Linked by Julian Djamil Fagir on Thu 14th Feb 2013 22:23 UTC
BSD and Darwin derivatives BSD (Berkely System Distribution) was a research operating system based on the original AT&T Unix, developed by the University of Berkeley, California. It has been Open Source right from the beginning, and after the university lost interest in developing it further, several community projects started up (the very first ones were NetBSD and FreeBSD in the early nineties) to continue developing BSD. Anyway, Linux was born roughly at the same time, but a pending lawsuit about copyright infringements prevented the BSD projects to become as successful as Linux (though you could argue about the exact reasons).
Thread beginning with comment 552580
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: BSD
by Risthel on Fri 15th Feb 2013 10:17 UTC in reply to "BSD"
Risthel
Member since:
2010-12-22

I wish Linus never wrote that kernel and BSD would have been more popular. Today we would have better OSes since BSDs are much better integrated than Linux.


Better integrated? They already have their incompatibilies between them and have to "cross-polenize" each other on the points where they lack of innovation/functionality. I love BSD but i disgree when people say that BSDs just create a fork when is needed. They created some forks when could be avoided:

- Matt creater DragonFly because he was tired of people putting "band-aids" on FreeBSD, that should fix at one side and break other. This and the desire of have a better "cluster native OS" created this wonderfull piece of software.
- Bitrig is a OpenBSD less conservative. I still se no other than "lego play" utility to this. I know that OpenBSD guys works hard, but their decisions tend to make all thing difficult, and create this fork.
- PC-BSD = Lack of a stronger desktop initiative by the FreeBSD guys. You know, if they have a installer for "desktop fluffy things" this could be avoided.

Some "BSD decisions" would not change, if Linux didn't existed.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: BSD
by BluenoseJake on Fri 15th Feb 2013 14:39 in reply to "RE: BSD"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

The previous poster meant integration at the system level, not between projects. FreeBSD for example is responsible for the kernel, kernel modules, userland, toolchain, and installer, they are all managed, developed and tested together. Compare to linux where the kernel comes from one place, the userland from another, and they are integrated downstream from the initial developer.

They are as about badly integrated project wise as the 100s of Linux distros, but there are only 4 or 5, so that is an easier problem to deal with.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: BSD
by Laurence on Fri 15th Feb 2013 14:42 in reply to "RE: BSD"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

They created some forks when could be avoided:

While I agree with you point in theory, your examples are pretty terrible:


- Matt creater DragonFly because he was tired of people putting "band-aids" on FreeBSD, that should fix at one side and break other. This and the desire of have a better "cluster native OS" created this wonderfull piece of software.

Dragonfly is one of the more distinctive variants of BSD. It has a whole boat load of features not seen in FreeBSD.


- PC-BSD = Lack of a stronger desktop initiative by the FreeBSD guys. You know, if they have a installer for "desktop fluffy things" this could be avoided.

Unless things have changed significantly recently, PC-BSD isn't really a fork of FreeBSD, it's more a "distribution". It's point was to give users a no-fuss desktop ready version of FreeBSD. And as PC-BSD is 100% FreeBSD compatible (after all, it /IS/ FreeBSD), I think it deserves it's place as it takes any pressure off the FreeBSD devs from having to cater their limited resources to a multitude of different users expectations (or in layman's terms, FreeBSD can focus on building a solid base and PC-BSD and focus on shipping FreeBSD with the desktop preinstalled and configured to run perfected out-of-the-box).

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[3]: BSD
by Risthel on Sat 16th Feb 2013 00:22 in reply to "RE[2]: BSD"
Risthel Member since:
2010-12-22


Dragonfly is one of the more distinctive variants of BSD. It has a whole boat load of features not seen in FreeBSD.


Yeah. It started with just the desire of make the Operation System more scalable and "cluster oriented from roots", and today we have wonderfull features in it.


Unless things have changed significantly recently, PC-BSD isn't really a fork of FreeBSD, it's more a "distribution". It's point was to give users a no-fuss desktop ready version of FreeBSD. And as PC-BSD is 100% FreeBSD compatible (after all, it /IS/ FreeBSD), I think it deserves it's place as it takes any pressure off the FreeBSD devs from having to cater their limited resources to a multitude of different users expectations (or in layman's terms, FreeBSD can focus on building a solid base and PC-BSD and focus on shipping FreeBSD with the desktop preinstalled and
configured to run perfected out-of-the-box).


Yeah. I´ve used bad example here, sorry. PC-BSD helped a lot with docs. I could use bitrig and mirOS here. Both of them want a more "permissive" or less "Theo centric" version of the ol´good OpenBSD

Reply Parent Score: 2