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

[Aharon Robbins <arnold@skeeve.com>]

Lucio,

> > 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?)
>
> That's not how I interpret the snippet you replied to.  The "superior"
> platform would be Plan 9, the *BSD are mere alternatives to Linux.

I can see that - I admit it wasn't clear in the original post.

> Plan 9 is unquestionably superior, no quotes required.

Agreed.

> Firstly, there is no such thing as "full featured".  For all of 10000
> packages (I'm guessing, but I think I'm pretty close) that NetBSD
> offers, I still can't conveniently exchange a PowerPoint presentation
> with a near infinite number of MS users unless I run some version of
> Windows.  The same is valid even more for Visio (have I got the right
> name?).  That is "full featured" even though Windows is lacking many
> of the options (ethereal, say) of the Unix world.

Full-featured is in the eye of the beholder (like most things); as
I expanded, I meant it as "lots of really useful programs already there
out of the box."

> Stable?  Linux is considerably less stable than the *BSDs, as it is
> all too frequently updated.

I should have stated my definition.  I meant "stable" as in "never crashes
unless the hardware is flakey."  I do see your point using your definition,
and thus that's one point of the kind I was looking for in favor of *BSD.

> > 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.
>
> This weakness is a poor criticism to level at any OS competing with
> Windows.

It wasn't meant negatively; it was a statement of fact that, like it
or not, is a down point for Linux.  It does apply to all non-MS OS's,
true.

I live in Israel.  I can't just mosey on down to my local Circuit City
and pick out hardware that'll work with Linux.  I have a good relationship
with a wonderful computer store, but they have hardware that they like.
In the past, I've had monitor/video card/sound card issues, which were usually
solved by the next linux release.  More recently I had a wireless networking
card issue, where the box said "Linux" but it was a binary driver that
would only work for RH 9, not Fedora.  (Solved via linuxant.com, but
that's another story.)

I guess what I'm trying to say is that overall, my experience has been
positive, but not picture perfect.  That's OK.

> And, yes, I do appreciate that the
> Linux developers are leading in this race, but that's through sheer
> number, the *BSD device drivers are almost without fail better
> designed and implemented than the Linux ones they admittedly imitate.

Point two in favor of *BSD.

> So the question is not what ought to be recommended for the average user,

I was asking for me personally, as a committed techy/Unix type. I wasn't
out to solve the world's problems. :-)

> We also understand that without a much larger developers community,
> Plan 9 will stagnate, so we all pray that our favourite toy would
> become more widespread.  But in my opinion it's another chimera, we
> need to attract more sophisticated developers, keep the quality of the
> system up, be less concerned about quantity.  As long as Plan 9 can
> uniquely claim features such as a bullet-proof security, factotum,
> venti, uniformity of the namespace etc., it stands a head above the
> competitors.  It may not have a popular following, but then if one is
> to judge by popular following, what can compete with Windows?  And,
> for that matter, who would want to?

Well said.

Thanks,

Arnold