The Great Fallacy of BSD Unix vs. Linux reddit / BSD ---------------------------------------------------------------------- swills · 2009-12-31 18:10 Except that no two Linux distros ship the same kernel. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- mayonesa · 2009-12-31 19:02 BSD forever, and if you buy a Mac, you're emo. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- m1ss1ontomars2k4 · 2009-12-31 19:04 No, this fool is being hypocritical. He's purposely doing some selective reading and claiming that BSD people are comparing, say, one BSD OS to all Linux OSes, when this is obviously not the case. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- juped · 2009-12-31 19:59 Maybe some BSD advocates don't explain it fairly, but the fact that Linux distributions are aggregations of other people's software and the BSDs are operating systems each developed by a single team is pretty important. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- icantthinkofone · 2009-12-31 21:20 He also seems to treat the "collection" of BSDs as if they were the same size as the "collection" of Linuxes. There are about 10 well known BSDs and only 5 or so that are well known and only one of those used far more than the others. I don't get the impression he's anti-BSD, though, but trying to say we are using the wrong argument for promoting BSD. (I've noticed this trend lately of people saying, "When you say negative things about X, you're only hurting yourself!") Linux is Linux and I really don't care about convincing those users to switch to BSD anymore than I try and convince Windows users to switch to Linux. It's not a contest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ninjalvr84 · 2010-01-01 21:27 This guy is confused, the RootBSD article compares FreeBSD to Linux and it's various distributions. This is the same way we compare Windows (7-Home/Premium*/Server R1/R2) to Linux (Ubuntu-*,Red Hat,Fedora). They all share the same kernel with minor changes and a product specific userland. The RootBSD article does not compare Free/Net/Open BSD to Linux or Linux distro x, it compared FreeBSD to Linux. If he wants to argue the theory "if you are familiar with one BSD, you can administer any other bsd" then he needs to compare moving from Linux (Ubuntu,Suse,Fedora) to FreeBSD (FreeBSD,PC-BSD,..). They are the same kernels with a product specific userland. The thing that gets me (and i admit i've not checked to see what's written about this) is why aren't there several hundred distros of each of the BSD's. Are the BSD's so good within their own domains that the users don't see a reason to mass produce unique distributions ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- apotheon · 2010-01-01 22:05 Um . . . some people *are* making such comparisons. Where's the hypocrisy in pointing that out? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- apotheon · 2010-01-01 22:08 That would be why it says "There are very real benefits to the 'base system' approach taken by the major BSD Unix options". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- apotheon · 2010-01-01 22:11 > He also seems to treat the "collection" of BSDs as if they were the same size as the "collection" of Linuxes. How do you figure? Past the point of having a few different options, I'm not sure it *matters* how many there are for the purposes of the salient points in the article. > I don't get the impression he's anti-BSD, though, but trying to say we are using the wrong argument for promoting BSD. Exactly. > I've noticed this trend lately of people saying, "When you say negative things about X, you're only hurting yourself!" Actually, in this case, it's more "When *we* say negative things about Linux that *aren't actually as we present them*, we only hurt *ourselves*." > Linux is Linux and I really don't care about convincing those users to switch to BSD anymore than I try and convince Windows users to switch to Linux. It's not a contest. Clearly, then, you aren't the intended audience. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- apotheon · 2010-01-01 22:16 > This is the same way we compare Windows (7-Home/Premium/Server R1/R2) to Linux (Ubuntu-,Red Hat,Fedora). FreeBSD is one OS with one kernel. Linux is a kernel that is used in a metric assload of OSes. How is the difference so difficult to grasp? > If he wants to argue the theory "if you are familiar with one BSD, you can administer any other bsd" then he needs to compare moving from Linux I think *you* are confused if you think that was the intended point. > The thing that gets me (and i admit i've not checked to see what's written about this) is why aren't there several hundred distros of each of the BSD's. People tend to like the core OS project, for some reason. Also, since each core OS project includes a complete base system, there's usually little reason to play mix-and-match with the core utilities and so on the way people do with Linux distributions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- o0o · 2010-01-02 06:22 The problem is not with BSD advocates comparing it to Linux incorrectly. It's with n00bs not knowing that Linux is the kernel; hence we have to answer, "what's the difference between *BSD and Linux" all fucking day long. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dwchandler · 2010-01-19 01:15 Indeed, but then it doesn't explain how or why it makes a difference. When telling Linux users about this I always stress that the base system is an integrated collection. I wonder if the author's bad experiences come from trying to explain a difference they don't fully appreciate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- apotheon · 2010-01-19 01:20 > Indeed, but then it doesn't explain how or why it makes a difference. That's not the purpose of the article. The purpose was to warn against using a fallacious argument, not to *make* an alternative argument. > I wonder if the author's bad experiences come from trying to explain a difference they don't fully appreciate. I'm not sure what you mean. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dwchandler · 2010-01-19 01:26 > How do you figure? Past the point of having a few different options, I'm not sure it matters how many there are for the purposes of the salient points in the article. I'd say there are 3 main BSDs. And I'll go one more and say that most enthusiasts of one BSD have at least a nodding familiarity with the other two (well, unless the one if FreeBSD). Getting around in 3 similar operating systems is a long way from being familiar with one Linux distro and being able to do use another popular distro without some serious head scratching. I've seen it enough time on LUG mailing lists to be pretty confident about that statement. > Clearly, then, you aren't the intended audience. I think we are. Not agreeing with the author's premise doesn't mean we don't talk to Linux users. I don't try to "convert" any of them, but I'm happy enough to tell them when BSD is the best tool for the job and why. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dwchandler · 2010-01-19 01:26 What if I install a BSD on my Mac? Huh? What then? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dwchandler · 2010-01-19 01:28 Except that Free/Open/Net BSD kernels differ in more than version. Doh! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dwchandler · 2010-01-19 01:44 I'll take these in reverse order... I think if the author had a better grip on why the BSD approach makes life better and could communicate it then their conversations with Linux users may have gone differently. When I explain it I get thoughtful looks and interested responses. In my experience many Linux users have been burned more than once by the hodge podge of programs they get. The article is indeed a warning of what not to do, but that certainly leaves it on the table that the explanation of the whole OS approach was done poorly by the author in the first place. Either that or trying to preach to those who will never convert. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- apotheon · 2010-01-20 00:08 > I think if the author had a better grip on why the BSD approach makes life better and could communicate it then their conversations with Linux users may have gone differently. I think you completely misunderstand what was being said. Nobody's complaining about having unproductive conversations with Linux users here. The point is that some *other* people are doing things that might contribute to poor relations with Linux users. . . . unless by "the author" you mean whoever wrote the RootBSD post. Is that what you meant? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- dwchandler · 2010-01-20 01:32 Yes, the blog post. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- apotheon · 2010-01-20 02:05 . . . the SOB blog post or the RootBSD blog post? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- chicken_shit · 2010-02-25 11:57 > While this gives you a lot of choices, the existence of so many distributions also makes it difficult to use different distros since they are all a little bit different. Distributions don’t just differ in ease-of install and available programs; they also differ in directory layout, configuration practices, default software bundles, and most importantly the tools and procedures for software updates and patches. I'm a GNU/Linux user and I don't see the fallacy in this. In fact, I think that pretty much sums up the problem with GNU/Linux distributions. To know how to do something on one distro does not imply to know how it's generally done. This is why so many people advocate the use of the CLI. Yet, you easily get flamed for saying this because people think you're an elitist. It's even worse, some distributions actively discourage the use of the CLI. I had one case where I wanted to change the config file of some program and the top of the config file read: "Don't alter this file by manually, if you don't want to break things. It is read and written by Yast.". Another problem is if you install software outside of certain packet managers you ask for trouble. The "user friendly" distro's are becoming ever restricting and start to feel like Windows. I just wait for the first distro prompting the message: "By cd'ing to /, all warranties have become void". Now that's user friendliness.