Linked by David Adams on Tue 8th Apr 2008 16:33 UTC
BSD and Darwin derivatives "I am very happy about the direction in which the Mac OS X GUI is going, although sadly many Mac users aren't interested in (or don't know about) the "lower levels" of the Macintosh Operating System. Have you ever wondered why the Terminal greets you with the words "Welcome to Darwin"? Why do BSD and Mac OS share certain bits of code? Why does Wikipedia describe Mac OS X as a graphical operating system? Today we're going to take a look at the underlying open source technology which powers your fancy Leopard OS - the hidden core set of components, named Darwin."
Thread beginning with comment 308702
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: What BSD could have been
by ari-free on Tue 8th Apr 2008 18:57 UTC in reply to "What BSD could have been"
ari-free
Member since:
2007-01-22

the real problem for bsd is that while they tried to be a good server, they didn't really care that it would be a good fit for the desktop. The linux people wanted both and that is why it took off. "I can play with it at home and hey I can use it as a server." The more linux was used as a desktop, the more drivers and developers for it and that turned it into a better server OS as well.

Reply Parent Score: 5

krreagan Member since:
2008-04-08

I use BSD on both the desktop (PC-BSD) and server (FBSD) and like it much better then the Linux in either service, as I have to do at work. FBSD is cleaner, easier to administer/upgrade, 7.0 is faster, more scalable. The ports are the best system I have seen for managing SW installs...

The cluster f*&k that is the Linux development method has creadted the worst code base that I have ever seen!

TEHO I guess.

TBM

Reply Parent Score: 1

ari-free Member since:
2007-01-22

but linux didn't fork like the bsd's.

Reply Parent Score: 1

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

much better then the Linux
...
7.0 is faster, more scalable.

And for all those years in which Linux was undeniably faster at SMB and BSD's performance was nothing short of embarrassing?

No doubt you are referencing, as have so many other well meaning but misguided people, Kris Kennaway's tired and outdated old MySQL benchmark which pointed out a flaw in Glibc. (Thanks for that, BTW.) See the more recent benchmarks conducted by Nick Piggin, using the current Glibc, and note that Linux is now faster than FreeBSD:

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/npiggin/sysbench/

What can I say? Nah, nah, neh nah nah? Or perhaps I should say that the idea of focusing on such a benchmark to make an absolute claim that one is faster than the other is silly and meaningless.

I'm glad you are pleased with FreeBSD. Not all of us have the same requirements and tastes.

Edited 2008-04-08 22:06 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

sakeniwefu Member since:
2008-02-26

The people who modded you down should go to http://fxr.watson.org/ to at least have a founded opinion. I wouldn't say FreeBSD kernel source is as much better than Linux as their manpages are. They are similar in both performance and dirtyness.
If you want to read both clean secure code and useful manpages, try OpenBSD.

Reply Parent Score: 3

orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

I'd say it was more a combination of timing (hello AT&T lawsuits), licensing choice, and culture that led to Linux taking off

Reply Parent Score: 3

ari-free Member since:
2007-01-22

culture was a big part of it. Linus brought together the minix community and the gnu community when he used their tools. linux wasn't forked the way bsd was. He gave the opportunity for a lot of people to contribute to the kernel. Developers like that sort of thing as it was the ultimate hackOS. It feels good to say you made a difference to an OS that many people use.

Reply Parent Score: 2