# *BSD and linux distro wars



## jmhet42 (Jan 6, 2009)

This is not important, but it got me wondering...

Why is it so easy (and common) to start a huge fight just by comparing distros in Linux?
Why do *BSD users not seem to bother with all that?

ï¿½e


----------



## vermaden (Jan 6, 2009)

Maybe because Linux is mostly about hype and jerking off about your OS and license instead of focusing on technologies and simple reasonable sollutions.


----------



## graudeejs (Jan 6, 2009)

linux is for pll who hate windows, FreeBSD is for ppl who love Unix. >> linux ppl are haters, bsd ppl are lovers

Windows is like a woman you can easily get,
Linux is like woman you would like to date,
FreeBSD is like woman you dream about. 

BSD doesn't have million forks [thank god]
all that linux madness is driving me nuts....
every day new "distro", come on.....


----------



## Pushrod (Jan 6, 2009)

BSD may have less forks than Linux, but IMHO the only BSD worth using is FreeBSD. Being able to run on every architecture under the sun (most of which are obsolete) isn't a worthwhile goal, nor is having a "secure" OS that is secure from a good audit and nothing else; it lacks seriously in security features. Does OpenBSD even have filesystem ACLs yet?


----------



## graudeejs (Jan 6, 2009)

Pushrod said:
			
		

> BSD may have less forks than Linux, but IMHO the only BSD worth using is FreeBSD. Being able to run on every architecture under the sun (most of which are obsolete) isn't a worthwhile goal, nor is having a "secure" OS that is secure from a good audit and nothing else; it lacks seriously in security features. Does OpenBSD even have filesystem ACLs yet?



OpenBSD bsd ain't that bad....
I had serious considerations to switch to it....
There are many things i love about OpenBSD


also who do you think wrote OpenSSH?


----------



## vermaden (Jan 6, 2009)

Pushrod said:
			
		

> BSD may have less forks than Linux, but IMHO the only BSD worth using is FreeBSD. Being able to run on every architecture under the sun (most of which are obsolete) isn't a worthwhile goal, nor is having a "secure" OS that is secure from a good audit and nothing else; it lacks seriously in security features. Does OpenBSD even have filesystem ACLs yet?



Do not forget that these projects share a lot code between them, for example /etc/rc system in FreeBSD  has been incorporated from NetBSD, NetBSD as one and only BSD is capable of doing host virtualization with Xen 3.3, also OpenBSD detects and makes use of wifi and sound at SONY VGN-FW11E while FreeBSD is not able to use anything of that.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Jan 6, 2009)

killasmurf86 said:
			
		

> also who do you think wrote OpenSSH?



I guess it's someone else than who wrote all the Security Advisories for it ..


----------



## kamikaze (Jan 6, 2009)

This thread is full of arrogant bullshit.

Just had to be said.


----------



## rliegh (Jan 6, 2009)

vermaden said:
			
		

> Maybe because Linux is mostly about hype and jerking off about your OS and license instead of focusing on technologies and simple reasonable sollutions.


Linux works on a wider variety of hardware than BSD does. On a practical, day-to-day level Linux works better than BSD does. Linux has been tailored far more for the desktop (therefore makes a better one) and it is not for nothing that it has a larger presence in the server room than BSD. 

You can say any number of things about Linux -but you can't claim it's *less* pratical than BSD.

It's gotta be said ...there's always been an air of elitism to BSD which has alienated both users and developers over the years -and that's part of the reason that the BSDs are marginalized. (if you don't think they are --simply take a look at how long it's taken NetBSD to even get another release out the door).

Unless you can code like Theo De Raadt, arrogance does you no favors.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Jan 6, 2009)

rliegh said:
			
		

> Linux works on a wider variety of hardware than BSD does.



Quantity over quality. Barely functional bug-riddled drivers hacked together by hobbyists. That's what annoys a lot of BSD users when it comes to that old 'works on more hardware' chestnut, I'm afraid.


----------



## rliegh (Jan 6, 2009)

DutchDaemon said:
			
		

> Quantity over quality. Barely functional bug-riddled drivers hacked together by hobbyists. That's what annoys a lot of BSD users when it comes to that old 'works on more hardware' chestnut, I'm afraid.


There are cases where that is true, sure -but it's not anywhere close to being as universal as the BSD camp claims.

However,to be perfectly blunt -"barely functional" trumps "non-existant" any day of the week! :e

Also, at this point I'm quite positive that more a greater percentage of people hacking on Linux are actually working for IBM, Redhat and other corporations in a *professional* capacity. You have Apple throwing the odd bit at FreeBSD and that's essentially _it_. 

Take a look at the number major companies that have paid staff contributing to Linux and then look at the number of major companies that contribute to Free or NetBSD (are there even any companies who submit code to OpenBSD on a regular basis? I'm guessing no, and NetBSD only has Wasabi). 

Your crack about Linux only being written by ameteurs hasn't been true for the last 8 years, at least. 

There are flaws with Linux, there are stability issues; but it works where BSD doesn't -and that's a lot of places, my friend.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Jan 6, 2009)

Not for me personally. I'll buy 'BSD proven' hardware knowing there will be quality drivers for it.


----------



## rliegh (Jan 6, 2009)

And I'll buy hardware best suited for my needs safe in the knowledge that 'of course it runs Linux' :e


----------



## DutchDaemon (Jan 6, 2009)

I bestow this thread upon the fanboys.


----------



## rliegh (Jan 6, 2009)

You know what they say about glass houses... :e


----------



## lme@ (Jan 6, 2009)

People who live in glass houses should undress in the dark?


----------



## estrabd (Jan 6, 2009)

jmhet42 said:
			
		

> This is not important, but it got me wondering...
> 
> Why is it so easy (and common) to start a huge fight just by comparing distros in Linux?
> Why do *BSD users not seem to bother with all that?
> ...



Most views on things are religious in nature


----------



## matthew (Jan 6, 2009)

Linux - for those who never grew away from the "OMG wind0ws sukz linux is so c00l!!!!!1!11" mentality.

FreeBSD - the natural pick for those in pursuit of absolute reliability.


----------



## Oko (Jan 6, 2009)

Can somebody close the *beep**beep**beep**beep*ing thread!!! Alo moderators we have a troll
problem here.


----------



## Carpetsmoker (Jan 6, 2009)

Linux people are trolling on each other over which distro to use.
BSD people are trolling on the Linux users over the fact they are trolling on each other over which distro to use.

I don't really see any difference.
Also, any posts, words, or thoughts spent on the subject are silly and a waste of time (Including this post).


----------



## Brandybuck (Jan 7, 2009)

DutchDaemon said:
			
		

> Not for me personally. I'll buy 'BSD proven' hardware knowing there will be quality drivers for it.



Spot on. When it comes to running on arbitrary, Linux is going to edge out FreeBSD. But if you spend a little time selecting hardware for the OS, then FreeBSD is going to beat out Linux.

But both FreeBSD and Linux are great operating systems, differentiated more by style than by quality. Arguing over which one is better is silly. I know which one is better for me, but I have absolutely no idea which is better for you.


----------



## Pushrod (Jan 7, 2009)

I would probably use Linux if there was such a thing as a Linux OS. So far, all I see is "distros" which is just the result of a couple of people and their opinion. FreeBSD is an actual OS.


----------



## ninjaslim (Jan 7, 2009)

I actually think OpenSolaris has decent potential to make it in the desktop world.  Hardware support and usability are improving with each release.  Plus, Sun has more capacity to get ports of proprietary software than Linux does.  It would make a far better desktop Unix.


----------



## jmhet42 (Jan 7, 2009)

:\

Please excuse me for posting the question....which didn't get answered BTW.
I said nothing about *BSD or Linux being better.  I was only wondering if someone understood this, or had an intelligent theory.


----------



## ninjaslim (Jan 7, 2009)

Linux is not Unix.  That's the best way to explain it.  The GNU-influenced Linux development model does not follow the Unix model.  The Unix model ensures quality software.  Part of that quality comes with the consistency that an operating system offers as opposed to a distribution.  Therefore, it's easy for BSD folks to attack the notion of a distro while Linux people attack Unix people with the saying "Unix is dead."  It's basically a difference in development mentality.  I've always said this.  In my eyes, Linux is only a good platform for introducing new technologies for Unix and Unix-like platforms.  Those technologies are refined as reimplementations on Unix.  If you want usability, grab an appropriate Unix and run with it.  (I use Mac OS X on my MacBook Pro, Mac OS X on my iMac, and FreeBSD remotely on my headless workstation.)


----------



## rliegh (Jan 7, 2009)

ninjaslim said:
			
		

> I actually think OpenSolaris has decent potential to make it in the desktop world.


I would agree with you, if I wasn't afraid that SUN is going to tank before that potential manages to get realized.


----------



## oliverh (Jan 7, 2009)

jmhet42 said:
			
		

> This is not important, but it got me wondering...
> 
> Why is it so easy (and common) to start a huge fight just by comparing distros in Linux?
> Why do *BSD users not seem to bother with all that?
> ...




Because you can start just as well a war between Linux and *BSD fanboys - just different FUD.


----------



## MG (Jan 11, 2009)

Pushrod said:
			
		

> I would probably use Linux if there was such a thing as a Linux OS. So far, all I see is "distros" which is just the result of a couple of people and their opinion. FreeBSD is an actual OS.




True, the official FreeBSD distro contains almost everything one might need, and for experimental software you can use jails on top of the original native system, so it doesn't make much sense to create your own distro. It won't be much faster or better in any way because everything is already tuned for performance.

But to me it has always been fun to just grab a weird linux distro and recreate my FreeBSD desktop in it. :stud


----------



## hitest (Jan 11, 2009)

I'm a happy member of three OSS communities:  FreeBSD, Slackware, and Debian.  Each of these communities has its share of zealots.  I say live and let live.  Use the OS that works for you.  I think kamikaze said it very well indeed.



> This thread is full of arrogant bullshit.
> 
> Just had to be said.


----------



## cliedo (Jan 17, 2009)

that is why i just enjoy my favorite beverage, and not answer, except that i chose to use freebsd, over linux. I still use linux's faq to understand how the tools that make my understanding better of the machines that my hobby and money afford me to learn more, and try something different. Flame wars or any unappropiate comments why would we respond except if we consummed our favorite beverages(s)  i.e. made me giggle


----------



## randux (Jan 17, 2009)

Linux and BSD are different and that's ok. I've run Slackware for my main desktop system for a while because it does what I need for a main desktop system. During that time I've never been without 3 other BSDs running on other (or the same) boxes. I like them all.

If you can get one OS to do everything you want, exactly how you want, then you're in good shape. There are plusses and minuses to everything and having more than one OS running helps you get all the plusses without two many minuses.

I don't think any of the major BSD or any of the very few "pure" Linux distros are any better or worse than each other, it's just a matter of taste.


----------



## Pushrod (Jan 17, 2009)

randux said:
			
		

> I don't think any of the major BSD or any of the very few "pure" Linux distros are any better or worse than each other, it's just a matter of taste.



I disagree. I think that there are plenty of technical reasons to favour one OS over another. In fact, taste is just a nuisance.

Taste is why we have a Mac server at work that does nothing but host a 200MB svn repo, multiple Linux machines each with a different distro all which are very out of date, and then a ton of Windows machines.

If an OS came around that was significantly better for my needs than FreeBSD, I would drop FreeBSD as fast as I could and migrate to the new OS. I choose OSes by how useful they are to me and nothing else.


----------



## hitest (Jan 17, 2009)

Pushrod said:
			
		

> multiple Linux machines each with a different distro all which are very out of date, and then a ton of Windows machines.



Having a number of out-of-date Linux machines isn't the fault of Linux.  Your IT department isn't updating distros or applying security fixes to your Linux boxes.  FreeBSD can just as easily become outdated and insecure if it isn't maintained.  I run Slackware and Debian at home (as well as FreeBSD).  All of my distros are patched, and maintained.
However, I can understand how this happens as IT people are over worked and updating a number of Linux boxes that are working is probably low on their to-do list.


----------



## Pushrod (Jan 18, 2009)

hitest said:
			
		

> Having a number of out-of-date Linux machines isn't the fault of Linux.  Your IT department isn't updating distros or applying security fixes to your Linux boxes.



That is definitely true. In this case, it's because we don't actually have an IT dept. I do what I can but I don't often find the time to learn the differences in updating the machines.


----------



## cliedo (Jan 18, 2009)

lets just disagree to disagree, and just be friends with the knowlege of knowing more than the general public that just use the application and dont care about the operating systems


----------



## hitest (Jan 18, 2009)

Pushrod said:
			
		

> That is definitely true. In this case, it's because we don't actually have an IT dept. I do what I can but I don't often find the time to learn the differences in updating the machines.



I understand!  I'm in the same boat as you.  I'm the unpaid tech support person for my elementary school.  I have my regular day job teaching my students, and any technology related problems need to be solved on my time.  Our school has roughly 100 computers, a mix of Windows, OS X, OS 9, Linux.  I don't have the time to fix the day-to-day headaches that come up.
It is frustrating.


----------



## randux (Jan 18, 2009)

Pushrod said:
			
		

> I disagree. I think that there are plenty of technical reasons to favour one OS over another. In fact, taste is just a nuisance.



Technical "reasons" are just a matter of taste.

I don't know anything that Linux can do that BSD can't or vice versa. If you want to argue that the _the way_ they do it is different, then it's back to a matter of taste. Every choice has its proponents and detractors.



			
				Pushrod said:
			
		

> Taste is why we have a Mac server at work that does nothing but host a 200MB svn repo, multiple Linux machines each with a different distro all which are very out of date, and then a ton of Windows machines.



No, that's just bad management. But now that you said that, I can understand your post a little better.



			
				Pushrod said:
			
		

> If an OS came around that was significantly better for my needs than FreeBSD, I would drop FreeBSD as fast as I could and migrate to the new OS. I choose OSes by how useful they are to me and nothing else.



The OS itself is a very small part of the equation unless you're a kernel hacker. If you want to talk about the apps or the packaging system, etc. that all comes down to issues that are a matter of taste. And we all get to choose what works best for us.

It sounds to me like you really wanted to disagree with me but wound up not being able to


----------



## darkshadow (Jan 24, 2010)

*bsd**

I tried openbsd freebsd and netbsd all of them stable 
and they suite diffrent need 
and allo of them is better than linux (IMO)


----------



## Eponasoft (Jan 24, 2010)

The reason *BSD users don't jab each other is because they know that each flavor of BSD suits a different, but specific, need. BSDs are carefully-controlled operating systems built for specific purposes. There is absolutely no need for a NetBSD person to point his finger at an OpenBSD person and start making lame jokes or calling him a "pansy" for not having feature X, while another BSD has a much better feature Y. However, in the land of Linux, this isn't the case. Dozens of individuals and corporations think they know best and build their own version of the philosophy based on their own prejudices, which ultimately creates rifts amongst users. _All Linux distros are effectively the same under the hood._ They all use the same base kernel and can use the same supporting applications. One thing that really hurts Linux though is the license that is typically adopted...the GPL has always been a cause of much discord and infighting. Too many people don't understand it, too many people think they understand it and blow smoke out their ears to try to look impressive by fudging it, and too many other people simply make up BS in regards to it. Linux is Linux is Linux...at the end of the day, they're all the same. Sure, you can argue the details of that...some distros have feature X, some have feature Y, still more have feature Z. This one might not have X but might have N. Some might have feature set XKJHQLWRFG. But it's going to be hard to find a pure Linux application that does not run on 99% of Linux distros. So really, all their petty infighting and ego tripping is for naught because they're all using the same basic system in the end.


----------



## Daisuke_Aramaki (Jan 25, 2010)

Use something that works for you - This is my philosophy. It could be Windows, BSD, Linux or whatever it is. And yeah, I tend to agree with Carpetsmoker, linux users are the ones who resort to petty fights in discussing distro superiority.

I hang out a lot in various linux forums, and of late the recurring theme has been try arch, echo arch is the best, and all that type of crap. I also encounter some kids who claim they are geeks because they use arch and the rest are n00bs (i know a couple of grandpa's who lived unix for so many years, and now use ubuntu just as a matter of choice, and so they are n00bs now? Gimme a break!). Have you ever wondered why the word geek is abused so much these days? Use some *nix distro and then you are a geek automatically! Please!

In addition, one of the oft repeated comments made by a linux user about a certain distro's superiority over the other is that it uses BSD style init scripts! This just cracks me up.


----------



## gilinko (Jan 25, 2010)

Some time ago I actually thought about the "levels" that do exist in the *nix/*bsd world and came up with this definition.

1: Newbie/Beginner
Those that haven't used Linux/bsd at all, and their current knowledge level is booting the ubuntu live cd, installing it and configuring firefox. Usually nice people who want to learn and ask politely.

2: Normal
You know your way around the system and how to use the terminal. Installing, configuring and changing options in *their* chosen OS, and no other. Asks the "stupid" questions like "this is broken, fix it!", when they messed up them self and want to blame someone.

3: Advanced
Those who are a bit more interested in the layer beneath the application like networking, storage etc. Also using more than one OS like BSD and Linux. Seldom asks questions and if they do, they have already checked the man page, documentation, google, mailinglists etc. and they are specific in their questions.

4: Guru(and a true geek)
Someone who follows the philosophy that gets the most benefit with the least effort. Use what works for them, independent on what that is(it might be Windows or OSX). These are the people who float above it all 

To my knowledge most of the loud-mouth morons(yep I call them morons) exists in the "Normal" category, and they are loud mostly due to ignorance. So I just sit back, tune them out and do something productive insted


----------



## Alt (Jan 25, 2010)

gilinko said:
			
		

> To my knowledge most of the loud-mouth morons(yep I call them morons) exists in the "Normal" category, and they are loud mostly due to ignorance. So I just sit back, tune them out and do something productive insted


Dividing people to only 4 categories, for example :e Silent productivity xD


----------



## Anonymous (Jan 25, 2010)

Daisuke_Aramaki said:
			
		

> Use something that works for you - This is my philosophy. It could be Windows, BSD, Linux or whatever it is. And yeah, I tend to agree with Carpetsmoker, linux users are the ones who resort to petty fights in discussing distro superiority.



I am not in the war and I don't care which OS people use but if you remember an interview with *Theo de Raadt
* you will see that are not just Linux users "in the war".


----------



## DutchDaemon (Jan 25, 2010)

Theo is at war with everyone .. that's why OpenBSD exists ..


----------



## darkshadow (Jan 25, 2010)

DutchDaemon said:
			
		

> Theo is at war with everyone .. that's why OpenBSD exists ..



I think even if he is at war ,he produce codes that used from many other os even linux such as openssh , pf  , case im software engineer I feel that he is a man with goal and he are walking towerd his goals  we should stop flaming on other bsd varints and I see that there some person love linux more than freebsd and they should stop directing discution towerd other bsd varint 
all bsd project are outstanding and they benfit from each other like freebsd using openssh and pf and there are butfull project.
freebsd can easly benfite from these project since they use the same linces unlink gpl linux which make it hard for any other project to use his code 
I think if you dont like freebsd leave it and use linux then you can start showing the power of ugly patches in linux that will get  you to half of the way


----------



## DutchDaemon (Jan 25, 2010)

Who is flaming other BSD variants? I'm sure even OpenBSD zealots will not find fault with my statement  They're probably proud!


----------



## Daisuke_Aramaki (Jan 25, 2010)

lumiwa said:
			
		

> if you remember an interview with *Theo de Raadt* you will see that are not just Linux users "in the war".





			
				DutchDaemon said:
			
		

> Theo is at war with everyone .. that's why OpenBSD exists ..



Nailed! :e


----------



## oliverh (Jan 25, 2010)

lumiwa said:
			
		

> I am not in the war and I don't care which OS people use but if you remember an interview with *Theo de Raadt
> * you will see that are not just Linux users "in the war".



Theo just answers to morons asking the same questions again and again. I call this self-defence.


----------



## foldingstock (Jan 25, 2010)

gilinko pretty much nailed it. There are very knowledgeable people using FreeBSD, and various Linux distributions, among other computer operating systems. These people tend to have lives outside of computers and do not spend every waking minute "spreading their [OSS-]religion." 

It is the "troublemakers," so to speak, that make the most noise in the Linux ecosystem. Coincidentally, these are usually the same people that are anti-corporation and anti-Microsoft. "M$" is "t3h ev1lz00r!!1!" and "Ubuntu is the path to salvation." Is it any wonder why these people tend to not like *BSD? 

Think of Linux like you would American Football. Not all Football fans are rabid, raving lunatics, but this type of fan tends to get the most media attention. The six shirtless guys with "GO TEAM" painted across their stomachs (in below freezing weather, mind you) tends to get more attention than the doctor and his wife quietly enjoying the game.


----------



## trojan1223 (Jan 25, 2010)

Daisuke_Aramaki said:
			
		

> I hang out a lot in various linux forums, and of late the recurring theme has been try arch, echo arch is the best, and all that type of crap. I also encounter some kids who claim they are geeks because they use arch and the rest are n00bs (i know a couple of grandpa's who lived unix for so many years, and now use ubuntu just as a matter of choice, and so they are n00bs now? Gimme a break!). Have you ever wondered why the word geek is abused so much these days? Use some *nix distro and then you are a geek automatically! Please!
> 
> In addition, one of the oft repeated comments made by a linux user about a certain distro's superiority over the other is that it uses BSD style init scripts! This just cracks me up.



The Linux community was my largest issue with Linux. All communities tend to have fanboys, but the Linux camp (imo) has gotten to be as bad or worse than the Apple camp when it comes to being fanatics. It gets tiring when you can't speak ill of the operating system without being attacked by people who have little knowledge of what they're discussing. For the most part, rational thought seems to take a back seat to blind worshiping in the Linux camp.

I used Linux for many years, but after a certain point you realize that the community is more concerned with ideology than functionality, quality, usability and the needs of the general public. That's why I don't see Linux ever becoming anything more than a mutant that manages to do everything, just not that well.

On the BSD end, I like that the community is more laid back and cares less about ideology. The community still seems far more technically inclined, for the most part. The OS itself doesn't try to be everything and anything, doesn't claim itself to be a viable Desktop solution, etc... Oh, the license is neat too.

I'm not really that big on comparing the internals of the OSes, or having wars with people over why my OS is better than yours, which is why FreeBSD fits me better than Linux.


----------

