[geeks] Why Linux and not *BSD?

[velociraptor]

On 8/3/05, kurt at k-huhn.com <kurt at k-huhn.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 08:25:14AM -0400, James Fogg wrote:
> > > The stunningly simple answer is "marketing".  Use of the word
> > > "linux" in press releases, marketing material, and product
> > > announcements is practically guaranteed to get you widespread
> > > market exposure.  Thes days, "linux" is a well recognized
> > > buzzword, and it's being exploited to the fullest extent.  It
> >
> > For embedded projects, I'd agree. From a choice of OS for a server or
> > workstation, I'd choose Linux and so do many others. The choice, I
> > believe, is based on available software and wide support. The BSD's are
> > technically superior at the core, but aren't easy to place into service
> > with anything other than "normal" Unix functions, like DNS. If there
> > were a GNU/BSD broad-based packaging like the GNU/Linux family it would
> > improve the situation. In the end, this served to inflate the marketing
> > value of Linux, and now it *is* a buzzword.
>
> I don't know, James.  I've used OpenBSD for a wide array of functions.
Seems
> to me that there's an equal amount of software and utilities available for
it
> as there is for Linux.  I even use it as an alternative to ancient Solaris
on
> my SparcBook 3GS, and it's fully useable as a workstation.  On a reasonably
> quick system, it's even better.
>
> BSD is "different", there's no argument about that.  However, it's not so
> different that Linux should be beating it out of useful functions due to a
> lack of software.

I think that if you consider *commercial* software, what James says
is accurate.  Not a lot of vendors are supporting anything other than
Linux, of the "free" OSes.

I think that it is less so, if you are talking OSS, though you might
have to do the compiling yourself in many cases.

=Nadine=