[geeks] Why Linux and not *BSD?

[kurt at k-huhn.com]

On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 08:25:14AM -0400, James Fogg wrote:
> > 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
> 
> For embedded projects, I'd agree. From a choice of OS for a server or
> workstation, I'd choose Linux and so do many others. The choice, I
> believe, is based on available software and wide support. The BSD's are
> technically superior at the core, but aren't easy to place into service
> with anything other than "normal" Unix functions, like DNS. If there
> were a GNU/BSD broad-based packaging like the GNU/Linux family it would
> improve the situation. In the end, this served to inflate the marketing
> value of Linux, and now it *is* a buzzword.

I don't know, James.  I've used OpenBSD for a wide array of functions.  Seems
to me that there's an equal amount of software and utilities available for it
as there is for Linux.  I even use it as an alternative to ancient Solaris on
my SparcBook 3GS, and it's fully useable as a workstation.  On a reasonably
quick system, it's even better.

BSD is "different", there's no argument about that.  However, it's not so
different that Linux should be beating it out of useful functions due to a
lack of software.

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