Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 30th Mar 2010 22:32 UTC, submitted by aaronb
Legal It's time for bed over here, but before I turn in with a nice cup of tea and a Gilmore Girls episode, we've got some good news for you: SCO has been dealt yet another major blow in its baseless lawsuit against Novell. A jury has ruled that Novell owns the UNIX copyrights - not SCO.
Thread beginning with comment 416165
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: SCO
by Laurence on Wed 31st Mar 2010 09:17 UTC in reply to "RE: SCO"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

As much as I dislike SCO ... Linux lacks quality and consistency when compared to Solaris, IRIX and the BSD ... which in the end turned me away form it.


I guess that very much depends on how you judge Linux.

If you're talking about Linux as in software distributions as whole OSs, then that's a little unfair as, for the most part, the same FOSS that runs on Linux also runs on BSD et al.

If you're talking about Linux as in the kernel, then I'd love to know what is missing from the Linux kernel that is in Solaris, IRIX and BSD/Mach as, from my perspective, I've found the Linux kernel to be very stable, powerful and yet still flexible.

If you're talking about enterprise tools, then have you factored RHEL (and the lark) that specifically target the same enterprise market as (for example) Solaris (thus comparing like for like)?


The problem with Linux is it's such a diverse beast that many comparisons don't seem to be a fair "like for like" comparison.
So while I'm not trying to undermine your experience*, I'd love some elaboration on your point.


footnote:
* I have used FreeBSD and Solaris (+ OpenSolaris and NexentaCP) but not IRIX. However the set ups I've built have been very modest by most servers standards. So I don't boast to be an expert on the subject.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: SCO
by lucas_maximus on Wed 31st Mar 2010 09:26 in reply to "RE[2]: SCO"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

GNU/Linux has the problem of having inconsistent documentation, breaking drivers (that did work) and reinventing the wheel (ALSA, PulseAudio) when there are already good software that could have been built upon. It very much the attitude of one of the software engineers at our place .. completely rewrite something from scratch because you don't like how some else has done it even thought it work.

Most of the BSD base system except for things like GCC are now not GNU.

Edited 2010-03-31 09:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: SCO
by righard on Wed 31st Mar 2010 09:38 in reply to "RE[3]: SCO"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

If they where before, aren't they re-inventing the wheel?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: SCO
by Laurence on Wed 31st Mar 2010 14:34 in reply to "RE[3]: SCO"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

GNU/Linux has the problem of having inconsistent documentation,

That depends on the distribution

breaking drivers (that did work)

As opposed to a lack of drivers on other platforms?

and reinventing the wheel (ALSA, PulseAudio) when there are already good software that could have been built upon.

ALSA and PulseAudio are desktop tools and on the whole Linux is a better desktop OS than BSD or Solaris.

Most of the BSD base system except for things like GCC are now not GNU.

If we're talking about desktop systems then the base system should be transparent to users - which, for the most part, it is on desktop distros (eg Ubuntu). In fact, the very reason I dislike Ubuntu is because I wanted to play with the base system.

However, if we're talking about server systems, then why even mention ALSA / Pulseaudio as I'm struggling to think of any enterprise solutions that would require a soundcard let alone a sane sound driver model.

Furthermore, while BSD can make a perfectly adequate desktop OS (I've had FreeBSD as a working desktop as well as dedicated a file server), Solaris (read vanilla Solaris, NOT OpenSolaris) does not.

And finally, you talk about quality in your OS then go on to discuss BSD desktops, well my experience has taught me that a key quality desktop OSs should have is ease to build and maintain. The ports method on FreeBSD (as much as I loved it for the server) wasn't a patch on pacman (Arch) or apt-get (Debian) in terms of ease and speed of delivery. Sure, you might enjoy tinkering, but most desktop users don't.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: SCO
by toast88 on Wed 31st Mar 2010 21:32 in reply to "RE[3]: SCO"
toast88 Member since:
2009-09-23

GNU/Linux has the problem of having inconsistent documentation, breaking drivers (that did work) and reinventing the wheel (ALSA, PulseAudio) when there are already good software that could have been built upon.

*yawn*. Why do the *BSD guys keep on bugging the Linux community all the time? If *BSD was really that much superior that BSD fanboys claim it is, why the hell are over 90% of worlds fastest computers (top500.org) running Linux? Do you think, the people who set up those clusters are rookies? Why is Google running Linux? Why does CERN run Linux (I saw the machines myself there)?

I tested *BSD several times and different versions. And let alone the FreeBSD installer made me vomit. It's centuries beyond debian-installer and I won't even talk about the package management here.

The Linux kernel is the largest software project in the world and it is the operating system which supports the most architectures (source: Greg-Kroah Hartman during his talk @FOSDEM 2010).

Why can't those *BSD guys just stop bitching around and just try to be better instead of telling people that Linux is crap? It's just really annoying that so many *BSD people keep on telling us that they have the better solution.

And seriously. If you ever *had* used PulseAudio you would knew that it is just not another audio stack. PulseAudio is a powerful set of daemons and utilities that make using modern audio hardware just fun. It's so easy to use bluetooth audio, re-direct audio input/output to other machines on the network and much much more. PulseAudio ROCKS.


It very much the attitude of one of the software engineers at our place .. completely rewrite something from scratch because you don't like how some else has done it even thought it work.

Yeah, and re-writing a lot of GNU tools from scratch just for the sake of having the tools covered by a BSD licence is not re-inventing the wheel then?

Adrian

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: SCO
by cutterjohn on Wed 31st Mar 2010 15:35 in reply to "RE[2]: SCO"
cutterjohn Member since:
2006-01-28

Actually linux has MUCH better drivers nowadays than ALL of those mention *NIX versions and *SD distros(meaning the 3 major ones: open, net and plain old BSD).

Even for servers if I was going cheap today, I don't know that I'd bother with *SD any longer. Solaris is just about dead, and AFAICT IRIX IS already dead.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: SCO
by tylerdurden on Wed 31st Mar 2010 18:07 in reply to "RE[3]: SCO"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

It obviously depends on the market.

Solaris is pretty alive in the high end spectrum of the data center. But for the bottom segment, indeed Linux has pretty much replaced any other alternative in its space.

Still, if only Linux and GNU settled their f*cking interfaces or at least make them a bit more stable. The fragmentation in their user land is not helping at all. If they want to actually continue growing and not plateau soon, the linux people need to get their act together. It is insane that there are 10 different ways to bring up init and configure a system using the same f*cking kernel and tool chain. Not to mention that there are at least 4 major incompatible packaging infrastructures which offer exactly the same functionality. And on and on...

At some point efforts like Linux stop being an the same high growth system which advanced via concurrent exploration, and start to stagnate when effort and productivity are wasted due to unnecessary replication of resources. The challenge for the Linux folk will be how to make that transition. It will be interesting, and if history is a guide the "better" approach will not necessarily be the winner.

Reply Parent Score: 4