Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world

[Aharon Robbins <arnold@skeeve.com>]

> Seriously, though, I can understand why they might not be in a hurry
> to push something like Plan 9, but (a) if this is funding new development,
> why not pick a technically superior platform?  (b) why Linux?  Why not
> one of the BSD distributions?  (c) Can't technology win just this once?

Quite seriously, why is *BSD "superior" to Linux?  How do you define
"superior"?  I would really like to know.  (Let's take it as granted
that OpenBSD is more "secure".  Fine.  What other criteria are there?)

I've been using Linux since the days of Redhat 4.0, circa 1997.  I find
it to be stable, full-featured (yes, this is a bug and a feature) and
to perform well.

The *only* issue I ever have with Linux is hardware support for either
very new or very proprietary hardware (monitors, network and video cards),
and that is usually solved with time.  The installation experience has
only gotten *better* over the years.

And the Linux dists come with *tons* of day-to-day useful software that
I would have to go out and find and build were I running a commercial
Unix system.

For many people, the reality is that they can't run Plan 9 for day to day
production use.  That means they have to run a *nix box.  So, given that
that is the world we're playing in, I'd rather run Linux than Solaris,
AIX, or HP-UX any day.  And since all I can afford are x86 boxes, that
limits me to Solaris, Linux and *BSD.  So, why should I switch to a
BSD system?

This IS NOT a flame.  I do not claim that Linux is perfect, the be-all,
end all, etc, nor that all GNU software is wonderful etc etc.  I would
merely like to understand what technical merits *BSD has that Linux
doesn't.

Thanks,

Arnold