Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 18 Nov 2016 14:35:34 +0100
From:      Ralf Mardorf <>
Subject:   Re: Microsoft announced it is joining The Linux Foundation?
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <> <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Fri, 2016-11-18 at 12:48 +0000, Manish Jain wrote:
> On 11/18/16 17:30, wrote:
> > Depending on what you want to archive, there are good reasons to prefer
> > FreeBSD over Linux or vice versa, but systemd for sure doesn't change
> > Linux in a way, that migrating to FreeBSD makes sense, if Linux was the
> > right choice without systemd
> No personal offence intended, but let me tell you a thing about Linux 
> and all the crap that keeps cropping up in that world. Ever since this 
> beautiful thing systemd popped up, I have tried 2 Linux distros for my 
> second box - OpenSuse 42.1 and K Ubuntu 16.10. On OpenSuse, my printer 
> does not work, and under Ubuntu, my APC UPS does not work. Repeated 
> messages to help forums produced no response whatever. If my basic 
> hardware does not work, what was the point of a new thing called systemsd ?

You are comparing Linux distros for another target than FreeBSD with

> This is not just systemd - it is simply too much, way too much choice 
> and no maturity/stability in every thing Linux does. One day they call 
> it eth0, the next they start calling it enp3s0.

You shouldn't stay with kernel names, because the new name scheme has
the advantage, that it provides consistent names on many hardware. I
dislike the names, too, but the improvement is good, that said on my
hardware the names are still not consistent. However, udev is just some
software with pros and cons.

> One day man, the next info. One day they use ext2, the next ext3, the next ext4,
> and the next btrfs and the next ... God knows. Nobody has good explanations, just 
> fancy ideas when new flux is introduced. When there is so much turbulence at the
> core, the world will collapse.

How is they? You could chose what ever FS you want. File systems are
available for other operating systems, too.

> What killed Unix was, besides the inexorable sums of money AT&T wanted, 
> the unforgiving inclination to create a new distro whenever somebody had 
> learnt the basics of Unix. That endemic has turned to epidemic now that 
> Unix is Open Source Linux. Linux can't ever do the basic things of 
> standardization and documentation at the core level.

Linux is neither Unix, even not Posix. However, you could write portable
scripts, by e.g. not using bashisms. Linux follows standards and the
documentation is superb, as it is for FreeBSD, too.

> For hardware that works under FreeBSD, there really is no better choice 
> than to stick to FreeBSD. You could waste some money getting the right 
> hardware, but you have long term peace. Try that under Windows or Linux.

Using hardware with Windows for sure is easier, than using hardware with
 FreeBSD or Linux. An exception might be that Windows dropped 32bit
architecture, but apart from this, you more likely will experience
issues with FreeBSD or Linux, than with Windows.

Anyway, which operating system is the best for your domain depends on
many variables. FreeBSD isn't usable in all domains.


Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>