[nycbug-talk] Forbes Magazine on Linux and the BSDs. . .

[alex at pilosoft.com]

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Michael Shalayeff wrote:

> if you mean deficiences of the _competitor_ than yes that's what exactly
> the article sez -- it's deficient.
> 
> what is so wrong that is said there? it is a very politely expressed
> opinion -- linux is crap. is it not? would you prefer a nicer definition
> of "retarded" instead?
mmm yes, I seriously would.

Linux has good parts and bad parts. You may disagree with software 
development and QA process (or lack thereof). In many cases, it is in the 
eye of the beholder. 

However, there are concrete things where linux *is* better than FBSD and
you would do disservice by just poo-pooing it. These are just things why
*I* use Linux for certain things.

a) support for far more hardware

b) iproute2/policy routing/multiple ribs - 'ipfw fwd' doesn't compare

c) linux tc/action is far better than altq. 

d) clustered filesystems (gfs/opengfs/ocfs) 

There are many things where BSD is better - for example, netgraph and geom 
have no equivalent on linux-side. 

With regard to VM system: I think at this point, its a tossup. Different 
versions of linux have differently working/behaving VM. You may think its 
a bad thing, I won't necessarily agree. 

> do you honestly believe that linux is a great piece of software?
Basically, I believe, right tool for the right job. Wild-eyed zealotry is 
something that *linux* people like to do, and you are right to hate on 
them for it! (got you:)


-alex