: cammoblammo on June 15, 2005 09:13 AM
I remember at Uni we had a massive and complex assignment due, and many of the people in our class had been out of academia for a long time. Many didn't know whether or not they'd get the assignmment done up to scratch, and they just weren't bothering, which went right against their work ethic. All sorts of problems ensued. People were depressed, considering dropping out, and so on. Nothing was being done.

The lecturer got up two weeks before the due date, and told us this--"If it's worth doing, it's worth doing badly."

In other words, a low 'D' is better than an 'F-no submit' especially when resubmissions were allowed.

Everyone did what they could, and all passed first time. None of it was perfect, but that wasn't required.

Linus does the equivalent of this with his 'release early-release often' philosophy. It's better to have something out there that can be improved by the community than hidden away waiting for improvements that will never come. As long as 'good enough' will still be improved, I think there's room for both.

#

Both for their purpose.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 15, 2005 05:57 AM
I run OpenBSD for a firewall, Win2KPro for my gaming box, and Slackware for just about everything else. If not for the game I would probably re-build the Win box as some form of Linux.

#

It needs point of view

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 15, 2005 11:50 AM
I think we have got to give it a point-of-view. Linus is a kernel developer not a userland. Linux is a kernel. FreeBSD is kernel+userland system and developers commit to kernel, userland, ports, documents and any more. The range is different not the same. So what Linus gives is correct, and what FreeBSD developers give is correct.

#

Both suck

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 15, 2005 06:14 PM
Windows rules!

#

Re:Both suck

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 15, 2005 09:11 PM
Happy patching to you !!,

#

Lancer EVO or impreza STI?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 16, 2005 08:01 PM
To me the above question is much more relevant
to OS comparison than these words of Linus.

Clearly as others have stated about a million times, linux is a kernel not an OS.

Someone (debian?) could take this kernel and
package a great OS.
Some other can also take this kernel (redhat?)
and package a product that sucks.

Also another fact strikes me intensively:

Linux has been favored my the world's attention,
funding from the biggest corporations (now best citizens of free software,
but formerly not too friendly to open standards such as TCP/IP, (read IBM and its SNA anti-internet fud during the 90's)),
and all the ex-windows users that start begging
to differ, and all that for over 6-7 years..

And whats the result?? Where are we now?
A fragmented kernel, confused users,
and performance and stability that
is comparable to lets say FreeBSD.....

Is that what you'd call value for effort???
(As in value for money...).

As for my self, i am happy with FreeBSD,
and let IBM loose money from its investment
in Linux, which of course come from
selling services to banks running SNA, CICS, DB2,etc..

#

Re:Lancer EVO or impreza STI?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 20, 2005 11:12 AM
I have to agree. The amount of corporate money that is perceived to have been thrown into a kernel wrapped in software, they would have something further advance then what it is. It has Novell, IBM, like you said. I know there would be more, their the 2 that pop off the top of the head. I don't know how much the other Linux distro's make, but yeah they would make some $$

I would assume by about now, the hardware companies would be kissing linux ass and wanting to make drivers readily available for their hardware, hey doesnt have to have the source code thrown in with it. I couldnt give a shit, if it didnt, it doesnt with windows, and I have lived with it lol, so not having the source code available for a driver isnt going to bother me. IT would most likely work better.

It's a free system so who can sook. Its free had heaps thrown at it from various sources and It still can't can't come together to well.

I would be curious to see what I Linus Distro would be. IT would be nice to hear. IT has to have all the way up to a gui etc. I know he may not preffer gui etc, but it would be interesting to see what he would do to compliment it, instead of butcher it like some.

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya