On Tue Sep 16, 2003 at 01:11:33PM +0200, Guy Van Sanden wrote: > > > > BSD would be a kernel just as linux is just a kernel. I bet 100%of the > > > > companies using BSD and apache-PHP/mySQL on their webserver would not be > > > > there without mySQL, how good is BSD without any of the programs that > > > > are packed with it? same thing bud..... > > > > > > > > > > BSD is not a kernel like Linux, it is an OS. > > > GNU provided the utilities on top of Linux, which make up the entire OS, > > > BSD is a whole, kernel, system utilities etc all in one, and it doesn't > > > have distributions. (Open/Free/NetBSD do have common roots, but are > > > seperate OS's) > > > > > > Although it is a complete OS, applications are still another matter, be > > > they an X-server, Windowmanager or webserver, you have the same choice > > > there as you do on Linux (Apache, KDE, ...). > > > > About all you can do with BSD "out of the box" without any additional > > software (corporately funded or otherwise) is run a firewall. You can do > > the same with GNU/Linux. > > > > The argument is irrelevant. No one uses BSD for "just BSD" unless it's > > academic. They use BSD with Apache, MySQL, whatever. No one just uses the > > kernel and base utils. If you want to do something with it, chances are > > quite good that whatever app/server software/whatever you're running on top > > of your nice free OS was commercially sponsored and/or developed. > > > I'm sorry Vincent, I was just responding to the statement that BSD like > Linux is only a kernel. It was a technical answer to the statement that > provoked it. That's why I also stated BSD to be only an OS, it is not a > complete server/workstation solution without installing stuff like > apache or KDE.
Ahhh... ok, didn't fully read everything. How about this: BSD kernel is equivalent to Linux, BSD OS (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc.) is equivalent to GNU/Linux; all the commercially-backed/funded/etc. stuff is the same. =) > On a non-technical note, I prefer GNU/Linux because of the GPL, I > disagree with the BSD stance to allow proprietary use of its code. I don't mind the BSD license. <shrug> I think, if the people who release stuff under BSD don't mind their work being used in that way, they have the right to release it that way. If they don't like it, they can always release under the GPL. I don't mind the BSD license because of that. It's the person who chooses to use the BSD license rather than the GPL who likely needs their head examined... =) > > Comparing Linux to BSD in this way is just plain stupid. For the current > > argument, there is no difference in terms of how you use the OS (unless, as > > I said, it's academic). > > Indeed, that is about what I meant with my statements. > GNU/Linux is the equivalent of e.g. FreeBSD > The form an OS, Linux is the equivalent of the Mach kernel in BSD. Exactly. > I want to make clear that my answers where techinical, not a stance in > this debate. I didn't think you were contributing to the debate (neither am I, actually). I, like you, just answered on the technical points. =) -- MandrakeSoft Security; http://www.mandrakesecure.net/ Online Security Resource Book; http://linsec.ca/ "lynx -source http://linsec.ca/vdanen.asc | gpg --import" {FE6F2AFD : 88D8 0D23 8D4B 3407 5BD7 66F9 2043 D0E5 FE6F 2AFD}
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
