Linked by Oliver on Fri 11th Mar 2011 23:32 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source "Now that Linux is the most popular free Unix-like operating system, it shouldn't be a surprise that some projects have begun treating non-Linux operating systems as second-class citizens. This isn't out of contempt for the BSDs or OpenSolaris, it's just a matter of limited manpower: if almost all the users of the application have a Linux operating system and if all the core developers are using Linux themselves, it's difficult to keep supporting other operating systems. But sometimes the choice to leave out support for other operating systems is explicitly made, e.g. when the developers want to implement some innovative features that require functionality that is (at least for now) only available in the Linux kernel."
Thread beginning with comment 465841
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Why does this matter?
by kiddo on Sat 12th Mar 2011 04:42 UTC
kiddo
Member since:
2005-07-23

Linux is a technically excellent (or at least very good) system, and it serves as a strong contender against proprietary platforms.

Why should Linux folks care about BSD exactly? This is not meant to sound offensive (though it probably will set off some fires), but the question stands: what's the point of more than one perfectly good system, except the usual argument of "choice is good, competition is good, what if I don't *like* Linux, and what if Linux suddenly dies overnight"?

More importantly, why should we somehow let 40 years old o.s. design principles dictate how Linux should be designed?

Somebody enlighten me. I'm looking for a well-grounded argument for why we must be paranoid about not stepping on anybody's toes and why we should increase the burden of development and hinder innovation by carrying all that legacy baggage.

Disclaimer: I am not a sysadmin and I am not a kernel developer.

Reply Score: -2

RE: Why does this matter?
by TheGZeus on Sat 12th Mar 2011 05:29 in reply to "Why does this matter?"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

My suggestion would be for you to look into all of the research done on OS design, and figure out a better one(including the kernel, system calls, and a number of new apis).
Next, figure out how much work it would/will be to get a booting system that's somewhat usable. Next, you'll need native-running development tools.

Now you can start to attract hobbyists.

It would be quite a bit of fun, but there's quite a bit of history behind why Unix is the basis for most operating systems.

Do I have a basic design concept written for an OS?
Yup.
Do I think it'll be through stage 1 in the next year?
Nope. I have too much to learn for that level to be reached.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Why does this matter?
by killasmurf86 on Sat 12th Mar 2011 10:47 in reply to "Why does this matter?"
killasmurf86 Member since:
2010-04-27

Doesn't it make you sick how linux installs all config files in /etc/ ?
Or doesn't it make you crazy when you don't know where to look for files that were installed by some package?

for example is it in /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin or /opt/bin or god know where?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Why does this matter?
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 12th Mar 2011 11:17 in reply to "RE: Why does this matter?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Doesn't it make you sick how linux installs all config files in /etc/ ?
Or doesn't it make you crazy when you don't know where to look for files that were installed by some package?

for example is it in /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin or /opt/bin or god know where?


dpkg -L {packagename}

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Why does this matter?
by phoenix on Mon 14th Mar 2011 21:42 in reply to "RE: Why does this matter?"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Doesn't it make you sick how two different distros can use completely different filesystem layouts ... and still be FHS-compliant? That's what boggles my mind.

Going from a RedHat to a Debian to an Arch system always leaves my head spinning, trying to figure out what is installed where. And they're all FHS-compliant.

Give me a FreeBSD system anyday:
* / is where the OS lives, all the stuff needed to boot to single-user mode
* /usr is where the OS lives, all the stuff needed to run in multi-iser mode
* /usr/local is where you install stuff

* /etc is for the OS configuration files
* /usr/local/etc is for the user-installed configuration files

So nice and clean, and simple, and nicely layered. Considering how often Linux devs scream about "rampant layering violations", you'd think they'd have a nice layered filesystem. But now, even the systemd dev doesn't believe you should separate / and /usr. ;) Le Sigh! ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Why does this matter?
by Soulbender on Sun 13th Mar 2011 06:34 in reply to "Why does this matter?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

what's the point of more than one perfectly good system


I know right. Why does people bother with anything but Windows?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Why does this matter?
by kiddo on Sun 13th Mar 2011 14:14 in reply to "RE: Why does this matter?"
kiddo Member since:
2005-07-23

Do folks here still bother to analyze comments or just prefer to mod down anything that questions the majority's view?

I think my comment made it pretty clear that we need something to stand up to Windows/Mac as an open platform. But the corollary to that was "Why do we need more than one of those [open platforms] to do so?"

But then I got foolish and asked "Why should Linux necessarily try to bend over to please the BSDs?"

The replies along the lines of "this is how O.S.es have -- and should always -- been done" do not answer my question; the reason why we're having this situation in the first place is because the Linux ecosystem develops some of its things in its own corner or tries to get rid of legacy stuff.

Is asking the hard questions not allowed here anymore?

Reply Parent Score: 2