[nycbug-talk] BSD in the enterprise....

[Nigel Clarke]

George, 

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. 

Thanks, Nigel

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 
> mention.
> 
> 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. . .
> 
> g
-- 
Nigel Clarke              CRAFTED PACKETS LLC
Security Engineer         clarke at craftedpackets.net
www.craftedpackets.net