User talk:Taxman/BSD and Linux

Congrats and addition

Original creator: good job :-) Specially the size vs model comparison. Added small remark about linux subsystem. --Marco. 131.155.228.51 04:59, 26 August 2004 (UTC)

NPOV?

It seems to me the current version of the article kinda leans in the favor of BSD. If anyone else notices this, can they fix it? (A few more Linux-side advantages being listed would probably do it; just as long as it evens the playing field and doesn't tip the scale again; in the case, go into more depth with BSD, too.) I don't have any experience with BSD beyond watching anime on my friend's system once. MardukZero 08:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean pretense that unequal things are equal within a given scope of priorities. For example, I noticed that FreeBSD can run Linux-proprietary programs, but Linux can't run FreeBSD-specific programs. If true, then FreeBSD is functionally superior, and revealing this is NPOV. If true, it's also a compelling advantage that makes me want to install FreeBSD. If there are equally compelling advantages for Linux over FreeBSD that aren't described, then that wouldn't be NPOV. If Linux has lesser advantages that aren't described due to scope of the article, that's not a violation of NPOV -- unless the lesser advantages are so numerous as to collectively equal a compelling advantage. The latter exception case may be difficult to prove without art juries, expert panels, or user polls. Milo 06:27, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I believe the correct version would be, "can also run most Linux programs" Moreover, one could argue that FreeBSD is the OS in need of a compatibility layer of these two, since there's extremely few, if any, programs available for FreeBSD that wouldn't build for Linux as well. As far as I can remember, there even used to be BSD binary support available for Linux, but it's since fallen unmaintained. --62.78.245.62 04:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I started the article and will admit that I will have a hard time making this article perfectly NPOV. FreeBSD does have technical and structural advantages that make it the better technical solution, or at least has for a long time. That may be partially or fully offset by the fact that Linux is more popular and now has greater support, and may be (and may have been) developing and improving faster. The problem is that is OR so it can't be added into the article without researching to find other sources to cite to back the claim up. I basically stopped working on this article because I didn't think an operating system comparison could ever be fully NPOV, and I found more important things to work on. - Taxman ^Talk 14:56, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Advocacy opinions really do matter for new user education, because OS's are hidden cavern-like things that can't be seen all at once, and can barely be described in jargon. I'm a long time reader of Consumer Reports, and a fan of the California propositions voter information format (pro advocate text, con advocate text, and neutral cost analysis by legislative staff). Californians like the proposition, so I'm optimistic that OS advocacy can be formatted as NPOV. BSD and Linux currently have the lowest installed desktop base for a major OS classification (Unix-like), so we have an oportunity to set a good example for NPOV OS advocacy. Good but not perfect NPOV, since the Perfect is the opponent of the Good. Milo 13:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

== Is this article relevant? == (Note 2005_08_14 rename/move: "FreeBSD and Linux" to "BSD and Linux ")

It seems to me that the entire article is pointless. Comparing FreeBSD and Linux cannot be done. FreeBSD is an all-inclusive, full-featured operating system which combines the kernel and userland utilities in one neat package, all maintained by the FreeBSD project. Linux is merely a kernel. I guess what I'm saying is, there's no real defined scope to this article. It never defines what it is specifically comparing. --TheNationalist 03:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

{con't from § "Both FreeBSD and Linux are operating systems?"} Second, regarding the relevancy of the article, is this article even needed if it's comparing an operating system to a kernel? It would be more helpful if this article was comparing Debian and FreeBSD. Comparing a kernel to a highly integrated operating system isn't even logical. --TheNationalist 14:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not comparing an operating system to a kernel anymore than "BSD and Debian" would be. AlbertCahalan 02:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

My Wiki (or Google?) search arrived here because I read a discussion group where both BSD and Linux are constantly being discussed. Apparently, very few people run both, so reasonable experience comparisons are hard to find. I know that I need them since I haven't settled on a distro. With Linux (and BSD?) currently having a collective installed base of 5-7%, there must be a lot of other OS-impression info seekers like me. I have used and find value in all three major OS's. For the time being, perhaps I have less than usual POV.
- I think Taxman had a correct sense that BSD and Linux advocacy-like comparisons are useful. I'm guessing that as a FreeBSD operator, Taxman is constantly reading generalizations about Linux distro-family competition, compared to the specific distro implementation of FreeBSD. Nothing wrong with that for a discussion group, but I agree with other commenters here that parallel comparisons should be made across the classification hierarchy. My impression of greatest Wiki public utility is that FreeBSD-specific comparisons should be generalized to the BSD world. However, there remains room for some FreeBSD advocacy, because specific examples are important in clarifying a general comparison. If FreeBSD has a large user group and is a good example of BSD, why not use it since Taxman founded the page?
- See § "Apples and Oranges" below: I'm implementing major changes to get the article working relevantly. I hope this meets with consensus approval -- if not just revert it. Milo 09:57, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

== Apples and Oranges == (Note 2005_08_14 rename/move: "FreeBSD and Linux" to "BSD and Linux ")

Better would be either of:

• BSD and Linux
• FreeBSD and Red Hat Enterprise Linux

These are bad:

• FreeBSD and Linux
• BSD and Red Hat Enterprise Linux

If you're going to pick one single BSD, then pick one single Linux to go with it. If you're going to consider all types of Linux, then consider all types of BSD.

AlbertCahalan 03:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. This entry is pointless. It's comparing an operating system to a kernel. FreeBSD is kernel+userland maintained by the FreeBSD project and Linux is just a kernel. There's no defined scope to this article, and I'm not sure there can be one given the nature of the comparison. --TheNationalist 03:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The user public thinks of Linux as an OS, developers apparently think of it as a kernel. That's been fixed (by AlbertCahalan?) with,

"Linux by itself can refer to the bare Linux kernel, or more commonly to any system based on that kernel."

- The user public also thinks of BSD as an OS. So the article is comparing a specific BSD distro (FreeBSD) to a Linux family of distros. That wouldn't make sense unless the FreeBSD community were as large as all of the Linux community put together. (See § "Is this article relevant?" above.)
- The scope of the article is more general than specific, so I conclude from AlbertCahalan's choices above that the article should be titled "BSD and Linux". Taxman apparently doesn't have strong feelings about it.
- So, what I'm going to do is change all general references from "FreeBSD" to just "BSD". Then I'll try convert the FreeBSD-specific material to examples. Undoubtedly, I'll make errors not obvious to me that others will need to clean up. After the major re-edit I'll move/rename the page.
- To keep the NPOV, I've added the Slackware distro as a specific Linux example parallel to the FreeBSD distro. I don't run Slackware, not yet anyway. Mandriva advertising seems more to my taste, but I don't currently have room for its reported bloat due to Windows competition. I picked Slackware because of its long history and the related fact that so many experienced users and developers have good things to say about it. Among other things, Slackware is claimed easy to install small for a server, as well as expandable to a stable desktop. I haven't independently verified these claims, but one has to start somewhere.
- That brings up the point that Installation Issues seem to be a big deal among the new BSD and Linux users' posts I read. Maybe it should become a new article comparison section? Ease of user control of installation size and the related concept of bloat or bloatware are frequently mentioned. Also I have personally experienced three installation failures for three different reasons.
- A lot of changes here, but it feels to me like this subject retracking and rewrite is best done all at once. See if the article starts to make more sense. Feel free to revert if it just doesn't work. Milo 09:57, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

== Both FreeBSD and Linux are operating systems? == (Note 2005_08_14 rename/move: "FreeBSD and Linux" to "BSD and Linux ")

Regarding the opening line of the article,

"FreeBSD and Linux are two open-source operating systems."

Half of the above statement is false. An operating system is the kernel and at least minimal userland utilities to manage the operating system with. FreeBSD *is* an operating system and linux is merely a kernel. The kernel alone does not make an operating system. There simply is no _real_ debate to that point. {con't in § "Is this article relevant?"} TheNationalist 14:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

In common usage, "Linux" is like "BSD" or "Windows". It refers to a class of related operating systems, and is used when the distinctions don't matter. The kernel is generally called just that, "the kernel", or the "Linux kernel". AlbertCahalan 02:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

That's the point though isn't it? This is supposed to be something people can learn from, so everything should be done right. You don't say, "I've got a HEMI," you say, "I've got a Dodge, it has a HEMI engine." You don't run a Linux, you run Gentoo with a Linux kernel. If you are going to refer the the class of BSD operating systems in a manner that should be authoritative, it should say BSD operating systems not BSDs and if you're talking about Linux distributions, it should say Linux distributions not Linuxes, Linuxen or Linux. 65.94.52.193 23:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

== Open Source == (Note 2005_08_14 rename/move: "FreeBSD and Linux" to "BSD and Linux ")

I don't know how to put this in the article, so I'll refrain from doing so: Neither FreeBSD nor GNU/Linux are open source. FreeBSD is, well, not open source, and GNU/Linux is Free Software.—Boarder8925 17:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of the words, but open source is usually considered a superset containing the GPL and other licenses. So, yes, by the standard definition
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php, they both make their source freely available without unreasonable restrictions so they are 'open source'. --Taxman 05:36, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Taxman, the corporate trademark of Open Source is not the sole definition of the words open source, open source only means that the source of something is readable, the OSI doesn't get to define words any more than the FSF gets to define words like free. IPFilter, which does not fit with the OSI's vision of Open Source is, in fact, open source, despite the fact that no source code can be modified and redistributed. Boarder8925, you are just completely wrong, FreeBSD and the Linux kernel are both, you guessed it, open source. 65.94.52.193 04:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

editor's messages

The new reworded sentence looks good, Enkrates. Thanks. --QuiTeVexat 22:04, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Request rewrite. The quality of this article is beyond poor, it is terrible. It needs to be completely remade in order to have both a cohesive direction and to remove the massive and innumerable mistakes and inaccuracies within it.
65.94.52.193 04:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello 65.94.52.193, your addition to the BSD package systems was helpful, thanks. Your new requestrewrite template may be useful to Wikipedia, but it should be downsized to match the others. Since you have made 50 edits in just 8 days at Wikipedia, it would be cooperative if you would create a login username and a talk page so others can communicate with you. (1) Your "Request rewrite" reason comment doesn't make sense, and so it came out looking like trolling or vandalism, which was probably not your intent. (2) The article has a cohesive direction based on this talk page discussion: a relevant, parallel, and NPOV comparison of BSD and Linux, intended for people who are relatively unfamiliar with one or both families. (3) This edition of the article is only about two weeks old, and it's still partly in outline form which you helped to fill in. So it needs to be developed, not completely remade. (4) The article may have a few mistakes and inaccuracies in it, but they are definitely not massive and innumerable. How about writing here what you think the worst mistake is, so one can figure out why you dislike this intentionally vanilla article?
Milo 12:02, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

For me the problems with the article were too complete and all encompassing for find anything redeemable about this article. As it is, it simply is not something I think I could edit into a working and decent article. It is dealing with a fundamentally flawed argument to begin with, as has been mentioned before. Linux is a kernel, BSDs are a series of related operating systems. An article comparing the 4 BSD operating systems would be a more apt concept, as it is it is comparing generalizations of 4 systems with generalizations of dozens, hundreds maybe, of Linux-based distributions. If this article were to actually use Slackware and FreeBSD as the compared systems, it would be better to name it Slackware versus FreeBSD. Perhaps the proposed goal is too grand to be accomplished within this article and putting the relevent information in each of the BSD articles and distribution articles and letting people compare themselves would be better.
65.94.52.193 14:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I think I understand your position. If one takes the position that Linux can only be a kernel, then the article's consensed direction would indeed not seem logical. The mass language reality is that the definition of "Linux" is rapidly morphing, and to a lesser extent, so is the definition of "BSD" (for example, with the flood of new users to arrive with desktop BSD). The way that you originally learned these terms is at least partly obsolete. I expect that is how you feel about many other morphing BSD and Linux terms of art. That in turn would logically explain your feeling of innumerable inaccuracies, not because they are there yet, but because you can see that the article is heading toward them (which btw, vets the focus of the current outline). If the cognitive dissonance of morphing definitions is intolerable to you, you would be happier working on history pages, where definitions don't change any more often than 20 to 100 years. Yes, I agree this is an ambitious article. It attempts to help new users classify useful, not meaningless, distinctions among four or five BSD's and dozens of Linux's, yet avoid getting the user swamped in detail, or be proselytized rather than informed by OS advocacy. As for "letting people compare themselves", I'm good at that, I tried that, and I couldn't do it. That's why I decided to help write this article.
Milo 17:51, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

The big problem is that if you generalize on such a scope you cannot properly compare things. ... [65.94.52.193]

Yes, that's one of the technical writing challenges here. Fortunate that "properly" is a variable that can be connotated in a way useful to the new consumer. It can't be perfect, as perfect is the enemy of the good. "Optimally within a given context" is a useful replacement concept. The context here is users who are new to BSD, Linux, or both, but who are familiar with wintels or Macs at the application level like browsing and word processing. Such users are typically comfortable with a point and click interface, so they need to be informed as to when only a command line interface (CLI) is likely to be available for configuration. [Milo]

...If you were to generalize everything about BSD so as only to use what is common amoung them you would have very little to use, ... [65.94.52.193]

There are article sections to generalize both similarities and differences. One of the most important consensus points so far made in the article, is that of less difference between families and among distros than public advocacy would lead the new user to believe, and they need to know that. The generalization model I'm currently using is Greg Lehey's "Explaining BSD":

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/explaining-bsd [Milo]

...the license isn't even concrete - NetBSD uses the 4, FreeBSD uses the 3 and OpenBSD the 2 clause BSDL. ... [65.94.52.193]

Ok, good item, that sounds simple enough to go into the licensing section, with links to the Wiki(?) text of each type of license. The most important license issues are what one cannot do. The new user needs to be informed briefly, which BSD's they should not use, for example, if they wish to go into a BSD software programming and sales business. There are probably classes of users that tend to cluster with each distro, and they should be listed if known. [Milo]

...Linux distributions are even worse in their mass variations. ... [65.94.52.193]

Other articles are attempting to grasp the problem of listing and comparing the many Linux distros: List of Linux distributions, and Comparison of Linux distributions. The first has Linux text descriptions, the second is a Linux comparison table. Each has a perspective with advantages. The most similar Wiki BSD compare page may be the "Berkeley Software Distribution: Open Source BSD Derivatives" section, with BSD text descriptions. The useful external link DistroWatch is a commercially supported catalog that covers both BSD and Linux. [Milo]

...This should either be a Fedora Linux verus NetBSD, OpenBSD verus Gentoo Linux, FreeBSD versus Ubuntu Linux or something like that or it shouldn't try to go into details, since they will be generalizations that do not apply accros the board. ... [65.94.52.193]

This article's current attempt is to do both a general compare and one specific compare on a snapshot sample basis. I assume that this specific compare, FreeBSD versus Slackware, can't be comprehensive. It's just to give the new user an idea of what some specific differences might be, giving a reality check on public advocacy. If it turns out that there aren't many meaningful differences, that is also useful information. You are certainly free to start a Wiki specific-distro versus specific-distro compare page of the type you have noted, and make it as comprehensive as you can manage. [Milo]

You mention DesktopBSD as though it were a BSD, it is not, it is a KDE interface that is dropped onto FreeBSD.
65.94.52.193 14:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I wasn't referring to "DesktopBSD". I wrote "desktop BSD" in lower initial case and two words, referring to the concept that the point and click desktop is or will become a prominent package feature of all BSD distros, sooner or later. "DesktopBSD" that you mentioned is a specific example that is suitable for this article, because it is implemented for FreeBSD as sample compared by this article.
- The desktop interface is a central issue for this article, because as users continue to migrate from Windows, they want one. Linux's have probably gained a lot of new user popularity because their desktop interface is accepted with little question. On the other hand, I've noticed that traditional BSD users tend to be CLI users, and are sometimes unnecessarily contemptuous of new users who prefer point and click. Both interfaces have their advantages, usually depending on whether one is doing a high level application or a low level script programming task. Configurations seem to fall in between. It seems to be an issue that desktop interface users object to BSD or Linux text mode configuration files.
Milo 06:48, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

The interface is irrelevent, it's all X. X has nothing to do with BSDs or Linux distributions, it's an add on. GNOME, Windowmaker, AfterStep, KDE, CDE, XFCE, fluxbox and the rest are all add ons to X. Interface has nothing to do with the operating systems. The command line is the base for Linuxen just as much as it is BSDs, BSDs just tend to make better use of it and make sure anything can be done in it. Linux distributions tend to like to make things more convoluted and confusing using curses and graphical tools for even the most simple things. At the very least, you'll never find DragonFlyBSD or OpenBSD giving flying fart about point and click, that is something that is, as I said, irrelevent. FreeBSD and NetBSD probably won't either, since the command line works much better than a graphical user interface can. There is only contempt inside BSD communities for people that are too stupid to help themselves, if they cannot read they are beyond help. Each BSD has instructions for during and after an installation, they each have man pages, it's people refusing to read these things that gains scorn. It's not an issue with desktop users, it's an issue with lazy people that refuse to use the thing filling their heads.
65.94.52.193 15:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming CLI vs. desktop interface as candidate for most important OS public advocacy issue, and possibly a prime cause of the BSD vs. Linux debate. I would further identify this as a sociological class position. This should go into the advocacy section. The Wiki NPOV writing problem is how to fairly state each side's position, and recognize that strong feelings exist, without further fanning flame war passions that could prevent completion of this article. For a method of how to do this, see the California propositions voter information format in the "NPOV?" section above.
Milo 21:47, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hardly a matter of class, only of interest. People that are interested in Unix and like Unix understand BSDs and how to use BSDs because BSDs are Unix to the bone. People that are disinterested in Windows, that hate Windows and want to get away from Windows go looking to Linux distributions because it's not Windows - because the press and random kids keep telling them it is an alternative to Windows. Because of this there are lots of people making BSDs more and more Unix-like and Linux systems more and more Windows-like. BSDs understand that the interface is a part of X and that X is not a part of their system, that it is an add-on which they give minor support for. Linux distributions, because they are targetting and targetted by Windows users are mucking around trying to cobble together something that seems Windowsy enough for these people. I think the biggest confusion caused by Linux distributions ever was what X is, because Linux distributions are not full operating systems developed with a focused goal and instead a whole whackload of random tools from all over people do not realise the difference between the system and X. 65.94.52.193 23:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)