Re: [tlug] Linux and Windows {2k|Xp|Vista} Comparison

[Scott Robbins <scottro@example.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 12:09:03PM +0900, stephen@example.com wrote:
> Scott Robbins writes:
> 
>  > To the administrator, the fact that Linux sharply divides
>  > kernel and userland while the BSDs integrate them (which is why one has
>  > to agree with Mr. Stallman that it should be called Gnu/Linux) can be a
>  > good thing or bad thing.  (Although, even with BSDs, if it's simply a
>  > matter of adding a driver, one can recompile the kernel without having
>  > to update the entire system. )
> 
> *hah!*[1]
> 
> I'm curious about what you mean by "BSDs integrate kernel and
> userland", though.  Are you referring to the fact that development of
> kernel and userland are both done in one organization?  

Yes.

But that's
> simply not true in modern BSDs, where the great majority of the code
> (including the core development tools!) are derived from third party
> projects.  AFAIK the desktops (GNOME and KDE) are both available on
> the three major free *BSDs, etc.

You are correct, however, my point was that something like ssh is part
of a base BSD system, whereas in Linux, the kernel is worked on by Linux
and company while ssh will be added by the distribution's developers.  
In both cases, it's actually a 3rd party program (well, in ssh's case,
save for OpenBSD) :) but in the BSDs the kernel people and the people
porting ssh are all in the same organization.  (Although like all
organizations, this doesn't mean they're on the same side.)

This integration is often listed as an advantage
by BSD advocates.  When I said to an administrator, it's not necessarily
a good thing, I was referring to the fact that sometimes, an essential
security patch means rebuilding the whole system, including the kernel,
whereas in Linux, one would only have to rebuild the program and perhaps
others that had it as a dependency.  


> 
> The FreeBSD ports system and pkgsrc (maintained by NetBSD) provide
> most of the same advantages that Gentoo portage does.  You generally
> rebuild *less* on a BSD system when you update a single application or
> library/interpretative language.

I would have thought that to be the case with most Linux distributions
as well, that you would only have to update the program, its
dependencies and those programs which use it.  With a port, of course,
this is also the case.  (On the other hand, if there is a major
revision, you usually have to rebuild all your ports as well.)  

Even programs like ssh and sendmail, part of the base system, are also
available as 3rd party ports.  My original point, which was not phrased
clearly (obviously)  :) was that this particular difference might sound
more important in theory than in practice. 
> 
> 
> Footnotes: 
> [1]  You don't *need* to agree with RMS about that; for one thing,
> RMS's original proposal was the abominable "Lignux", an attempt to
> *integrate* Linux (the kernel) into a GNU whole. 

Hrrm, glad that one didn't catch on.  

 Even taking his
> compromise at face value, the "GNU System" subsumes TeX, perl, X11,
> lots of "OEM" BSD code, and so on.  RMS has every right to call that
> collection "the GNU System" if he likes; the rest of the world
> similarly has the right to add a Linux kernel and call the whole thing
> "the Linux OS" if it likes.

I guess I'm thinking primarily of bash and gcc (gcc is of course, used
by the BSDs as well, and included in the base install if you choose
developer version.)

(muttering "Lignux???" to himself....)



- -- 

Scott Robbins

PGP keyID EB3467D6
( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 )
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6

The Master: You were destined to die, it was written. 
Buffy: What can I say? I flunked the written. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFFOafq+lTVdes0Z9YRAgg2AJ0ThKVR7Yd0ODhJKNSXm+yQCDYVxQCgoxuE
/QCj8Ce6Zkh5ClLHUXQsqXg=
=2KbG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----