From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 13:37:10 +0300 From: Aharon Robbins Message-Id: <200409021037.i82AbApA009066@skeeve.com> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] UN to fund linux for the 3rd world Topicbox-Message-UUID: db6f1150-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 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