OSNews

This is a very interesting read.
Every time something is posted about Linux you have the people who say "Looks like WINDOWS!" and "what will this do that windows wont?" and the every famous "How many distros do we need?". It seems that just as liberty, open source has people who only want you to have it if you do with it what they want you to do.

Xandros makes changes to KDE (since KDE IS OPEN SOURCE) and people complain. Some people get so upset when you do things with open source code that they don't like. This is non-sense. Linux can be every thing a user needs it to be. It can be a desktop OS, a server, an embedded OS, hell it can run a blender. That is what makes linux great. It's open source... you can do with it what you need to do to suit a need.

Linux as a desktop OS IS going to happen. It's not like BeOS where it will die if some one stops working on it. It's not like Windows where it will only get developed if M$ feels like it. As long as there are Type-A people there will be Type-B people... and at some point Type-B people will develop user friendly things for type-a people.

Look at how far linux has come. I tried to use linux in 1997, and my god that was quite and experience. Every thing started in command prompt.. I had to work hard at finding a window manager and then I had to access it's source and build the files and then it ran and it looked AWFUL.
Now you can download very nice looking distros from Red Hat and Mandrake and Lycoris and the sort.

There are people out there that think like a Type-A but code like a Type-B.

Is it just me or have millions of people been brainwashed by the Linux hype? I have 10 years experience with Netware and Solaris and i can not honestly see why Linux has so much hype. To me it is simply a clone of UNIX. It seems pointless to me that all these people have put ten years of work into reinventing UNIX. There are better Open Source alternatives out there (FreeBSD is my favorite). I could go on and on about why FreeBSD is technically superior but i wont.
I refuse to get sucked into the Linux hype and change my stable,fast,mature OS just because Linux is the "next hot thing"
Windows on the desktops,FreeBSD on the servers

Well I guess this article's point has been proven by Mark

Excuse me Mark but there are two points that makes Linux "next hot thing".

a ) Opensource.

The reason it has too many developers is its Opensource License.And it grows and grows faster than any OS ( and UNIX ) has done

b ) It's UNIX. If you don't like it , it doesn't meant it is an awfull "clone" of UNIX.Technically, FreeBSD is not UNIX ( cause it is not certified as a TRUE UNIX, at least as the OPENGROUP describes.

By the way, I believe that the fact that a machine run SOLARIS it doesn't mean it must be wonderful. Why then SUN is going to sell Linux - Based Workstations and low level servers ?

About the decaying Netware OS I would prefer not to talk.

"Linux can be every thing a user needs it to be. It can be a desktop OS, a server, an embedded OS, hell it can run a blender. That is what makes linux great. It's open source... you can do with it what you need to do to suit a need."

This is such a narrow-minded point of view .. like I'm going to sit down and write an open source version of Cubase SX. Who are you trying to kid?

"Windows on the desktops,FreeBSD on the servers"

It's funny that you mention this, as it seems that Linux is trying to be Windows on the desktop, and Unix on the servers, but doesn't particularly excel at either task.

I think this is a great article and a real springboard to discussion.

I'm a Type A. I use some of the big Linux distros, but also the Lycoris, ELX, Lindows distros to see what they're doing. I am not surprised that Type B people would be offended often. I don't blame them, especially when people say their applications suck and that sort of thing. I think the author is so right - so often people's best insights are obscured by their language and tone. I've never understood this type of behavior. I am very grateful for the developers and what they do and I respect their work.

As a Type A person, I don't have an agenda for Linux...except that it becomes as good as it can be. I mean I don't have an agenda in the sense that I'm not promoting Linux hoping it will overthrow Microsoft. I believe in diversity in computing and am in favor of healthy platforms prospering, that their be choice and the freedom to choose.

So, the one overwhelming thing Type A and Type B people have is that we all think Linux is great. If we could concentrate on that more, I think better fruit would be born. Many seem to antagonize each other deliberately. For example, someone will come into a Lycoris thread here and say, "I use Gentoo - Lycoris sucks!" Or vica versa and/or any number of combinations of these things. What is the point of doing this type of thing? It only disrupts the topic. That's all that is accomplished. Rarely do I ever see people here thank others for information they didn't know (you can't let your guard down and admit you don't know everything:-) or ask for indormation. Usually, people want to simply tell what they think. They seem not to have the willingness to listen and learn. If this type of behavior could be changed, we might get somewhere together.

Great article, Adam!!

I think the author is (like he says in the end) making sweeping generalizations, by that definition of user types, i would fall under type B because i'm a developer? on the other hand i agree with type A user opinions. I went through 5 years of university and i don't want to be mistaken as some geek who just learned c++ from a tutorial in a linux website, and thinks PINE is better than outlook express. I think most genuine devolopers would agree that linux on the desktop should be better than what it is today.
In my opinion the real types here should be:

A - The people like Linus Torvalds who think there's room for closed-source and comercial software in linux alongside with open software.
B - The people who think there's only room for open-source free software, like Richard Stallman.

I agree with type A

>In my opinion the real types here should be:

No, you are missing the point of this article. This article is not about licenses and commercial or free software.
It is about the kind of people who use Linux and what they *expect* from it.

For example, someone will come into a Lycoris thread here and say, "I use Gentoo - Lycoris sucks!" Or vica versa and/or any number of combinations of these things.

Those people are called trolls. Don't feed the trolls.

"It's funny that you mention this, as it seems that Linux is trying to be Windows on the desktop, and Unix on the servers, but doesn't particularly excel at either task."

Another type of troll will say that something is better but will not back it up. I'm not talking about subjective IMHO bull. If you meant that you would have said it. I'm talking about cold hard facts. Usability studies, Market Share etc.

I don't run Linux on my own machine, as OpenBSD is much faster and better organized than any Linux distro I've come across (not to mention more secure and less bloated), but I do install Linux on some one or another's machine at about the rate of one new Linux user per month. About half the users either go back entirely to Windows or use Linux only in those infrequent times when they feel there are massive benefits (remote sessions, coding/compiling/debugging, servers, firewalls, etc.). The other, generally more educated (people working towards obtaining or already possessing Masters degrees in engineering, science, or math-related fields) tend to use Linux either exclusively or almost so (switching to Windows to play certain games).

There is a lot of hype around Linux, and much of it is undeserved. There *are* superior UNIX/UNIX-like OSs out there, but GNU/Linux has a lot of momentum and community behind it. In a way it's sad to see other UNIX-style systems neglected, but overall, GNU/Linux has had a tremendous, beneficial effect on the UNIX world. Due to the draw of Linux, we have so many new [mostly open-source] projects and applications that work on all UNIX-like systems. Without the supporters of GNU/Linux, we BSD users would be stuck on the console with a mere handful of utilities. GNU/Linux garners press and popularity, and I don't see how UNIX fans can really complain. Sure, they wish it was their own brand of UNIX that was getting all the raves, but no matter.

As to Windows on the desktop -- I, for one, feel hopelessly crippled whenever I'm forced to use Windows -- or Macs -- nowdays (which is often, as I'm in charge of a couple Windows and Mac labs). It's somewhat odd, because I was raised on Apple machines, then switched to Windows at 3.1 and thought 95 and OS 7.x rocked. With Windows, I spend hours downloading and installing customizing tools and I *still* can't get the great feel that IceWM/X11/*nix provides me. It's a pain to be so limited -- no proper symlinks, ever so slow file management, excruciating GUI configuration... from the *nix command line I can do all that trivially, in a matter of seconds instead of minutes or hours. And don't get me started on the interface -- no useful keyboard shortcuts, no window shading, no multiple desktops, barely passable "multitasking", continually running out of memory, constant program errors, freezes, and crashes; the list goes on and on. Sure, a lot of these complaints are rendered moot if you spend hours working with shareware utilities, but "defaults matter." Even after pouring hours of work into these things, Windows XP is less responsive on my Athon 1800+ than OpenBSD/X11/IceWm on my SPARCstation 5/80.
The Mac UI is just as bad. OS 9's multi-tasking/multi-threading is non-existant whenever you open up a program or try to do anything demanding. OS X is better, but it's slow. You still can't switch windows easily (yeah, like I'm going to use a bunch of miniscule windows just so I can click to switch), the dock isn't nearly as good as NeXT's, we're still missing multiple desktops and window shading, and the file system is screwy. Oh, and did I mention it's sloooow?
There's no perfect OS, but I'm much happier with my current OpenBSD/X11/IceWM system than I am with anything else I've ever used. (Now, if we had GCC 3.2 and some better power management on Sparcs, I'd be ecstatic!)

I am type A according to the article, and I hate the whole idea of Lindows. I am not sure about Xandros, but have grave reservations.

So basically I think his whole categorization is messed up.

Linux is flexible enough for distros to create easy GUI utilities for those that want it and distros like Debian and Gentoo for those who really don't care.

I don't fall into either type. I like the command line but I find a good gui useful. I don't write much software and I use Gnome but I value efficient and powerful programs. I'm not scared to edit a con fig file.

Scary, isn't it?

Jesus. Is this turning into Linux-bashing-news? Not even /. was this mean to BeOS.

Hahaha! Our No1 TypeB user, the master of TypeB users, Rayiner Hashem, does not like this article! What a surprise! NOT.

Well, I'll have to admit I'm leaning more to the B type side of this. I'm not a developer in that sense, but I like coding, I'm for the smaller, faster and more effecient wms and I wouldn't be able to live without some sort of console.

Great article, btw


Mark H:
http://liw.iki.fi/liw/texts/advocating-linux.html
Replace linux with FreeBSD and read that.
You don't like linux, don't use it. And don't mix up in discussions about linux if you're really not interested in using it. No good in just meeting up to flame people/OSs.

- Anti

As If!?!

Great, yet another "can't we all just get along" article. Haven't seen one of these for about a week. The idea that you can say there are "2" types of people who use linux is laughable at best. So how many type of windows users are there?

Your overall gist seems to be that of too much arguing and not enough cooperation. Well you know what? That's life, people argue and don't get along. Telling everyone to be respectful is 1) not gonna happen and 2)not going to lead to linux bliss.

If you want to blame someone for the "sad state" of the linux desktop. Blame the distros. They control what the users see. The users can bitch and moan all they want, but its the Redhat's and Mandrake's that drive the direction of linux. Not some snotnose teen whining here or someother nerd site like Slashdot. For example why is Redhat the leading distro by far just now trying to make a decent desktop? Your telling me with the billions they were once worth they couldn't have dumped enough to Intuit or Adobe and get them to port their apps. Or how about desiging some decent open source fonts? Mindblowing huh?

So in conclusion your theory leads to polite forums(how boring and unlikely) and my theory leads to usuable software and a better desktop, which one do you want?

Adam, there's a real difficulty. On one hand, opensource developers often don't want to be beholden to users. They really want peers who appreciate their code and perhaps contribute back. But the problem is that they need users to defend against companies like Microsoft who would like nothing better than to destroy them. Like it or not, the developers need the users and politics. Torvalds is so liked because he doesn't care about politics. But Linux users are not immune.

Mr. None:

No one, but no one, is commenting on the "sad state" of desktop Linux. In fact, desktop Linux is now at it's brightest and showing more promise than I even wished for. Red Hat's (null), as we've covered here before, is absolutely gorgeous and extremely easy to use. Lycoris is truly a snap. Xandros has some features that are mouthwatering. We're not all the way there, but the groundwork has been laid.

If you choose to see the entire piece as a debate-provoking troll or a "Can't We All Just Get Along" Kumbaya song, that's fine. But that's not what it is - it's a legtimate argument - we spend way too much time arguing amongst ourselves as regularly evidenced on OSNews, Slashdot, Linuxtoday, and other tech sites. It's not a plea to get along by finding a single goal - it's a plea to start on common ground and try to realize both objectives, not to force everyone into a sole solution.

As a type A as defined in the article, Installation IS the key. Linux on the desktop is already there in terms of GUI, except for some of the applications. Pick a distro that is suitably graphically based for you and go. (OK, that's not quite true, I've noticed a few places where there isn't a clipboard to copy text too, but I know there are utilities that could give me that)

The applications of course, our coming, but they still aren't easy to install. The ideal to satify most users is easy installs that work accross distributions easily, so I can use Mandrake and a "type b" can use Debian. Those that want to compile for whatever reason still can, of course. Codeweavers plug-in utility was an example of the way it should work, but too many Type A users are finding it easier to upgrade the whole distro than install apps (I'am not alone here, right?). Package management, from my experience, is not the final answer.

Yes, there is probably something "wrong" with Linux, as with every other OS around. There is no single OS that is a "jack of all trades", though Linux comes closest, scaling from a wrist watch to the Power4. There are thousands of OS's out there, and if you can't find one that does everything you want then you'll probably have to use several or integrate features from one into another.

If no OS has the feature you want, help a CS get a Ph.D. If it is marketability you are after, the consumer alone is the one who can help in this respect. Independent developers can only do so much, and they have done quite a lot. In short, if you want support for another OS, and your best chance here is Linux since people are at least open to Linux being respectable now, would be to complain to the company to support Linux. Tell them why you must use Linux. Tell them why they would benefit if you desire.

There are jack asses in every niche, we have our fair share of them in the OSS comunity, maybe I'm one myself; I try not to be. But do something useful as an end user, and complain to the big hardware and software companies for support.

I type A. I type A and I'll do it again. A A A A A

BeOS R5, which is pretty old now, is still far better than any Linux distro out right now.

BeOS was a great desktop OS, it's just too bad it didn't take off. I hope OpenBeOS can be as good as the real thing

I'm type C. I love a good GUI. A GOOD GUI I said, and easy installs. But I also love having text config files to play with, and the feeling of learning something new. And typing ps -A on a console(or in a run box on a panel) is a lot faster than right clicking on the taskbar then clicking on the processes tab.
These examples are out of context, you would have to watch me for a few days to understand.

No matter what type of a computer user you are, you can be a usability tester. You do not need to be a programmer to have an influence on software. If you use a piece of software but wish it would have a certain feature, one less dialog box, or prettier buttons, please email the author of the software. Open source software has a very large usability lab. What are you waiting for? Go make something better.

There are some features that are good about Linux that BSD doesn't have like:
1) /proc
2) Wide support for a variety of special purpose file systems like XFS
3) Much better hardware support
4) Larger supply of ported / native software
5) Distributions covering a wider range of abilities and interests

BSD is more stable and more reliable but only slightly. VMS, i-os, z-os still kill them both if you really want reliability.

But I think the primary thing that seperates Linux in terms of hype is BSD license vs. GPL. GPL allows companies and individuals to work in an environment of sharing that is impossible under BSD.

For example why did SGI work so hard to make XFS available for Linux but not for BSD? The reason is that by creating it for Linux they can support lower end hardware, get people used to using XFS (and seeing the advantages of it), and thus create apps that will be easy to port and will scale up to IRIX/SGI. Were they to release under BSD though another company could take it make improvements and bundle it in binary only format with their OS; forcing SGI to compete against a produce they developed.

Quite simply the hype is about GNU/Linux not just the kernel.

Like anonymous I don't program much, but I am comfy with a command line. I like X windows but I am a realist and not everything can be done easily with Linux.

BUT

Since I first played with slackware (about 7 years ago) Linux has come a LONG LONG way. Linux is by virtue of its unix pedigree will always be a great server environment, but the real growth looks like being on the users desktops.

I reckon almost anyone with some system installation experience (be it doze or mac or whatever) could get a modern distribution running on some reasonably recent hardware. Basic config issues with hardware and peripherals are being addressed in better and better ways (as far as users are concerned). Together with the profusion of applications that run smoothly (quality games, office apps, internet apps, multimedia blah blah blah), Linux as a system is really starting to mature.

Classifying users according to their interaction into either or, ignores the likelyhood that ppl change and their use of technology is often governed by their access to it. As Linux becomes more accessable, users will develop their confidence and if they are inclined, there awaits users the full spectrum of modern computing to play with.

As a type C I reckon - get Linux on the desktop and let the future take off.

I try an installation of Linux every few months. It always just misses out on the usability score for a Type A. (I'm sure the Type B people would not experience any difficulty)

The people I deal with are all Type A. The big attraction of Linux to them is that it is FREE or low cost. A lower priced Windows would remove most of their interest in Linux. All the esoterica about which OS is better means nothing to Type A, otherwise everyone would have bought Macs in the 90s.

Linux has to get past the critical mass stage before MS wakes up and kills it with predatory pricing practices. For that matter if more people had Macs with OSX, why would a Type A bother with Linux in its present state?

Linux needs a better desktop experience and it needs it now if it is to meet the challenge ahead.

we're still missing multiple desktops [on OSX.


http://space.sourceforge.net/ works great.

But I think the primary thing that seperates Linux in terms of hype is BSD license vs. GPL. GPL allows companies and individuals to work in an environment of sharing that is impossible under BSD.

What are you talking about? You can take BSD licensed code and re-release it under the GPL. Unlike the communist GPL, the BSD license allows you to do whatever you want with the code.

The reason is because the lack of any applications the pathetic packages that are put together and never tested properly. Take FreeBSD for example, 2 times in a row, a broken distribution of GNOME was included. 2 TIMES! KDE 3.0 on 4.6, again, broken. There is never any attempt to make FreeBSD or infact any *BSD easy to use. Which is alright, however, I don't want to hear people moan and groan because the lime light is shining on something/someone else.

If FreeBSD want to get part of the lime light:

Drop the text installer. Sure, I can use it, and most "techies" can, however, unless you include a nice graphical installer, the media will never look at it, as it is considered "impossible" for them to install. Either drop it, or create a single CD solution, with one desktop, one set of each applications and maybe the odd compiler or two.

Make sure the packages actually work. Test them. Don't rush releases. Heck, CUPs, for example, which is a package with FreeBSD 4.6 didn't even detect my parallel port for goodness sake! it was there, freebsd detected it, and heck, it even told me what printer it was, but when it came to CUPS, the only connections that were listed where the usual network options + USB printing.

OpenOffice, please, actually ensure it works before touting it as "ready for prime time", heck, I had it crashing more times than I could poke a stick at it.

"For example why is Redhat the leading distro by far just now trying to make a decent desktop?"

Urr - how the fsck do you work that out?
Sales ?

As im sure has been pointed out a million times before, linux is FREE.
So that point is MOOT.

Debian is good, I like it cause its simple but effective
Plus Apt-Get is nice for people who dont want to spend all day compiling source, and just want things to work.

Im type AB ~

Im a coder, However I thing a good GUI is required for linux to be all it can be.

Those are people who like Unix's power and flexibility but also like good gui's. Most of them are tired of waiting on the linux desktop to mature and many of them own Macs now.

Finally, somebody classified Linux crowd on "users" and "coders". Whatever. Linux HAD momentum and Linux WAS hype. It was part of that dot-bomd bubble. Forget it now - it's over for linux, companies folding, less and less developers are coming to it. In last attempt to survive Linux is commecialized as hell (or as Windows if you want) - check out Linux Journal or any other magazine on Linux and count ads. This kills "geek" spirit that Linux had at some point in 90s.
Just to paraphrase JLG:
Whenever I have time to do something mindless to relax I recompile Linux kernel.

i dissagree on the two points..

well i agree with point 1 .. its open source.. thats one of its best features..

2nd best feature FREE FREE NO COST TO COPY ON THOUSANDS OF COMPUTERS IF YOU WANT TO.. FREE is the big word. freedom from price. freedom of code. freedom from microsoft.

i disagree with Linus.. he releases a GPL os.. then wants to put non free code into it? come on? thats taking one of the best parts of linux out? if i want something made by corporations i'll get windows, windows is better.

linus wants it to be the best? the best is free. cause that is what is going to win linux more users.

Linus is a coder first of all. He does not care about politicalities/GPLs and other stuff like that. I give him kudos for this kind of thinking. What matters is the code (commercial or not) and nothing else, when it comes to linux.

a programmer is not very good at graphics/design, nor have patience at it.
And, finally, a programmer is always very busy, doing a lot at the same time (several projects and always learning something new).
Sorry for the generalizations :-)

The primary draw for Linux among the general populous(sp?) is indeed its cost. As long as you can install Linux on 10,000 PCs for nothing, the corporate world will be eyeing it, waiting for it to become ready for their desktops so they can migrate. The latest MS licensing terms only amplify that desire, the desire for low cost and freedom from restrictive licenses imposed by other companies. Linux would alow them to actually OWN their own systems for a change!

He obviously has some political thinking or else he would not have licenced it under the GPL but BSD.

People are all political if they know or not. To ignore that is to ignore a great portion of the effect you are having on the world. Linus may shut up about his politics as to not insult people but he definitely keeps them in mind.

Torrey: Xandros makes changes to KDE (since KDE IS OPEN SOURCE) and people complain.

I notice *most* who complained are in Type A, mostly. They complain about the changes in KDE being bad,, or how cloning Windows is bad etc. They didn't complain in Xandros making stuff easy to use - you can do that WITHOUT cloning Windows.

Mark H: Windows on the desktops,FreeBSD on the servers

Funny, since Linux is growing much more faster on the server market (especially web servers) than FreeBSD.... And a lot of people (Camel comes to mind) that wouldn't believe that Linux is hype.

a ) Opensource.

The reason it has too many developers is its Opensource License.And it grows and grows faster than any OS ( and UNIX ) has done

Funny - and FreeBSD isn't open source? We should get OSI to use freebsd.org for claiming to be an Open Source project.

Rayiner Hashem: Jesus. Is this turning into Linux-bashing-news? Not even /. was this mean to BeOS.

Well. Firstly, it isn't Linux bashing, it is Linux-users-who-don't-like-each-other-from-different-camps bashing. Then, it isn't "news". It is an article, stating the opinion of the author. I suggest writing your own article and submiting it to Eugenia, cause from what I see she posts a lot of articles, even if it doesn't follow her stand.

None: For example why is Redhat the leading distro by far just now trying to make a decent desktop?

Because previously it didn't consider Linux on the desktop profitable. It is the top, BTW, because of its server business. Mandrake, I would say, the top of desktop distros. It is, for example, the best sold retail Linux in the US.

None: Or how about desiging some decent open source fonts?

People who KNOW how to make good fonts want to get paid by some very rich company. People who DON'T know how to make fonts either don't, or try making really ugly ones (ever tried the Arial clone from Abiword?).

Robert Hanlin: But the problem is that they need users to defend against companies like Microsoft who would like nothing better than to destroy them.

Why would they need users to defend against companies like Microsoft? What could they do? Microsoft can do anything they like, even if half the world uses an open source Office clone instead of Office.

Besides, Microsoft isn't anti-OSS, just anti-FSF. Just like any other corporate scum. Only MS is vocal about it because they face the most amount of threat.

Anonymous: BeOS R5, which is pretty old now, is still far better than any Linux distro out right now.

Not if you have a family that require multiple accounts, using the OS on a fast machine, need apps (the only consumer app that is good on BeOS is GobeProductive, whome 3.0 isn't available on BeOS). And the list goes on and on.

jbolden1517: 4) Larger supply of ported / native software

You can run just about any Linux app on FreeBSD at native speeds.

Matthew Gardiner: Take FreeBSD for example, 2 times in a row, a broken distribution of GNOME was included. 2 TIMES! KDE 3.0 on 4.6, again, broken.

Hmmm, both http://freebsd.kde.org/ and http://www.freebsd.org/gnome/ never mentioned it.

Matthew Gardiner: Drop the text installer. Sure, I can use it, and most "techies" can, however, unless you include a nice graphical installer, the media will never look at it, as it is considered "impossible" for them to install.

Amazingly the press did look at Click N Run on Lindows reviews, even with apt-get installed on it. What the press brings out is where you have to do something via a non-graphical manner, instead from an graphical front end, in order to use an app or the distro itself.

Anonymous: Those are people who like Unix's power and flexibility but also like good gui's. Most of them are tired of waiting on the linux desktop to mature and many of them own Macs now.

I know little people that are moving to Macs from Linux for desktop use. Yes, there is some, but very little.

graig smith: i disagree with Linus.. he releases a GPL os.. then wants to put non free code into it?

He release his code under the GPL. He has so far never release anything with non-GPL compatible code in the kernel.

He supports pagmactism. He supports the author's right to license his product under the license he likes, for example. He supports the use of non-Free software if it is better than the Free Software ones (BitKeeper comes to mind).

graig smith: if i want something made by corporations i'll get windows, windows is better.

What is wrong with things made by corporations? A lot of code in the Linux source tree, GPL it may be, but made by IBM/ Red Hat/ SuSE/ etc. employees.

If there is something made commercially for Linux, it is it good: use it (and in your case, if it is GPL, you *should* use it). If there is something made by a corporation that isn't good, DON'T USE IT.

Easy, ain't it?

Anonymous: He obviously has some political thinking or else he would not have licenced it under the GPL but BSD.

He licensed the software under GPL, not because he supports the Free Software movement, but because of two things
a) He wanted to get popularity. At that time, anything GPL gets popular.
b) He didn't want his code to be "stolen". It doesn't mean he supports the Free Softwae movement where everything must be Free Software....

"b) He didn't want his code to be "stolen". It doesn't mean he supports the Free Softwae movement where everything must be Free Software..."

Licencing it under the highly political GPL instead of making his own licence seems to suggest that he had political motivations that fit with the Free Software movement.

I might question if Linus regrets licencing it under the GPL though? He is somewhat like a bear taking honey from the bees. There's a lot of them angry bees swarming around him, and few of them stinging, but boy that honey sure does taste good.

Now to feed them hungry trolls...

I don't really care for the GPL myself because the same idealistic values can be applied to the much less restrictive BSDL. So what if somebody takes my code and refuses to open source their inovations upon it? I didn't write these inovations, so who am I to say what should be done with them? This is where the GPL and I fail to agree. The GPL isn't about freedom. Freedom is about doing what you want (ideally this is to the benefit of others as well as yourself but not necessarily so).

And let me just tell you something, a software license is only worth something to those who respect it. There's nothing stopping me from taking all that GPL'd code and flushing that bloody license down the crapper. Who says I'm going to close the source? I find it insulting that I am not trusted enough to keep it open. I do not need an extremely restrictive license to be idealistic.

The corporations will exploit the GPL, just you wait and see. You do not honestly think that a money crazed corporation is releasing their code under the GPL because they want to do good for all man, do you? If a company is releasing code under the GPL you can be sure that it is only to their benefit in some way.

So what does that leave us? Broken idealism and a lot of smoke 'n mirrors. But you know what they say, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. It's just I prefer to know who my enemies are.

pretty interesting reading. Though i'd rather split people into type ((X)) -- the ones who use computer+OS as a tool to achieve smthing - play a game, develope an apps, etc - these people _of course_ cry for simple program installations, clear dir structure,, and type ((Y)) - like Linus-in-his-youth (if one can believe his auto-bi book) who have computer+OS as substitution of friend - for those people the more cumbersome installation - the more "socialising" with the "friend" - the better.

I have seen many freebsd users bashing linux. BSD license is bad (M$ love it because the code can be stolen) and if linux doesn't exist you was using fvwm as graphical interface ... The BSD development is made only by a small group of gurus.

Linux is much more flexible, even as server. Hardware support is better, hard-disk access is faster and there are many journaled filesystems.

Use of BSDs will be restricted to niches. Linux will prevail.

Licencing it under the highly political GPL instead of making his own licence seems to suggest that he had political motivations that fit with the Free Software movement.


Linus is a programmer, a coder, not a lawyer. Did you ever try to read the GPL? Do you think you could have written by yourself? Would you be sure there weren't any loopholes in it? Alot of people put their stuff under the GPL without giving it much thought.

BSD license is bad (M$ love it because the code can be stolen)

If you use BSD code in your product you don't steal code - you use it as intended and are in fact encouraged to do so.
In contrast to GPL software, BSD software can be used by everyone with hardly any restricitons at all, thereby in my opinion being much more open and friendly to everyone.

If you want to have a type A Distro, go and buy a Powermac. There is OS-X bundled with it. The core of it, at the kernel/commandline level is some bastard of FreeBSD/Mach and other BSDs as well. The GUI on top of it is something entire different. It's not X-Windows, but it works, it has easy admintools, there is software available for it that one can "Instaclick(tm)" and it is consistent with any other Systems that run MacOS-X. And imagine that, any feature the under- lyinghardware offers is supported. Why is that so? Because it was developed COMMERCIAL, with programmers who got PAID for it, and worked EXLUSIVELY for it. Now look at Linux or the BSDs, first the hardware, there is NO system that supports any modern 3D-Graphicscard or the TV-Out of it, Sound- card, Scanner, Printer, DVDwriter/player with the ease of use, or (*cough*) stability that is available under Windows. Why is that so?
Because even IF the OpenSource developers would have that hardware to toy with it, they simply cannot obtain some specifications and opensource the derived work of that. At least not legally, think of CSS with DVD and Macrovision
with TV-Out, think of NVIDIA who delivered binary only 3D-
Drivers which did break any convention regarding DRI that has been introduced since XFree86 4.0. Need i say more?

Can Linux be friendlier on the desktop --yes
Change the dir structure (terrible idea-cause too many applicatioon problems and its set up pretty good right now)
The main problem I hear from people as I am showing them Linux is "This doesn't work just like Windows"--well its not windows and for that 5-10% difference in how KDE or GNOME works-keep in mind when learning anything there will be some changes to your thinking may be required. I support mostly Windows customers and have to jump through major hoops to get some things to work that just ARE in Linux. Complaining to the programmer saying I want this is a terrible way to get anything done (same in business, dont tell me it sucks give me a real suggestion with a reason why I should go through all the trouble to figure it out and code it--because I want it is not a valid reason)

Linus is a coder first of all. He does not care about politicalities/GPLs and other stuff like that. I give him kudos for this kind of thinking. What matters is the code (commercial or not) and nothing else, when it comes to linux.

eugenia, this is complete hypocritical of you. If linux (the kernel) would not have been GPLed we would not be here, os news would not be here, and you would be working to design the new Windows UI.
Let me try to explain you that if it were not for the "politicalities" of the license, we would have

1) no free code at all. Yes, that's right, no significant piece of code that you could freely modify at all. No OpenBeos, not even *BSD. The free BSDs and all otherserious opensource OSes would not be here had it not been for the success of Linux. ALL the opensource projects benefit from the popularity of linux, stick it in your mind

2) no cheap software at all. The free market economy, applied to software, created a monopoly, did you notice? There was simply no alternative to MS within the market economy, period. Remember the 80s before the internet and linus became popular? remember shareware? that would be the state of non-Microsoft software now: unknown, useless (400 different compressor programs and not a single replacement for windows), despised by professional and firms, and bound for ever to be compatible with windows.
Linux (the OS) and the GPL introduced competition back into the IT industry and brought down the price of software, my dear, no one else.

As for Linus saying that he does not care about the GPL is exactly as those of us lucky enough to live in a free country, and NOT doing anything to defend freedom of speech.
They should try to live in a world without any opensource license, and see the difference ...

People, let's face it - Linux _could_ be all the nice things you mentioned, but it needs only one thing. Stability. There is no reference point in the linux community, except maybe for l.Torvalds itself, but you have to think beyond this. The organization just sucks! We just need a portal that would serve as a FEEDBACK provider to the community developers & Type B people; and at the same time be a reference point for the "Type A" part of the comunity where they can vote for example which things they wnat to change with others (say the default behavior of certain apps). This way it would be all centralized, so that everybody can have some use of it.

I have seen SO MANY GOOD ARTICLES on OSNews and Slashdot talking about things that should be done, but it seems like words that fly in the wind. Nobody listens. Apple programmers for example know how a program should look on OSX because the COLECTED the data from the users about their experiences with the interface in one place and published a nice little reference manual for developers to use if they want to have success with their app, or at least avoid problems.

Think about where would Linux be now if we had something like that just 5 years ago.... We would have a decision on which would be the default command line editor, and which one in X. We would have a default GUI (KDE or Gnome). We would have the standards for packaging functioning in "unpack and run" way (click -Advance- if you want to screw the things up a bit). We would have a good, stable, workable system that would give developers time to concentrate on the guts of the system and maybe invent something new, while still making "Type A" users satisfied.

Sometimes I get so frustrated that things go so uncoherently that everybody is trying just to give LINUX at least the same possibilities that other OSes have. Nobody has time to invent something new. They are too preocupied giving at least what others do.

also the rest of the world as we search for some sort of IT stability

First off I think something should be dealt with as a reality right now. In today's world with the Microsoft monopoly on the desktop there is a great deal of IT stability. Most apps are available for windows; those that aren't can be used from Unix servers via. terminals/xservers under Windows. The platform is easy to support, and the user base is not fragmented. Data interchange formats like .doc, .xls, etc.. are virtually universal.

As Linux (and also OSX) gain mindshare / market share the situation become far less stable for IT. Linux users can't run windows apps which means things like the .doc format stop being universal formats and IT departments will need to look for alternatives and more importantly document sharing will likely become a user concern. Aqua apps present an even worse problem since Aqua isn't network transparent, we could end up in a situation like the 1980's where a user might need to or more platforms.

If stability is the goal Microsoft by far the best solution. Genuine compitition will make the desktop world as confusing as the server or the embedded world are now.

________________

On the second point of I think the article assumes without any justification that the ease of use suggestions are genuinely "improvements". I see no argument among the "type Bs" for improvements, the big question comes in when the "type A" ask to damage the system to increase ease of use.

A classic example is the desire to dump X. Almost all the faults people have with X are actually not problems of X but problems of their setup or their window manager. If we eliminate those complaints and deal with the remaining 10% what it boils down to is: is it worth getting a slight speed boost and a slight improvement in ease of configuration in exchange for losing network transparancy? Network transparancy took years of hard work and gives Unix desktops advantages which the non transparent desktops are constantly struggling to emulate. Type A users who don't tend to understand that they will get the ease of use features they want but more slowly than they like so as not to lose this incredibly important feature.

Your example of point and click install is one that has been essentially solved providing you stick with packages from a single distribution. Mandrake's software install does exactly what you want -- yet I've never heard you give them credit here. Debian (though the initial install is hard) has terrific point and click installers for .deb files. Solving it in general across distributions can be handled with front ends to make. The wrong way to handle it is to force everyone to agree on highly limited configurations so as to avoid a compile step. Make is an advantage because every app to be highly customized to the environment. To get binary installs that work across distributions loses the huge advantage of customization. Today customization can occur at the distribution level or at the users level and I see no disadvantage to this over it occuring at the app author level -- as is the case for Windows.

A final example is the desire often expressed to get rid of configuration files. This can be done two ways:
1) To move to something like the registry which essentially just hides them in an uneditable format
2) To make apps much less configurable

(2) is generally what they classic Type A's really want but this is not an improvement its a downgrade. Better defaults is an improvement; replacing choice with defaults is not.

Enjoyed this article. Thanks for the read Adam (The thing reads "by Adam Scheinberg" so correct me if I'm wrong).

I just want to ask everyone who loves their BSD or their Windows XP and simply cannot understand why there's such a devotion to Linux (In general) in it's community, why concern yourselves with it? If you're not part of the community, well, I don't want to sound rude but wouldn't it be better for all parties if you just kept out, unless you had a constructive offering? If you're just going to say something along the lines of "as it seems that Linux is trying to be Windows on the desktop, and Unix on the servers, but doesn't particularly excel at either task." I'm sure all the desktop Linux users I know are real happy with their Linux (I would be, were it not for game developers completely ignoring us). And seeing as how Linux is growing quite rapidly on the server side of things, I don't understand how you can say that it doesn't excel at it's given tasks. Personally, I would have to say that Linux is a better server OS than Windows can hope to be at this point, and that's good enough for me, since I don't think there should be this kind of competition between *BSD, UNIX, and Linux.

Windows is an OS. Linux is an OS. BeOS is an OS. OS/2 is an OS.

Which is better ?
NONE OF THEM (i think)

There are *many* interesting concepts behind all of them !

MacOS/OSX (aka Windows) - Usability: windowing rockz !
Unix/Linux - Stability: software needs !!
BeOS - Multimedia: a must in XXI sec. !!!
OS/2 - Optimization: today hardware could do mutch more !!!!
QNX - Weight: a *really* cool OS should stay in a CD-card !!!!!

Many of you (as always) will say: you can't mix them, they're too different !!!

True & False. As Lindows or Winlinux demostrates, is not so difficult to make "*ine Is Not an Emulator"-like applications.

I'm a bit in the "alternative-os" scene and i know *many* little projects with innovative interesting visions:
Ununumium, OpenBeOS and E/OS are only few examples.
I think that *any* OS have cool features.

The key is: open source !
Only using the open source approach the knowledge could grow.
But I have understood that merging is not applicable.
Licenses helps, but i think that the community should think better about them.
Last OpenOffice license terms could be the basis...

The problem is: how to help devolepers to share the knowledge ?

Final sentence: knowledge is power but organization helps !

If you're trying to imply that making WINE working with apps is easy, how come the vast majority of apps don't work with it? I mean really, you're trying to interpret various calls a program makes, when the APIs are not even documented. :|

Rajan R wrote:
Why would they need users to defend against companies like Microsoft? What could they do? Microsoft can do anything they like, even if half the world uses an open source Office clone instead of Office.

Drivers are the main hotspot that MSFT controls. Fileformats and other protocols are another. Market demand is needed to open up these strangleholds. Palladium may even make the situation worse.

Do distro wars improve software? Does 'my OS is better than yours' arguments make software better? How about what 'which license is better' arguments?

How can a user expect quality software if the answer to the above questions is yes?

<It's funny that you mention this, as it seems that Linux is trying to be Windows on the desktop, and Unix on the servers, but doesn't particularly excel at either task.>

Wow, what ave you been reading? I guess it Linux is such as crappy server, that is why Merrill Lynch, one of the most advanced financial service providers,switched over.

"It's funny that you mention this, as it seems that Linux is trying to be Windows on the desktop, and Unix on the servers, but doesn't particularly excel at either task."

It's funny that you mention this, as it seems that Windows is trying to be Macintosh on the desktop, and Unix on the servers, but doesn't particulary excel at either task.

"Whatever. Linux HAD momentum and Linux WAS hype. It was part of that dot-bomd bubble. Forget it now - it's over for linux...

>SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0

I liked the article, but don't know how I would fit either catagory. I muck around with code very rarely but have no aversion to the command line or editing text configuration files or text based installation. I have been using Linux regularly since Red Hat 5.2 and still have that version running on an old machine. When Lindows appeared I got excited about it and nearly paid for an "Insider" membership. I would love to see a Linux I could install on the average lusers desktop and not have them be unable to tell they are not using Windows, but when Robertson bolixed his whole marketing premise (Wine and $99 for free apps (yeah, I know, StarOffice, blah, blah,)) I was severely disappointed. Those who whine about difficulties using and installing Linux make me wonder how they ever managed to use Windows.

"Well, sincerly i can't understand..." what your comments have to do with the article

If you read i HAVEN'T dgted tru about compatibility.
It could be implemented or not inside an operating system (anyway, better if yes): OS/2 is dos/win compatiible, BeOS not !

What i mean is: the open source community don't needs pre-builded or closed standards (even if shouldn't prevent their support) !
I think we can do *mutch more&better* than Linux or Windows.

How ? Coordination is the key.
SourceForge teaches, but i think that we could fall (as MicroSoft does) in the apps+os mixing if we choose that path.
Anyway an OS without applications dies quick (look at the poor OS/2...), but if we'll have a flexible (organic ?) and clear (uh... assembly ?) OS could not be a problem.
(the issue is related to language-developers and AFAIK MenuetOS is teaching us that isn't impossible...)

Another point: the business.
I trust the open research, but "free of charge" don't helps.
New economy offers us many ways (the OSNews topbanner, for example, isn't hurting me...) to obviate the problem.
Am i wrong ?

I propose the following method for calling out Desktop user types:

Type A - Wants the Desktop to be 'easy', not necessarily 'powerful'
Type B - Wants the Desktop to be 'powerful', not necessarily 'easy'
Type AB - Wants the Desktop to be both 'easy' and 'powerful'
Type O - Wants OSX on the x86 platform

Then add the following variant:

Positive - Prefers to be diplomatic and supportive in forums
Negative - Prefers to inspire heated discussions in forums (NOT a troll)

If somebody else doesn't do it, I'm going to start writing distro reviews that use this system to type the user that I think the distro is best suited for.

Incidentally, this would make me a Type AB+.

...by 'easy', I mean configurable with the GUI, a newbie-friendly software installer, automatic updates, a specific set of default apps, not having to deal with user permissions and whatnot, and so on.

...by 'powerful', I mean scriptable configuration, apt-type software installation, dev tools installed by default, extensive choice in the default apps, resistant to virus attacks and security breaches, and so on.

Neither of these are hard and fast definitions, just general guidelines (to avoid the "hey, GUI installation can be powerful, too!" which is, of course, a correct statement).

I guess that makes me an AB+ <grins>

Personally, I don't think Windows 2000 Pro or any XP edition is all that easy.

Sure, you can surf automatically, rip WMA files, whatever, but try hacking around in the registry or the services and things can get ugly quick. You have to know what you are doing.

If you don't have the right drivers, or they get corrupted by an "update" then it's definitely not easy.

Service packs often do as much harm as good.

Alot of software doesn't work (some older games, some applications, some drivers).....

Sounds exactly like linux.

Type A - Wants the Desktop to be 'easy', not necessarily 'powerful'
Type B - Wants the Desktop to be 'powerful', not necessarily 'easy'
Type AB - Wants the Desktop to be both 'easy' and 'powerful'

I like this. A scale might make more sense though something like:
0 = A (Lindows)
50 = AB (redhat)
100 = B (Gentoo)

With stuff like debian at 90 and Mandrake at 40...


You could also include
Type C - Wants to learn about Unix and computers. Has low need for functionality but a great deal of interest. Generally in HS or College.

This captures the Linux from scratch crowd.

Does anyone know where YD fits in?

Type O - Wants OSX on the x86 platform

I don't think this group really exists. What I think really exists are:

Type O1 -- wants to try out OSX without having to buy new hardware

Type O2 -- Wants to be able to bash Apple because of slight CPU differences

--quoted by Marco Radossevich--
Windows is an OS. Linux is an OS. BeOS is an OS. OS/2 is an OS.
--/quoted by Marco Radossevich--

Linux isn't an OS, which it's just a kernel. http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html

Anyway, it's a great article!

jbolden1517: "A classic example is the desire to dump X (...) is it worth getting a slight speed boost and a slight improvement in ease of configuration in exchange for losing network transparancy?"
"A final example is the desire often expressed to get rid of configuration files. This can be done two ways:
1) To move to something like the registry which essentially just hides them in an uneditable format
2) To make apps much less configurable"


WOW! you've just listed some of my biggest rants against linux.

1 - X-window: you like it? good for you, but why do you think that having an alternative to X would kill it, could it be because almost anyone ever needs network tansparancy, and that things like directfb, fresco or even cosmoe are better.

2 - The conf files: Have you ever tried to configure a dns server (not bind) in linux, you spend hours looking at those stupid files, all of them with diferent stupid sintaxes, some of them requires tabs instead of spaces, just a simple mistake and you can get completely mad in a matter of hours, having a registry forces the need to have a gui for that sort of thing and fortunately red hat is pushing g-conf
into gnome, and enventualy all of linux (i hope)
http://developer.gnome.org/feature/archive/gconf/gconf.html

Good day folks,
I loved this article…Really telling it like it is. There was a couple of points left out that I would like to mention. Before I do, I'd like to make a quick point.
Rather than being nasty or making generalizations about other individuals' computer skills, let's keep the comments courteous and constructive. Why some of you insist on being mean-spirited creeps is anyone's guess. It's as if a few of you guys feel that the general computer population new to Linux is "invading" or "encroaching" on your territory. What a great attitude to have. "We're going to keep Linux to ourselves and take cheap-shots on those new to the system". Be nice and please grow out of your own stereotype. It's getting old. Help folks out and be enough of a communicator to reply to others' remarks without being insulting. Basic human-decency and respect issues. Anyways….
Great article and I must say that I've experienced all of these issues myself at one point or another. I know many of you will disagree with this statement but I'll throw it out there for some feedback. "Would it kill Linux users to do away with the root prompt during package installation or system configuration?" "During log-on?" "Prior to installing a package?" "Period?" Think about it. How many times have we been prompted to give our root password by any Windoze products? How many times have we nuked our systems as a result? A couple I'm sure but not enough to warrant the continuous CLI trips to ‘su' and enter password just for a simple package installation. I use Lycoris, Mandrake 7 and 8.1,8.2, Suse 7.1, 8.0 and Red Hat 7.2. All of them prompt me to enter my admin password and I'm just tired of it. Yes I know how to manually build a package from a tarball or install from a source but why should I? So I can be greeted by the occasional failed dependencies message? We really need to look at the IRIS model (not the Click-n-Run of Lindows) for an example of how to work around the package installation routine. This and only this is what holds Linux back from total desktop acceptance across the whole user spectrum (gamers, biz, casual). Please let the OS out of the exclusive realm of admin users to the general "JoBlow" user group. You may ask why it is such a hassle just to enter your password? It is just unnecessary. Overkill. Let's think about nuking it and getting on track with the .exe file. It can't be that hard, can it? These statements and questions I have posed may be a little too over-simplistic but why shouldn't they?

Have a good day.

How about this:

Type A: Prefers 'easy' over all other concerns
Type B: Prefers 'powerful' over all other concerns
Type AB: Insists on 'easy' and 'powerful' over all other concerns
Type O: Insists on Open Source and Software Libre over 'easy' or 'powerful'

That makes Richard Stallman a Type O, Linus a Type B, and your average BeOS user a Type AB.

There is no need for a Type ABO, as an easy and powerful desktop that conformed to Open Source and Software Libre ideals would be preferred by anybody who doesn't work for Microsoft.

As for applying scale, and linking distros to a type, that sort of misses the point -- which is to help users find distros that might interest them, WITHOUT making a distro just one type or another.

To be clear, for the sake of example: let's pretend that Lindows and Lycoris and RedHat are all equally easy to use, but RedHat allows more choice in default apps (is therefore 'powerful') and Lindows runs the user as root by default (and therefore cannot be considered 'powerful'). Pretend that they are roughly equal otherwise.

I'd say that Type A people would willingly consider Lindows, Lycoris and RedHat, Type B people would consider RedHat, and Type AB people would consider Lycoris and Redhat.

Why? Because Type B people prefer 'powerful', and RedHat fits that bill the most of the three. Type A don't care about anything except 'easy', and they're all easy. Type AB want 'easy' and 'powerful', so Lindows is out, but the other two are in.

Oh, and Type O would try all of them, unless they introduced non-Free (as in speech) software or violated the terms of the GPL/LGPL.

Hmm.

BIG flaw.

I tied this all into blood type, but didn't tie it into the classic "Type A" personality -- that of the hard-core active business-type guy.

I'm going to revise the mapping, and assume that a Type A user is a POWER user, versus a Type B EASYgoing person.

So:
Type A: 'powerful' over all
Type B: 'easy' over all
Type AB: 'powerful' and 'easy' over all
Type O: Insists on Open Source and/or Software Libre ideals

1 - X-window: you like it? good for you, but why do you think that having an alternative to X would kill it, could it be because almost anyone ever needs network tansparancy, and that things like directfb, fresco or even cosmoe are better.

I assume you meant "almost no one ever needs...". I simply think that is false. I spent a good part of 92-97 using X applications everyday from a dumb X terminal. I still use dumb X terminal setups in site installs; I don't want my servers crashing because somebody wants to plug a radio in at 2:00 in the morning. At most companies I've worked for lots X apps are distributed using X servers running under Windows... Quite simply it seems to be fairly standard in:
education, banking, insurance, other companies with mainframe legacy. In areas like PDAs and portable phones (IMHO) it makes a great deal of sense, offload the work and the data to the server and have the portable just run a thin client.


As for an alternative, I don't have a huge problem with an alternative but what the anti-X crowd wants is an alternative that is widely supported. If apps are built to support network transparency then you go no benefit from the new gui system; if they aren't built to support network transparency then you do get some benefit but you've lost a key advantage. It really is an either/or choice in terms of the direction of Unix.



2 - The conf files: Have you ever tried to configure a dns server (not bind) in linux, you spend hours looking at those stupid files, all of them with diferent stupid sintaxes, some of them requires tabs instead of spaces, just a simple mistake and you can get completely mad in a matter of hours, having a registry forces the need to have a gui for that sort of thing and fortunately red hat is pushing g-conf
into gnome, and enventualy all of linux (i hope)

I've heard about g-conf what does it do that Linux conf doesn't?

"There are some features that are good about Linux that BSD doesn't have like:
1) /proc"

bash-2.05b$ df -h
Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
/dev/ad0s2a 126M 109M 7.1M 94% /
/dev/ad0s2f 252M 202M 29M 87% /tmp
/dev/ad0s2g 3.7G 3.2G 228M 93% /usr
/dev/ad0s2e 252M 26M 205M 11% /var
procfs 4.0K 4.0K 0B 100% /proc

You are right I'm going off old information it appears they implemented a /proc file system for linux compatability and now they've got it.

http://www.tac.eu.org/cgi-bin/man-cgi?mount_procfs+8

"Type O - Wants OSX on the x86 platform"

Yes, there's such a Type O - I'm one of those.

Or, to be more precise, "Wants OSX on a decently priced new machine, doesn't care which CPU it contains".

Gimme a new single 1GHz G4 with no L3, PC133 and a plain CD drive for $600, I'll "switch" (actually, I'll put it next to my current PC).

Oh, and a sturdy blocky beige 1mm steel case, please, I don't want to crack my case when I carry a machine in the back of my car!

JBQ

jbholden1517 wrote:-

There are some features that are good about Linux that BSD doesn't have like:
1) /proc
2) Wide support for a variety of special purpose file systems like XFS
3) Much better hardware support
4) Larger supply of ported / native software
5) Distributions covering a wider range of abilities and interests

Have you ever even used any form of BSD? Im sitting here at my FreeBSD box looking at my /proc filesystem. And no the /proc filesystem on FreeBSD was not created for Linux binary compatibility. It has a different format to the Linux /proc filesystem.
As for file systems well-id rather have 1 well tested mature file systems that 10 that are still "bleeding edge"
Ive never had disk corruption on a UFS file system and softupdates does just as good a job as a journal.
Hardware support=pretty much the same on Linux and BSD

4) Larger supply of ported / native software
Complete FUD-any program that can be compiled for Linux can also be compiled to run on FreeBSD.Ever heard of the ports collection?

5) Distributions covering a wider range of abilities and interests
This translates to many incompatible and bug ridden distributions-none of which are any good for any particular purpose.

Anonymous: If you want to have a type A Distro, go and buy a Powermac. [...]

And waste you money when all you want to do is check out Linux or dump Windows, mostly on price reason - which wouldn't be answered with buying a Mac. (Wow, that was one complicated sentence).

Yeah, OS X is nice. It attracted some UNIX geeks. But by the looks of it, it isn't going at the same