On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 07:24:01PM -0700, Predrag Punosevac wrote: > Chad Perrin wrote: > > > >If anyone has suggestions for how to fix it up further, let me know. > > > > > Hi Chad, > > Here is my honest opinion. I hope it will help you improve the post :-)
I do too. > > I didn't like very much the tone of the article as well as some > pejorative conclusion. If you are going to post something even > as a FreeBSD advocacy the tone of the article should be neutral and all > claims verifiable. Do not get me wrong. I > do not like Linux and more over I have never used it in my life but I > would have hard time to swallow some of your claims. > > How would you feel if I tell you that I use mostly OpenBSD because it is > easier for work than FreeBSD and in my experience much more stable than > FreeBSD. Those are my subjective feelings and probably have little to > do with the reality. If anything statement like that are irritating and > have no value to a person who is deciding between using OpenBSD or FreeBSD. Frankly, I might be inclined to believe you with regard to stability, based on what I know of OpenBSD. I'd also be likely to think your "easier for work" was either purely personal preference or based on a specific set of working conditions that might favor OpenBSD in particular. > > Try to find on the internet couple of advocacy articles by Greg Lehey. > They are very well-written. > > Example: Statement of the type BSD appears more stable than Linux is > non-verifiable. > Statement of the type FreeBSD is direct decedent of the BSD flavor of > Unix started in mid seventies at the University of California Berkley > while the Linux kernel is Unix clone started in 1993 based on the > mixture of System V and BSD Unix is > verifiable. Or 80% of all servers with longest up time run FreeBSD is > something that can be verified. Good point, re: uptime numbers. On the other hand, because of the limited uptime number problem with Linux, that doesn't really mean anything. There's no verifiable and useful uptime comparison I'm aware of. > > You should definitely address the following things > > 1. FreeBSD is longer in the development than Linux. > > 2. Probably 80% of the servers with the longest UP time run FreeBSD. > Give a link. Easy to find. > > 3. FreeBSD is a COMPLETE operating system GNU/Linux is not. That's not much of an argument. A Linux distribution is a complete OS, even if the Linux kernel isn't. Saying something like "FreeBSD is a complete OS, Linux isn't," would just sound like verbal trickery. I think I'll avoid that approach. > > 4. It has different development and engineering process than Linux. I addressed some of that. > > 5. It has better quality control at least because Linux has no quality > control at all. Untrue -- unless you have different definitions of "quality control" or "no" than I have. > > 6. The Largest FTP sever on the world run FreeBSD (your beloved freebsd.org) > > 7. FreeBSD has one of the best systems for the installation of the third > party software (ports and do not forget packages > as some people will jump at you and make a claim that Debian has better > packaging system as it is more efficient than compiling things from ports) I started discussing this in my original, and I intend to get into more detail at some point with an update of the page. > > 8. Most extensive collection of third party software (over 18000 ) only > second to Debian. Looking back at it, I'm surprised I didn't mention that. > > 9. One of the best documented systems I'm pretty sure I mentioned that. > > 10. Mention the advantage of the BSD license comparing to GPL for the > commercial use. That's a matter that should be addressed separately, in a philosophical sense. On the other hand, it might be relevant for purposes of discussing commercial use. I'll have to consider whether that's something I want to include on that page. > > 11. It is philosophically different than most Linux distros as all > services are turned of by default. That's something that needs to be handled carefully -- but I think it's worth mentioning. > > 12. Unlike Linux it doesn't claim that is the best and most suitable for > everything. If you need security then Open is better choice. If you > need something for embedded devices probably Net is better choice. I don't think Linux claims such, either. Rather, some Linux advocates claim that -- as do some FreeBSD advocates. The fact that dramatically fewer FreeBSD advocates make claims like that, however, is part of the reason I referred to the fact that the FreeBSD community tends to be "less crazy in its approach to OS advocacy, than the communities for most Linux distributions." > > 13. More secure than Linux if for no other reason but for PF which is > ported from OpenBSD. Note that PF is not ported for Linux. . . . yet. I seem to recall reading about plans for such a thing, though now I can't find any mention of it. > > 14. Kernel security level concept doesn't exist in Linux. > > Try to disperse common myth that BSD doesn't support hardware but do not > be shy to admit that lack support for things like > video conferencing. > > Do not be shy to admit that virtualization is poor and maybe > intensionally as quite of few people do not believe that putting > somebody's else cra*p on the top of FreeBSD will not make that cra*p > working better or be more secure. If you need Window's application run > Windows. As far as I'm concerned, this is just a net lose. Virtualization is handy when you want to be able to run two different OSes on only one box at the same time, for instance. That doesn't mean I won't mention it, though, since the point of the page is more to mention differences between FreeBSD and Linux -- not just to make FreeBSD sound good. > > Does it make a good Desktop system? Depends what do you mean by that. If > you need everything working out of box > for your grandmother Mily probably not. If you need Flash and Java > plug-ins probably not. But if you need ROCK solid > workstation for academic work, occasional multimedia and want to be 100% > in control of your computer like me it is the best desktop OS around. All in all, I think your email has given me some ideas for things to add to the page, possible ways to modify what's already there, and stuff to think about in general. Thanks. -- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] Phillip J. Haack: "Productivity is not about speed. It's about velocity. You can be fast, but if you're going in the wrong direction, you're not helping anyone." _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"