[Techtalk] Linux and *BSD

[Caitlyn Martin]

HI, Rasjid,

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 00:31:51 +1000
Rasjid Wilcox <rasjidw at openminddev.net> wrote:
> 
> I've often wondered why the *BSD's (FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD) seem
> less popular (and are certainly less well known) than Linux.  Couldn't
> think of somewhere to post the question without risking starting a
> flame war, but this seems like a safe enough place.  :-)

I think you did, in fact, pick a safe place.  I doubt any of us see
Linux as a religion or are zealous enough about Linux to dismiss *BSD.
> 
> There seem to be a number of potential reasons I can think of:
> a) timing - If I've read the history right, Linux started in 1991, and
> the *BSD's a year or two (or three) later.  Perhaps is it just because
> Linux got a head start.

I don't think this is it.  Linux really didn't get popular at all until
the mid to late '90s.  By then both were well established.

> b) license - those in favour in GPL style free software might favour
> Linux over the *BSD's.

I think this is *part* of it.  The license differences have affected how
the two are developed.  The BSDs are all centrally controlled.  There
aren't different distributions and you can't take FreeBSD, add some
packages, and call it RasjidBSD and sell it, as I understand it.
  
Linux, other than the kernel, is decentralized.  Indeed, anything other
than the kernel really isn't Linux.  It is Distribution X, which
incorporates the Linux kernel, GNU tools, and whatever else the
distributor wants.  The way the GPL is written you can alter, for
example, RedHat Linux 9, and call it Rasjid Linux all you want and sell
it.  This is how Mandrake and Caldera (now SCO) got started.  Vector
Linux is a slimmed down, optimized Slackware. 

I think the GPL model is, perhaps, more free and allows more
cross-pollenation of code and ideas and more input.  It also allows for
commercial ventures to profit from the Linux code base independently of
a central authority.  There is (or was) only one BSDi.  There are many
commercial Linux distributions.

I may not have this exactly right, but I think I'm at least close.

I also believe the FreeBSD has somewhat less hardware supported and less
software compiled and available as binaries.  The latter may be
unimportant to you or to me, but it is very important to a newbie who is
uncomfortable compiling code or editing a makefile.  

The heardware issue is huge.  One of my Toshiba Libretto SS1010s had
FreeBSD on it at one point but the PCMCIA slot, which isn't quite
standard, wasn't supported at the time.  That was unacceptable to me. 
Linux handled it just fine.  I'm not sure if the current version of
FreeBSD would work on my laptops or not.  I am very sure about Vector
Linux and RedHat.
> 
> Also, I have been meaning to have a look at one of the *BSD's for a
> long time.  Several sources suggest that FreeBSD is probably the
> easiest to install and use.  Any suggestions or hints on this?

Whether FreeBSD is easiest to install or not will depend on the hardware
you are using.  There is more software ported to FreeBSD and available
in binary form than for Net/OpenBSD.

All the best,
Caity