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

[lucio@proxima.alt.za]

> 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.  In
my opinion, the *BSDs are "superior" in that they are better
coordinated, specially on the technical side, but that can be a
subjective call.  Plan 9 is unquestionably superior, no quotes
required.

There are other issues you raise and they deserve a response, if only
to clarify some of the opinions that arise on this list.

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.

Stable?  Linux is considerably less stable than the *BSDs, as it is
all too frequently updated.  Once again, this is both an asset and a
liability, but you have to allow that it is closer in spirit to the
Windows world (publish frequently) than the Unix world (stabilise).
The question that it raises is whether the Windows philosophy is more
sound than the Unix one _from_the_point_of_view_of_the_luser_.  As far
as the suppliers go, obsolescence is an asset, period.

> 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.  Only the tenacity of the developer base allows the likes of
Linux and the *BSDs to replicate with great difficulty what the
hardware developers supply free of any effort to the Windows user.
Often, the hardware developers intentionally put stumbling blocks in
the path of driver developers, something extremely hard to reconcile
with a free marketplace.  I'm not sure you're doing your cause much
justice by raising this particular issue, other than gaining sympathy
for the Linux and *BSD developers.  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.

> 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?

Straw man.  To paraphrase: "For many people, the reality is that they
can't run Linux for day to day production use".  Nor BSD, nor any
other poor Windows imitation, they have to have the real thing.  So
the question is not what ought to be recommended for the average user,
but what would promote better conditions, for some value of
"conditions".  On this mailing list, we all acknowledge that Plan 9 is
superior in some fashion to other offering, we don't all agree as to
what this really means.

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?

++L