First of all, please understand. I'm not attempting to attack
FreeBSD's credibility. I'm sure it's an awesome OS and, I'll be
honest, I've been considering switching to FreeBSD at times as well.
I did look over the URL you listed, though, and wasn't very impressed
at the individual's rhetorical skills. Most of his arguments were
one-liners with little support, and some of them were simply
flawed. I'll quote from the webpage and include some of my personal
commentary here. Note that I'm not an expert by any means, but I kinda
had to say "WTF?" after seeing some of these:
o /usr/include/linux (come on. honestly.) Lame. Nonstandard. (for the
clue-deprived, this means that any code written for linux using the
linux/ headers will be incompatible with all other Unix flavors.) Guess
what: string.h, types.h, malloc.h, and so-on don't belong in a
platform-specific include directory.
I simply don't get this. All of these files reside in /usr/include on
my system, and they aren't symlinks. Furthermore, this point was
addressed in an earlier message, so I won't waste time on it. :)
o Most linux users don't have pubes yet and are intolerably lame (3Y3 4m
1337 H4x0r d00d [uz 3y3 h4v3 L1Nux!)
Uh, ok . . . Anyone feel like addressing that one? I don't see its
relevance. I've known lots of people like that from high school, I
don't see what he's trying to establish. If this makes Linux suck,
then I can't imagine what he'd have to say about the very lame town I
lived in before college. :)
o Too many things in the kernel that belong in user space (java)
I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing in java's case. Plus,
since these can all be built as modules, I don't see why it matters
that much. Would anyone else care to comment?
o No standard distribution. Linux people say this is a good thing? Try
writing software or software configuration instructions when you never
know how the OS is going to be laid out, or try finding the responsible
party for a block of OS code, or try fixing security problems when they
arise and you'll see that this is NOT a good thing at all.
I haven't developed anything major, but one application I wrote using
autoconf/automake compiled successfully on many distributions. Not
sure if this has changed, since I haven't touched the code in awhile,
but it seems that it would only require the use of good tools,
autoconf/automake for example.
o no consistant pronunciation the os'es name (line-ucks? lynn-ucks?)
Everyone I've heard pronounces it LIH-nucks, and those who don't
pronounce it that way can at least determine what you mean. Again, I
don't see the relevance.
o svr4? bsd? make up your mind?
o Lame NFS & dd
I'll be honest, I don't know enough about these points, so I won't
respond to them. :)
o New kernel every week that breaks half your applications
Huh? Maybe if you're running unstable, but damn, that's why they're
classified as unstable kernels, not for production use. :)
o Security flaw/Root compromise of the week (see below)
Again, WTF? I'm on the debian-security list, and I can't remember
receiving anything in quite some time, maybe a month or two. Just
thought of something, maybe Linux's multiple distributions are also a
strong point. I seem to remember (February '97?) when a FreeBSD
machine was cracked and the source tree was supposedly modified. It's
been awhile, so I may be wrong on this, feel free to slap me violently
if so. :) Imagine lots of mirrors syncing from this cracked host, and
lots of users downloading from these mirrors, with lots of developers
having access to the source on this central server, any of whom could
have caused, directly or indirectly, the compromise in security. With
multiple distributions screening the contents of the latest kernel
versions and libraries, I feel much safer than I would with a central
distribution to which many developers commit changes.
o glibc? libc? libc5? libc6? glibc2?
Hmm, why bother with the details if you don't have to? Why not let the
distribution handle that if you're unwilling?
o /bin/sh != sh; /bin/sh == bash. Lame. Nonstandard. Result: broken shell
scripts and nonportable code.
I'll grant him this point, my /bin/sh does link to bash. I don't think
I've ever had a shell script fail on me because of this,
though. Non-issue?
o /usr/bin/make != make; /usr/bin/make == gmake. Lame. Nonstandard. Same
result as above: nonportable code.
Um, no it isn't symlinked to /usr/bin/gmake. And, I don't think I've
ever had compatibility problems. Doesn't BSD use a different make? If
so, I don't think I've ever seen any programs which use it. Should I
be bold and declare that BSD make is nonstandard? Hmm . . . No, I
don't know enough about the situation to instantly brand programs as
non-standard, and I'll admit that I may very well be wrong in my
assertians. They're based on several years of downloading and
compiling GNU software, as well as source which was built to compile
on multiple unix variants. How can the make I'm using be non-standard
if I haven't had any problems with it?
o ext2fs
o can't handle partitions > 2GB
atlantis:~> df
Filesystem 1k-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/hda3 3044019 2809839 76743 97% /
Again I say, WTF?
o e2fsck deliberatly leaves/creates corrupt files (if there is a block that
it duplicate between two files, e2fsck will clone the duplicate (while
fsck will remove both files))
I don't know enough about these areas, would anyone care to comment?
o it swap likes swap to swap swap too swap often swap
It likes to swap too often. ? I haven't noticed this, if so. At least,
it hasn't caused any adverse effects on my system.
o only allows 128M of swap at a time; for a 1G of swap, you need 8 swap
partitions
No clue, anyone want to comment? Wondering why you'd want 1 gig of
swap anyway, unless you've got gigs of RAM and need lots of memory.
o To install Joe's program, you need Bob's kernel hack, but for Bob's
kernel hack, you've got to have Suzy's patches, but Suzy's patches only
work with a year-old kernel, unless you get Mike's patches to Suzy's
patches, but even then, those conflict with Jeff's drivers, which can be
resolved only by installing Nancy's patches...
Has anyone experienced this? My only experience with this was with the
e2compr patches I applied, but I think the author is exaggerating a
tiny bit.
o Can't handle the same IP on more than one interface
Comments, anyone?
o Can't handle large files
I'd like to reiterate my above point, that the author's arguments
consist primarily of one-liners. In this case, the author fails to
define 'large files'. Sorry if I seem like a clintonist, but I can't
stand incomplete and unsupported arguments. :)
o lilo! any boot loader that needs to have magic block numbers is wrong
o linux icmp.h is *NOT* unix icmp.h - they're totally incompatible.
Comments?
o flatfile password files make listing large ftp directories impossible due
to huge numbers of flatfile searchces.
Comments? Wouldn't this be an issue with the FTP server? Or am I
misunderstanding his point?
Perhaps the greatest crime of Linux is the production of nonportable
code. Te
Linux c0d3rz wave the free-software flag, but they're just as bad as Microsoft
in making software that can run only under their OS.
Whoa! Again I cry those sacred words, "WTF?" I don't have any problems
ftp'ing into gnu.org, downloading a package, tar xvfz'ing it and
running ./configure -prefix=/usr/local/stow; make; make install. Never
do I need to grab Linux-specific patches or anything of that sort. Am
I just lucky, and is everyone else struggling with their nonstandard
systems?
The page then links to various comparisons, including our favorite
Mindcraft study. I'll admit, I'm only a freshman, I don't know very
much about the inner workings of an operating system, and maybe I
shouldn't be running off my mouth. :) When I analyze arguments,
however, the old debater in me re-surfaces. If I see arguments which
are flawed (The > 2 gb claim, for example) I conclude that the
author's information is inaccurate to some extent. And, after making
that conclusion, it follows that it is possible for the author to be
wrong on other claims as well. The author's apparent approval of the
Mindcraft study, which ESR found had (6?) fatal flaws, also supports
my suspitions that some of the points which I don't understand could
be misinformed. I encourage all of you to correct any errors in
judgment which I've made, since I'd realy like to know if I'm wrong.
DISCLAIMER: The above ramblings are not intended to knock FreeBSD,
NetBSD, OpenBSD or any of its dirivatives. I have great respect for
anyone who produces free software, and I don't believe in attacking
them for their efforts. I'm merely concerned about the lack of
accuracy and supporting evidence for many of these claims. Yes, it is
good to evaluate what you do before doing it, but it is also important
that you consider all information thoroughly before forming
conclusions.
,-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> Nolan Darilek | <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | University of Texas at Austin <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Freshman, Computer Science <
> ICQ: 15709478 | Orientation Advisor, 1999 <
> http://www.bigfoot.com/~nolan_d/ | <
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
"Would you like to ride on your own ass?"
-Mistranslated advertisement for donkey rides in Thailand
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
