[geeks] Why Linux and not *BSD?

[kurt at k-huhn.com]

On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 03:43:50PM -0400, nate at portents.com wrote:
> Hopefully folks here can shed some light on something I've been wondering
> for a while... why do so many companies choose Linux instead of *BSD for
> their OS (especially if it's embedded)?  What's coming to my mind is
> PalmOne (the next version of PalmOS is going to be Linux based), Sharp
> Zaurus SL-5000 and SL-6000 series, TiVo, PlayStation 2 consumer dev kit,
> and even obscure projects like the Qonos scientific PDA:

The stunningly simple answer is "marketing".  Use of the word "linux" in
press releases, marketing material, and product announcements is practically
guaranteed to get you widespread market exposure.  Thes days, "linux" is a
well recognized buzzword, and it's being exploited to the fullest extent.  It
matters little what the best technology actually is, companies are designing
their products around marketability, and using linux makes it very easy to
promote their products to an incredibly wide audience.  Marketing types don't
know WTF a *BSD is, never mind what it does or why it does it.  But they all
know "linux" and they lean on other management to direct their minions to
develop using it.

> 
> Whenever I read editorial pieces it's always Linux vs. Windows, almost
> never a mention of BSD.  IBM is supposedly working on their own Linux
> distribution for end users, and some people like to hypothesize that if
> google did their own Linux distribution they could go up against
> Microsoft. It seems no one even considers *BSD.  Why is that?
> 

People have incredibly short attention spans, do not care to know about the
wide breadth of OSs out there, and don't give a narrow, pink, lab rat's
behind what they could learn.  The marketeers know this, and so do the
"journalists" that write these articles.

-- 
Kurt Huhn          "I reject your reality, and substitute my own!"
kurt at k-huhn.com                   -- Adam Savage