Re: Linux vs FreeBSD vs SCO
From: Bill Vermillion (bv_at_wjv.com)
Date: 05/27/05
- Next message: Bill Vermillion: "Re: Linux vs FreeBSD vs SCO"
- Previous message: John Schmidt: "Re: tr syntax"
- In reply to: Tony Lawrence: "Re: Linux vs FreeBSD vs SCO"
- Next in thread: Jeff Liebermann: "Re: Linux vs FreeBSD vs SCO"
- Reply: Jeff Liebermann: "Re: Linux vs FreeBSD vs SCO"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 15:25:01 GMT
In article <io6dne5KJcQmbQvfRVn-1Q@taconic.net>,
Tony Lawrence <foo@pcunix.com> wrote:
>Bill Vermillion wrote:
>
>>
>> The problems >>I<< have with Linux is it is not consistent.
>> And it changes. They don't seem to have the concept of legacy
>> systems, so that if they change something they expect you to
>> upgrades. When - at one time - the ps -af deprecated the '-'
>> and would bail out when it encountered that in a script I was told
>> "change the scripts". The don't understand that some system have
>> scripts that have worked for years the old way, and sometimes
>> those scripts are called only rarely so breakage may occur later
>> and you might not know why.
>
>I don't disagree with anything you said. I will make two comments,
>though.
>
>First, the "ps" issue is more complicated than it first appears. See
>http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B1011.html and
>http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B1012.html
>
>Secondly (and in spite of the first comment), you are absolutely correct
>that Linux changes too damn much, ignores legacy considerations and is
>well on the path to perdition by making things much more complex than
>they need to be.
>
>But if I have leaned nothing else in all my years, I have learned this:
>technical superority means squat. It's the sizzle that sells, and if
>the steak really tastes like cardboard, it doesn't matter. If any of
>that did matter, Microsoft wouldn't be where they are today.
>
> From where I sit, Linux is evolving in the direction it needs to go to
>unseat Microsoft (or at least push them to the side a little). That
>means more sizzle, more shiny doo-dads, and (aaargh!) more wizards and
>other background crap making decisions for you. You quoted "Linux is
>for MS haters. FreeBSD is for Unix lovers". I don't disagree with that,
>but I do remind you that the second group is very, very small indeed.
And BSD is more of a server platform so you find fewer 'users'. but
there are a lot of servers. I don't have current counts
but last time I aware places like Verio and other large hosting
site had over 1/4 million FreeBSD servers in place. But in the
overall count the BSD fall into the other.
And the server area is where I work. And I live almost exclusively
in a text mode - cli interfaces et all - partially because of some
vision problems - and a lot of speed and never having to take my
hands of the keys to chase a rodent.
I hate the 'wizzards' in all OSes - as they always seem not to
address MY needs. But I've always been a maverick. And I usually
wind up in the 'small user' gruop. When most of the studios were
running MCI multi-track machines we ran Studer. When most people
used Gerbils - er JBLs - we used one that we felt were better.
And for the things I do, technical superiority means a lot.
Jeff had asked in email why I chose what I did, and I never try to
get people to believe my way is the right way - it's just the
right way for me.
Bill
-- Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
- Next message: Bill Vermillion: "Re: Linux vs FreeBSD vs SCO"
- Previous message: John Schmidt: "Re: tr syntax"
- In reply to: Tony Lawrence: "Re: Linux vs FreeBSD vs SCO"
- Next in thread: Jeff Liebermann: "Re: Linux vs FreeBSD vs SCO"
- Reply: Jeff Liebermann: "Re: Linux vs FreeBSD vs SCO"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
