I think it's fairly obvious why Linux, and not BSD, has become the stray
cat that big business is doting on right now: When you say Linux, people
recognize the name, when you say BSD they haven't a clue. There has
been a shitload of press about Linux, even MS has tried to bash the GNU
GPL (damn bastards...). When was the last time you saw IBM yelling
"AS/400" or "AIX" from the mountaintops? You haven't, because people
would just say "come again?". IBM has found a catch phrase with
pre-installed mindshare to wave in front of cameras. Linux is
synonymous with geek culture and IBM wants some too. Hell, the people
in my office used to call my OpenBSD mail server "the linux machine".
I still see BSD whenever I look under a rock that's holding up the
side of a mountain. In server rooms, in embedded systems, on that old
dusty server that's been running so long nobody knows what it is. BSD
doesn't look good lit up in neon, Linux and cute penguins do. Linux has
more people like Seth pushing it with their flamboyant style and never
ending energy (and really cool business cards, I might add). BSD has
more people like Jake and Chris Cappuccio who quietly run their rock
solid servers and offer help when asked.
Linux is like Tae Bo, it sounds cool, has cool characters pushing it,
and people know what it is...
BSD is more like Calcium: good for you, keeping you strong, but not cool
enough for an infomercial. Just cool enough for a mention on an OJ
carton.
Anyway, that's what I came up with right now...
TimH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:34 AM
Subject: [EUG-LUG:1368] Re: flame wars and GNU/Linux
> > On 20020201.1024, Larry Price said ...
> >
> > On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Jacob Shaw wrote:
> >
> > The BSD's are good operating systems, the machine i'm typing this on
used
> > to run freebsd before debian took over, and I'm running OpenBSD on
my
> > laptop. But, there is a reason that the linux kernel now runs on
almost as
> > many platforms as netbsd, that IBM, NEC, and oracle are picking up
on
> > GNU/Linux, and not *bsd; and that reason is the GPL. Not directly,
true,
> > and most of the major commercial players hated the idea from a
business
> > standpoint at first until they understood that while closed source
(which
> > is what BSD-licensed software becomes if you make changes and keep
them
> > private) provide a short-term advantage in tactical terms it kept
them in
> > the minority culture which is and will be a long-term
> > strategic disadvantage.
>
> Other than the disadvantage of choosing a platform in the minority,
> what's the reason to choose a GPLd platform? Or, why NOT choose *BSD?
>
> If both *bsd and GNU/Linux were equally popular, from a business
> perspective, I would think the *BSDs would be chosen.
>
> --
> Rob <rob_at_euglug_dot_net>
> my @euglugCode = qw(v+++ e--- eug+ bsd+++ gnu+ S+++);
>
>
