> It seems to me that Linux is the one that
> gets pushed most to home users? (Maybe because of Red Hat's efforts to make
> it easy to install?)
Not just RedHat, but all distributions have made huge strides forward in
this area. Another reason it gets pushed most to home users is the
publicity Linux is enjoying, to some extent it's the first or only
freenix they hear about. Some *BSDers choose to feel angst about it,
and some put up pages such as your 'www.spatula.net' reference.
> However, it seems to me that FreeBSD is a faster OS
> and can run linux apps faster in emulation that linux runs itself.
Can you really take any comparison seriously when their supporting
references include the Mindcraft farce?
Please investigate this further if it is of concern to you (I know I
am doing so).
> Yahoo and even microsoft use FreeBSD for their bigass web servers.
Some aspects of FreeBSD make it better for certain tasks -- bigass
web servers are one of them (network and file i/o have in the past been
better with *BSD (the family of x86 BSDs including FreeBSD, BSDi's BSD/OS,
NetBSD and OpenBSD (to name a few))).
> Isn't it true that programs written for other flavors of UNIX are more
> universal because /usr/include/linux makes code written for linux
> incompatible with other UNIXes?
/usr/include/linux _is_ very linux specific -- down to the kernel version
(so something that needs linux/blah.h might not work between 2.0.36 and
2.1.122).
However, few enough applications are built to work solely against those
headers. I would find some examples of code that is linux-specific and
generally useful before passing judgement on these grounds.
> Isn't it also true that because Linux doesn't have a standard
> distribution that it makes it far more difficult to fix actual problems
> with the kernel source? Isn't it also true that FreeBSD has fewer
> licensing restrictions and is more open source because you actually get the
> kernel source instead of just modules and binaries like linux?
Linux does have a standard distribution (of the kernel) and comes with
full source. Generally when talking about 'distributions' of Linux one
means GNU/Linux which is the kernel plus the rest of the OS. All are
built on the same basic building blocks, GNU utils, the Linux kernel, and
a few vendor-specific tools (installer, configuration, package
management).
All the pieces are distributed or available as source, genereally even the
vendor specific ones.
As far as licensing restrictions, look them up. *BSD use a BSD style
license, linux and almost all it's pieces are GPL (the GNU Public
license).
> Please correct me where I'm wrong on any of this, but it seems to me
> that if we want an OS revolution where one company doesn't end up
> controlling everything (*cough* microsoft *cough*) then we would want
> a completely free, completely open source OS. It seems to me after
> reading an article on CNET News.com that Red Hat may just be trying to
> head in that direction.
Hmm, beware the sources, writers have many motives. The GNU folks (very
little to do with Linux except that their tools work very well with a
Linux kernel) say their code is more free than any under the BSD license.
Read for yourself with a critical mind and decide for yourself.
> L8z....sorry for rambling, and I hope nobody calls me a commie or a traitor
> (or flames me) for openly analyzing two free UNIXes, and not finding Linux
> on top....
By all means delete linux and try out *BSD and see if you like it better.
You will find fanatics on both sides of the fence, one can only hope that
no matter what your current choice is, you can see the way clear to
critically analyze for yourself through the FUD and lies.
_____________________ _ _ _________________________
Michael Rice |_| Collective |_| http://www.colltech.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |_ Technologies _| 8007598888/8019292 pager
Consultant [] [] "The Power Of Many Minds"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
