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

[Dan Cross <cross@math.psu.edu>]

Aharon Robbins <arnold@skeeve.com> writes:
> 
> > 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?)

Well, that's an interesting question you've raised.  My criteria are
organization and maturity of the source base, quality of the source
code itself, design direction, and packaging of the system.  It's been
my experience that Linux distributions aren't put together well, and
the quality of the source code (particularly in the kernel: there be
dragons) varies wildly.  Some is quite good, while some is just
downright nasty.  I guess I've around in enough open source packages
that come as standard parts of most Linux distributions to be
suspicious of anything I find in there, while the BSD code tends to
be of uniformly higher quality and show a greater attention to
detail.

However, that might not be a metric anyone cares about.  After all, if
Linux lets someone get their job done more efficiently than BSD, then
who cares how well the kernel is implemented on one versus the other?
Maybe that's the real, or at least the more important, issue.

Regardless, my point wasn't to specifically say that BSD is technically
superior to Linux (though I do think that it is), but rather to ask why
the decision wasn't made on technical merits.  I think it's safe to
assume that there *are* technically superior operating systems out
there.  An open source version of BeOS might have much more impact
than Linux, for instance; why wouldn't the UN push that?

One metric I've used to judge Unix systems is the sanity of their
`rc' file structure.  Systems with complex rc files that turn out
fragile messes tend to be fragile messes.  Most Linux distributions
have adopted System V run levels, and have further implemented
them with every ounce of complexity one could imagine.  The result
is a fragile mess.  Compare to, say, OpenBSD which sticks with good
ol' /etc/rc and one or two friends.

> 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.

I used Linux in the pre 1.0 days, around 1993 or 1994, and ditched it
for BSD and never looked back.  However, recently I was considering
whether it'd be useful to use it for some projects I wanted to play
with.  I'm tempted, but am not sure I can fully understand it enough
to configure it the way I'd like.  Thus, I'm really tempted to stick
with FreeBSD instead.

> 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.

I've had random crashes and found it difficult to configure it to do
things RedHat or Suse haven't anticipated.

> 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.

Oh, good heavens; at this stage in the game I'd never consider going
back to Commercial Unix unless I had some very good reason.

> 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?

Well, I'd tell them to run a Macintosh instead.  But I agree with you
that I'd probably take Linux on x86 over commercial Unix on proprietary
hardware.  Regardless, I'm happy with my Macintosh, and I'm not looking
back at FreeBSD for a desktop system.  I just don't need or want it.
The fact that Linux ships with something like pine doesn't do much for
me (or that I can install it easily via the BSD ports collection).
Mail.app is nice for me to use, and I hope to never be stuck with a
goofy curses-based mail reader again....

> 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.

Argh!  Burn the heretic!  (Just kidding!)

That's fine.  I hope I've given somewhat decent answers to reasonable
questions.

	- Dan C.