[nycbug-talk] BSD in the enterprise....
clarke at craftedpackets.net
Sat May 29 09:31:05 EDT 2004
Thanks for the response. I'm not bashing BSD. It is becoming my OS of
choice. The questions I asked were for myself and my research.
On Sat, 2004-05-29 at 02:39, G. Rosamond wrote:
> On May 29, 2004, at 2:03 AM, Nigel Clarke wrote:
> > What will it take to have *BSD in use in corporate environments? Linux
> > was not successful until companies like Solaris and IBM started to
> > endorse it. When I say successful, I'm speaking of making it into
> > corporate environments.
> > One of the other advantages that Linux offers is that it is economical.
> > That and stable vendor support make it an easy decision for management.
> > How does BSD compare? How will BSD make it into corporate environments?
> First things first.
> I think this thought about the corporate environment is incorrect in
> some ways.
> The presence of BSD in the hosting and ISPs is enormous. That may be
> the most challenging 'corporate environment' on a technical level. I
> also think that the BSD presence in the world outside the US east coast
> is much more significant and recognized.
> That seems like the 64k question, but I think the base reason for the
> 'tardiness' is the ATT court case, which dragged the BSDs down from
> getting a quick start in the years before the dot com period.
> What does Linux have?
> First I don't think that the popularity of Linux is at the expense of
> the BSD's in general. When companies migrate to free, open source
> software, it's in the favor of the BSD community. Sure, some migrated
> *from* BSD to a Linux distro when BSDI, BSD/OS when south, but the
> anecdotes you hear seem to show there's some fluctuation between the
> BSDs and Linux. I think that people have accepted FOSS in the
> corporate environments helps us all. Just as when SCO attacked Linux,
> it was also an attack on the BSD community, even before we got a
> Linux has a real political appeal due to the GPL for a layer of people
> also, and that means an increase in advocacy.
> That point is ever so clear on Slashdot, where lots of barely technical
> users troll the BSD stories as a hobby. It seems to set a tone that
> few people openly take seriously, but many seem implicitly impacted by.
> As everyone knows, the BSD community has never taken advocacy seriously
> as a whole. This may or may not change, but the role of NYCBUG is
> certainly important in this equation. What city is more important than
> NYC? Maybe Rome and Athens in the classical period, London in the age
> of the British Empire, but that's the past.
> The vendor question is also important, as you raised it. Because of
> BSD licensing, there's no need for a vendor to advertise the code being
> at the core of their closed source and or embedded system. Snap
> Appliances, for instance, broadcasts that one of its product lines runs
> on Linux. But try to find on their www site that their other product
> line uses BSD. I tried it once, but it was fruitless.
> What are the strengths of BSD? A long history. Innovation in whole
> numbers of area, from TCP/IP to DNS and firewalling. A level of
> obsessive seriousness among its developers. The incorporation into OS
> X. It's recognition as a serious project, something everyone notices.
> Tell someone you hack Linux, and the average tech thinks, cool. Tell
> them you hack BSD, and you get immediate respect.
> In comparison to Linux, the advantages are clear to me. Stability,
> security and performance before bleeding edge, which certainly matters
> in a corporate environment. The licensing is better for businesses
> (although I think it's better for developers even more). Finally, when
> you use BSD, you use a total system, and probably some apps that are
> GPL. When you use a Linux, you're using Linus' kernel, some
> distribution's userland and system, third party packages, and someone
> or another's drivers. All along the way, you're banking on things to
> work like a nice mixed salad. You just have a greater chance of
> someone throwing in a radish too many, and you'll have a hard time
> finding out who it was.
> This became an issue with the SCO case, or whatever you call that
> stock-pumping fiasco. Is there code that SCO claims to own in Linux?
> If so, where, and who put it there? These are questions that are
> difficult to answer, since there's no real accountability in code
> contributions in the Linux model of development.
> Open corporate backing is good, without a doubt. Particularly if it's
> a big name (and I don't mean Wind River). Apple isn't going to run BSD
> commercials like IBM has for Linux, but that's fine.
> But corporate support is about technical support and development, as
> you stated. *That* to me (and I know many others), is a major handicap
> for the growth of the BSDs. As I've mentioned before, we are
> attempting to setup some basic support through BSDMall. It will start
> out as M-F, 9-5 email and phone support, and hopefully develop from
> there. BSDMall has the name recognition and credibility, and we think
> it can work. And it will greatly enhance the prospects of the BSDs in
> the corporate environment if things develop.
> I don't believe that the BSDs are some "red-haired step child" (no
> insult meant to all the red-haired step children on the list). Things
> are moving along quite well on a development level, and I know that
> there's been a serious upswing in interest in the BSDs over the past
> year. Ask Chris Coleman on the state of BSDMall comparing today to a
> year ago.
> Woah, it's late. . .
Nigel Clarke CRAFTED PACKETS LLC
Security Engineer clarke at craftedpackets.net
More information about the talk