Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 09:18:04 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> To: dennis@kentauros.rtd.algo.com.gr (dennis) Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: question: Unite or Die? Message-ID: <199611201418.JAA04757@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961120120658.006f8ecc@kentauros> from "dennis" at Nov 20, 96 02:06:58 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Hi to all, > i posted a question recently, asking why to prefer FBSD over Linux. > I have moved this to -chat, this is not appropriate for our technical forums. >I was > accused of > starting a flame war then. My real intention was to see if there was *REALLY* > something diffrent to look about. My conclusion is that in some fields FBSD > is better > (networking, stability) and in some other Linux has the lead( available > drivers, memory > managment). My question is why have two OS rather than one REALLY good one? > Why dont programmers,hackers,develepors of both teams unite to write the > ultimite OS? > Actually FreeBSD-current is much better in the memory management area (the upcoming 2.2 release.) Our 2.1.X series comes from the same time frame (actually, I think before 1.2.X of Linux.) There is significant anecdotal evidence that FreeBSD handles memory loads much better than almost any other OS (In the case of Linux, much better.) (2.1.X had a very inefficient malloc in userland, and now we have a very nice, FreeBSD written one.) Under light loading conditions, each OS is roughly equivalent. There is a difference in philosophy between the OSes (even the responsibility of development in the FreeBSD kernel (and that is what Linux really is) is spread amongst more people.) It isn't commonly understood, but is true. FreeBSD doesn't have a single authoritarian leader, but frankly the Linux development is authoritarian. > > Why the two teams mock at each other? Dont they see the danger in front of > them? > There are two philosophies of freedom -- the pre-ordained, I know what is best for the world notion of the GPL. There is the freer, you can do with the code what you want of the BSDL. I prefer a license that doesn't encumber as much as GPL. GPL is too heavy handed and too much against freedom of redistribution (with the double-speak that they are for "freedom" -- of course meaning something entirely different.) In my mind, GPL is more like shareware without having to pay money for it -- there are still too many strings attached. > > Windows NT has only one goal: to kill UNIX and every flavour of it! > Distribute your knowledge, before you become a close team of hackers > against the > rest of the NT driven world! > WinNT has the marketing might of Microsoft behind it. Performance isn't where NT shines. U**X is good where you do need the performance, and your management doesn't come from the same training (lobotomy) programs as Dilbert's manager. Each company/individual can decide to buy junk or something inferior if they want. We cannot control that. I really don't think that a bunch of radical children will turn the tides of computing (other than they will be looked at with disdain.) Evaluating each problem, and applying the best solution and tools to the problem is the best way to handle things. Frankly, the GPL breaks most run-time software for me and much of the software industry. For development tools, GPL is okay for me, because I don't invest my time in them and redistribute them. As a pure, simple end user, or a big FTP redistribution site, GPLed code is okay. As a manufacturer and redistributor, GPL can cause more problems than the software is worth. IMO, the best of all worlds would be if GPLed runtime code would just go away, with GPLed and free non-runtime code comprising the rest of the system. IMO, GPLed runtime code is not much better than Microsoft NT. This would help small, conservative, responsible (non-development tool) software vendors alot. Of course, the agenda behind GPL implies that software (and the trade-secrets) should be exposed. I don't think so!!! Such trade-secrets are sometimes expensive to create, and GPL encumbered code isn't a place where I want my trade-secrets placed. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611201418.JAA04757>