Re: Commercial Distribution?

From: Scott W (wegster_at_mindcore.net)
Date: 01/07/04

  • Next message: Francisco: "Re: How to create .iso file image of cdrom (atapi)?" 
    Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:39:59 -0500
To: Tillman Hodgson <tillman@seekingfire.com>

    Tillman Hodgson wrote:

    >On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:14:41PM -0500, David D.W. Downey wrote:
    >
    >
    >>And how is that different from Linux? FreeBSD is an Operating System, so is
    >>Red Hat, Debian, Stampede, SLS, Slackware, and on and on. FreeBSD does the
    >>same thing. FreeBSD didn't develop OpenSSL but it includes it, nor did it
    >>develop SSH or swat, but it includes them. Just as linux distributions do.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >That's somewhat incorrect in my view. See
    >http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/explaining-bsd/index.html
    >for details.
    >
    >My attempt at a summary:
    >
    >RedHat et al may /distribute/ an operating system, but they did not
    >write it. An analogy in the motorcycle world are the custom bike shops
    >(some of which make extremely nice motorcycles!) versus Harley-Davidson.
    >The custom bike shops carefully (one hopes) select components from the
    >open market and put the polish on the resulting product. H-D may also
    >use open market products (electrics *cough*, carbs *cough*) but are
    >considered a /manufacturer/.
    >
    >Both sell motorcycles (operating systems). There is a distinction,
    >however.
    >
    >-T
    >
    I know this one may be seen as sacrilege to some, but think about this:

    1. *BSD uses a fairly significant amount of GNU and GPL licensed
    (opposed to the BSD license) code in it. gcc, Perl, XFree86, Apache,
    GNU Make, autoconf, mysql, PostgreSQL, etc etc. While it can be argued
    many/most of these are not part of the core OS, what about: gcc,
    objective c, libreadline, cvs, diff, tar, sort, patch and friends?
    (from /usr/src/gnu and /usr/src/usr.bin )

    2. It can be argued that the 'core OS' (kernel and _required_ system
    tools) in *BSD are mostly BSD licensed versus GPL (Linux), but I'd wager
    a significant number of driver developments, kernel code (or perhaps
    design), as well as many programs required by most systems running
    either OS(insert distro here if you're offended), at least share bug
    fixes and new developments to some respect. If I'm not entirely wrong
    (which is certainly possible) I thought Alan Cox of Linux kernel fame
    has also done some work on the BSD kernel(s?)?

    Note that I don't entirely disagree with the response- IMHO, RedHat and
    SuSe are in fact merely distributions, but Linux as a collection of
    kernel + core programs is certainly an OS, in the same manner as *BSD
    is. Even RH AS/ES 2.1 is little more than a RH tweaked kernel + a few
    'commercial' apps (stronghold, not sure of others offhand, haven't ever
    needed them!), on top of RH 7.3, which is really a Linux kernel + tools
    snapshot (many of which programs are at least heavily driven by Linux
    development in the first place), + RedHat or SuSe 'themes' and defaults,
    some customized rc/init scripts, and an installer.

    Anyways, I realized I may now be totally missing the point here so am
    going to now shut my mouth/keyboard...my comments still apply, but I'm
    not sure whom I'm disagreeing/agreeing with right now.. ;-)

    Scott

    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

  • Next message: Francisco: "Re: How to create .iso file image of cdrom (atapi)?"

    Relevant Pages

    • RE: Commercial Distribution?
      ... Linux was brought up as a well known example of the types of services being ... He gets a "Linux is a kernel not an operating ... to mean the entire distribution of applications with it as well. ... not an operating system but simply a collection of software packages stuck ...
      (freebsd-questions)
    • Re: Pkg-based base system.
      ... It is not a kernel with interchangeable userland pieces. ... > BSD wants, ... > not all the world has to follow in the footsteps of Linux. ... If you want a contest, ...
      (freebsd-current)
    • Re: Is linux free
      ... Linux is not an operating system, it is merely a kernel. ... Not all proprietary software has restrictions on redistribution, ...
      (comp.os.linux.misc)
    • Re: Why userland , basesystem and Kernel are together?!
      ... > the Linux world. ... which only have in common to use the Linux kernel. ... The main areas where they differ are the configuration ... Except that these are forks of the entire operating system, ...
      (freebsd-questions)
    • Re: The Problems With Linux
      ... > Here are the problems with Linux: ... programmers of UNIX, Open Source software, and Shareware. ... programs only available from BSD. ... BSD code is used by Microsoft in it's Windows NT/9x/2K/XP code. ...
      (comp.os.linux)