Yet Another BSD vs Linux article 193
Lazaru5 writes "Technology writer Simson L. Garfinkel wrote this article for the Boston Globe Online Business section. " It's something of an incendiary article, but I think it's great to see the amount of press that *BSD has been getting lately.
Re: Even Better Than Linux (Score:1)
Portability (Score:1)
Sheesh... every box I have here can run Linux... including 5 major processor architectures. And what about those machines, like the Deskstation 164UX/Ruffian, that run Linux but won't run any *BSD?
Personally, I'm glad NetBSD/FreeBSD/OpenBSD are such great systems, but I'm tired of seeing them positioned as "superior to Linux" without hard evidence or proof.
Re:Nit Picking (Score:1)
Linux doesn't differentiate ports like this, because in some cases all that's been ported is the kernel to a particular CPU. The rest you have to come up with in bits and pieces, and heaven help you if you weren't expecting a Frankenstein-like mix of pieces and parts.
When someone refers to a NetBSD port, it's a complete system. Not just a kernel.
Stop the Linux security holes urban legend! (Score:1)
This is pure BS. Please take another look at the Linux Distros security bulletins and compare the *kernel* v2.0.3x (and kernel tools an C lib) related holes to the security problems of, let's say, FBSD 3.X. At least 95% of the security problems are caused by userland programs which just happen to be in the Distros supplied set of binaries and cause the same Problems when installed under any BSD.
Additional Question: Does a security problem of a program in the ports collection count as a BSD security problem?
Re: Even Better Than Linux (Score:1)
Moderation Guidelines. (Score:1)
Re:Linux 3x more powerful! (Score:1)
Re:Can't we all just get along? (Score:1)
-V
More secure? (Score:1)
Making the blithe assumption that "this OS is more secure than that one" and using that as an excuse for poor administration and auditing of the OS you've chosen is a great way to set yourself up to be hacked.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
Re:*Sheesh* (Score:1)
It's fully possible to praise BSD without (rather dubiously) citing the flaws in another operating system. The article itself seemed to be rather bereft of factual information both for the BSDs and against Linux, instead relying on the gullibility of the intended audience in believing everything the author said without any concrete evidence.
Not really a fair article, IMO.
-A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
Re:Not Too Bad (Score:1)
SysVish inits (Score:1)
Well... I just don't know. (Score:1)
Still.... The Cold Hard Fact is that I'm going to use what I want. If I want to use NT because I can't find any good people to admin Unix then I will. If I want to use Linux because half my help desk staff is running it at home then I will. If I wanted to use A amiga because I'm some kinda of freak trying to punish myself then I will.
I can't tell you why Linux is more popular then *BSD.. Hell, I'm not even sure if it is. It seems to me that more people like Linux. Just get used to it.
Now if you'll excuse me I have to go to my brothers house and tell him he's a loser for using a Mac.
Just because I have nothing better to do. (Score:1)
Yep.
Given your tenor, you would probably be happier with Win98 than either of linux or *BSD.
Hmm... Nope, Been getting paid to program in *nix for over 3 years now. Been using linux for over 4. I don't even have any MS software.( Okay I have some Driver disks that came with Some hardware ).
This statement is so misinformed is denies a response. Just in case you were wondering, FreeBSD runs linux binaries without recompiling.
Well. I meant *nix not *BSD but Oh well Can't post with out some AC getting on your case.
Trying to get publicity the wrong way. (Score:1)
The *BSD's aren't really descended from the original anymore, all of that code that was 'officially' from the original was taken out and rewritten, giving Linux the opportunity to appear and get popular. (Just like the Hurd took a long time to even get into development) Linux filled a void, deal with it. None of these free x86 UN*X clones are really *that* different.
Linux has iBCS "too", and UN*X is fairly well source-compatible. Big deal.
I'm not sure how much of an advantage having three concurrent versions of *BSD is, it sounds much like having different distributions of Linux... hmm.
Also, are we comparing kernels or distributions here? If not, then let me mention that I've always found the GNU versions of the standard UNIX utilities to be *much* more useful, but YMMV. (I hate blocks! I love kilobytes!
Most of what I hate about *BSD isn't even the operating system: it's the culture, the license, the attitude, the huge 'I am 31337!' chip on many of their shoulders that stops them from helping their users, and makes them flame people and piss people off, and cause them to ban developers from discussion groups a la OpenBSD... (it isn't hard to find references to this, do research before you flame...)
Other than that, I'm sure both sides could share the few minor innovations that the other has, (barring the licensing issue, which may be moot without the advertising clause in one direction, and I'm sure some authors will contribute changes under both licenses in the other direction), and everyone would be happy from a technical perspective. This has basically already happened. From an advocacy perspective, we need more articles like "BSD really worked for me", and less like "I think BSD kicks the penguin in the @$$!"
Linux has an advocacy HOWTO. Read it, and run 'sed s/Linux/BSD/g', and try to understand.
Re:BSD / Linux - my experiences (Score:1)
ftp ftp.proxy.box
Login: MyID
Password: MyPass
ftp> user ftp@ftp.freebsd.org
Password: user@
Then I'm in.. but this doesn't work with sysinstall. And, I haven't seen any way to make it work with a web (http) proxy, i.e., connecting to port 1080 of a box and saying GET ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/
No big deal, though. I just finished grabbing 3.3-RELEASE the 'hard' way (with some ncftp2 get -R's) and doing a filesystem install. :)
Re:BSD / Linux - my experiences (Score:1)
But, now I have a suggestion for them.
Re:Two points I'd object to in this article (Score:1)
Second assumption: If it has the tool that you need to do the job, and they are tight (hard to crack) use it.
I run a 'site' that has over 170 FreeBSD severs. We process over 120 MILLION hits a day on just one of the products that we manage. I was a Linux geek before this job. Now I run FreeBSD. It rocks! Show me a linux site that moves 482Mb/s and I'll look at linux again. Can linux really handle 1024 spawns of apache? Not from what I've seen.
"Show me the proc table."
Re:*Sheesh* (Score:1)
YOU KNOW NOT OF WHAT YOU TALK ABOUT.
You site his arrogance. Yet you don't even see your own. Linux is ok, I use it on desktops because the WM I like works better on SuSE than BSD. (openwin if you must know, and I use to have suse.org until I gave it to a friend).
"Immature flamers or arrogant snobs (Betcha can't guess which is which)"
Yep, I can, you are the hallmark.
...but why? (Score:1)
-> BSD is more secure.
How secure is secure enough, and how much of this has to do with BSD? The kernel itself is (AFAIK) almost meaningless in this equation in the case of my computer, on which I'm pretty much the only account-holder. All potential vulnerabilities (barring nasty remote-crash surprises, in which case I'll patch against them anyway) will be in userland programs. Everything I have listening on any port is--surprise, surprise--also available for BSD: Apache, Exim, and ssh.
-> BSD is more robust.
Again, *assuming* that this is true, Linux is plenty robust for me. It *does not crash*. Period. Next...
-> BSD has this nifty 'ports' thing...
apt-get install. apt-get source.
-> Linux people aren't True God-Designated Computer Gurus!
And there was much rejoicing...
-> BSD's not GNU!
The vitriol I've seen from just about every BSD user whenever GNU is mentioned is amazing. It in itself is enough to convince me that I'd rather avoid BSD. Unfortunately, this and the next objection seem to be the primary arguments of most "switch to BSD people".
-> Linux Sucks!
No comment.
Listen: Linux and BSD are, for all intents and purposes, identical systems in userland (except that Linux distros usually build on the more featureful GNU libraries and utilities). Anything I can do on Linux I can also do on BSD. I don't serve massive volumes of Web pages or high-traffic mailing lists. Even if I did, I doubt BSD would be that helpful, but as it is I don't need it at all. Let me rephrase that: I have a UNIX system that works perfectly. Why should I switch to another kernel just because some guy was frightened by Richard Stallman as a young child or something?
Do what you like, I don't care as long as it looks like Unix
Daniel
Sorry (Score:1)
Daniel
Re:More choice! Yay! (Score:1)
We can all use 10 minutes to completely stomp another OS, but please people, let's be resonable, and base it on facts.
Re:Silly Rabbit tricks are for kids. (Score:1)
Notice the possible root exploits... wow looks just like the root exploits for newer linux kernels
p.s. most of the problems with 2.2.5 were very minor. as far as never running into problems with freebsd check the changelog for 3.3
Silly Rabbit tricks are for kids. (Score:1)
We are on the same side guys.. Learn something about the linux of Sept 1999 and stop talking about urban legonds or problems that have not existed in 2/3 years.
For all the myths I hear from the *bsd community about how Linux is insecure. (a distro provides a version of ftpd that happens to have a buffer overflow) Or linux's networking stack is poorly written compared too *bsd or *bsd is more correct then linux because it is based on UNIX (BSDlite). Or freebsd scales better then linux for web servers or ftp servers.. it's all baseless and you will never see hard facts to support these claims because they are false.
ftp.cdrom.com doesn't use Freebsd because linux could not provide the same "record setting" performence. They use it because they have always used it. Because their admins like it, and because they make money selling Freebsd cds.
yahoo doesn't use Freebsd because linux wouldn't fit the bill, matter of fact they have been quoted as saying it would fit the bill, it is just not the OS they feel most comfterable with.
Security: Freebsd isn't fundamentally any more secure then any other operating system. Freebsd is subject to the same rules as all other software. It is commonly accepted that for every 1000 lines of code you will have 1 bug. The major differences between linux and freebsd in security is that a) freebsd has less eye balls looking at their code b) that freebsd's exploitable services tend to only receive updates when there is a "problem" with it.
This being the case it is much more likely that a new feature in wuftpd will lead to a "exploitable" hole then it is that a Freebsd "fix" will intrduce a new hole. It's always a balance between features/stability. Most of us accept the risk that our latest and greatest ftp server (wu-2.5.0(1)) might not be as secure as version (wu-2.0.9(23)) we either take that risk because the features are more important to us. Or we down grade to the latest PATCH level of the last stable version. This is common sense not rocket science.
Linux's TCP/IP STACK is of poor quality: This is rather funny because I was around when this legend was created, I say legend and not myth because it WAS true. Back in the 1.2.xx days Linux's tcp/ip stack was very immature and BETA. ALOT has changed since then. As some people might notice when they boot up Redhat 6.0 or latest debian or whatever it says:
Based upon Swansea University Computer Society NET3.039
NET4: Unix domain sockets 1.0 for Linux NET4.0.
NET4: Linux TCP/IP 1.0 for NET4.0
Try booting a 1.2 kernel sometime..
Linux isn't a true UNIX: This is of course correct, but it was never the stated intent of Linux to BEcome a UNIX. Linux's stated goals was to take the GOOD things from UNIX while leaving out as much of the BAD things as possible. Linux was also designed with the intent of creating the most "common sensed" and "generic" opereating system possible. Most people don't see common sense or "generic" as being that exciting.. However if you judge Linux based on its success as a operating system I would have to say it's paid off.
He wrote two O'Reilly books (Score:1)
Re:So, Garfinkel the dweeb hates linux. Who cares? (Score:1)
My impression of the book was that a lot of the annoying parts of Unix were actually BSD-specific.
Hmm
Re:Portability (Score:1)
Crass commercialism? No, it's called Real Life. (Score:1)
You can call this crass commercialism if you want, but all I care about is that the system I use works. Religious bigotry like you're displaying is what turned me off to using *BSD in the first place.
If you would try to argue the specific advantages of using any BSD over using Linux without resorting to arguments like this, I would definitely listen.
*nix != Server! (Score:1)
Simply running an OS that's used in servers doesn't mean you're running a server. Check the service agreement. They don't SUPPORT anything but Windows. But, if you're willing to do without techsupport, past telling you the cablemodem and connection are fine, you can run *nix, you can run Be, you can run anything you like.
Just don't run daemons. YES! It's that simple.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Re:Maybe not incendiary (Score:1)
Garfinkel phrased his statement in such a way as to make it difficult to tell if he meant that Linux was a favorite target of crackers or a favorite *tool* of crackers. What part of that doesn't qualify as Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt? If this had been written by one of our beloved Ziff-Davis comlumnists, the answer would be assumed obvious.
BTW, you've just pushed another of my buttons, namely the whole 'opinion/critisism' defense. There is a common misunderstanding in forums such as this that 'everyone has a right to an opinion' and that 'any critisism is valid as long as it's protected by the 1st Amendment'. Balls to that! People only have a right to an INFORMED opinion, and critisism is valid ONLY to the extent that it can survive countering arguments. Neither Garfinkel nor you (nor I) can assume that we can express any old buggered-up idea and have it stand unchallenged.
---------------------
the SlashDot spellchecker:
Re:So, Garfinkel the dweeb hates linux. Who cares? (Score:1)
Acknowledging the existance of problems is not the same as ignoring them. Without looking at what's wrong it's hard to improve.
Re:Two points I'd object to in this article (Score:1)
Re: Even Better Than Linux (Score:1)
This is unfair. I see the security announcements for NetBSD and OpenBSD, and they seem to be reasonably prompt and full. It's another part of the "Linux gets more publicity" thing - there's not really much they can do beyond their own security announce list and places like bugtraq.
Re:So, Garfinkel the dweeb hates linux. Who cares? (Score:1)
That would be because he's reasonably competent and informed? If we are speaking of the same book, it was not a simple 'unix sux' piece - significant thought went into it. I remember his by-line in NeXT Magazine a few years back. Simson Garfinkel is not a Linux-hating dweeb. He is an experienced UNIX user and administrator who prefers BSD, for a variety of reasons.
Now that I wrote this, I think I've been trolled. Oh well. Submitting anyway.
Re:Can't we all just get along? (Score:1)
Re:Maybe not incendiary (Score:1)
Re:Can't we all just get along? (Score:1)
Got something switched (Score:1)
I agree with the vi bit though.
-- Dirt Road
Re:off topics (Score:1)
Hey! Pass that glue bag over here when you're done...
Re:Misinformation? (Score:1)
I've never heard any claim that Yahoo uses Linux. Can you provide a reference?
Re:Linux users vs. *BSD users... (Score:1)
lucky me, that during my +150 days uptime i never got cracked on my internet gateway/firewall box.
i will quickly install openBSD now for even *more* security, thx.
It's the PHB factor (Score:1)
Red Hat is now a know commodity. If I can get Linux installed and functioning, it will give me some ammunition when I suggest a different distro.
Red Hat is the foot in the door. I can't wait until that door is wide open.
Re:Linux ports (Score:1)
That makes 11 chips. If I can count, which isn't necessarily a given
--
Re: architecture fragmentation (Score:1)
Actually, the Mac68k development group maintains a relatively loose connection to the parent m68k group, only occasionally feeding its changes upstream, with about the same frequency as m68k changes are in turn passed up to Linus.
And BTW, Linux on m68k has done a lot of catching up over the past year, and seems to be about dead-even with the corresponding NetBSD port, in terms of stability and completeness of features. Not that anyone actually cares much this architecture anymore as much other than a pet project, of course... =)
Simson is just being the same know-it-all prick-on-a-soapbox as usual.
--
"Merging into heavy traffic at near light speed!"
Re:It's the PHB factor (Score:1)
Red Hat is now a know commodity. If I can get Linux installed and functioning, it will give me some ammunition when I suggest a different distro.
It goes like this. blah, blah, blah, Red Hat, blah, blah, blah, supportable, blah, blah, blah, widely used, blah, blah, blah, stock price >$100, blah, blah, blah. All of suddenly Linux isn't just a "interesting" OS played with by hackers. It a real, stable, supported, OS with a public company. So what if all they are aware of is Red Hat. It's a great start. So we convert all those Crummy Windows Servers (CMS (TM)) to Red Hat Linux. The PHB sits at his desk looking at charts. Productivities up, profits are up, moral is up at the support center (all the MCSE's are gone, but they weren't needed anymore anyways) and things are looking good. Now it's time to introduce to the PHB something also known as innovation. Competition! You just aren't locked into one OS platform. There are many that are all improved and maintained and can be even better then Red Hat. Yes, Debian has a good package manage system. Let's put that on the servers that need to be upgraded often. Turbo Linux has great clustering. FreeBSD will host our Databases. The Firewall will run on OpenBSD. Ah! Success! Doesn't this feel great?
Red Hat is the foot in the door. I can't wait until that door is wide open.Me either.
-Brent--
Re:Misinformation? (Score:1)
Hehe, I think we'd better give that honor to Windows. I just downloaded another half a dozen security fixes to fix Windows 98 SE.
-Brent--
The portability issue (Score:1)
There are a lot of promises made in the open source world, many of which remain unfulfilled. Frankly, a lot of stuff does not work and may never work. So it is not enough to say that there is active work on platform XYZ. Good intentions must become reality, preferably in this millennium. It is more appropriate to count the number of mature ports of Linux vs ???BSD.
Re:Not Too Bad (Score:1)
Re:Linux 3x more powerful! (Score:1)
Yes, I see your point, 3 BSD's are definitely too many.
See http://www.linuxlinks.com/Distributions for the above links. [linuxlinks.com]
Not a BSD vs Linux article (Score:1)
Comparing with comments in slashdot about BSD in the previous months, the "vs" in the title should be removed.
watch out for those macintosh apples..... (Score:1)
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
Re:*Sigh* So much for being unbiased... (Score:1)
Impressive. Linus started writing it in 1991.
>does he mention that Linux is barely 10 years old
I make it more like eight. Advocacy with incorrect facts is a major disappointment for me.
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:1)
> because of what the media (ie, ZDNet) says.
Now THAT's ironic! Go to google. Type in Unix and Garfinkel. Do some reading. Please.
Re:...but why? (Score:1)
So you've met every BSD user then? Impressive.
Being a BSD user, and frequenting Undernet's #FreeBSD channel, and, for a time, a subscriber to freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, I can say with every certainty that the License issue is *not* the primary argument (Nor does it ever come up much.)
The "Linux Sucks" argument is sometimes said in jest, but more often by those whose opinions don't matter much to begin with. There's just as many of these types using Linux as there using FreeBSD (and NT, etc.)
Re:Silly Rabbit tricks are for kids. (Score:1)
> need to compare their OS to Linux? Because it's popular? Is it easier to
> compare Freebsd to linux then to say Windows?
Yes because it's popular. The original article was posted in the Business
Section. The Suites and Pointy Haired Bastards of Coporate America don't
know the damnedest things about Operating Systems, but they've heard of
Linux. It only makes sense to compare other similar OS's to it.
Also, the first thing Linux users who are interested in *BSD ask is how it
compares to Linux.
It is also absolutely easier to compare FreeBSD to Linux than to
Windows...Windows is not a Unix-like system.
GNU *was* mentioned. (Score:1)
The three BSD operating systems are all descended from the BSD version of Unix developed at the University of California at Berkeley during the 1980s (''BSD'' stands for Berkeley Standard Distribution). They're also the descendants of Project GNU, started by Richard Stallman at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
This isn't *exactly* correct, but they did mention it. BSD is older than the FSF and the GNU Project. It is true that alot of GNU tools are part of the BSD systems, they would still be complete Operating Systems even without them (just not as good.)
Re:Can't we all just get along? (Score:1)
some system of making sure that no matter what platform I'm using, I can run ANY software available with no compatibility issues.
Its called Java, you get it from SUN microsystems, its not perfect, but its what you are speaking of.
Re:Can't we all just get along? (Score:1)
I was thinking maybe everyone could run PC Native Oberon...
or maybe not
Re:Nit Picking (Score:1)
[ucl.ac.uk]
http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/~atp/linux-vax/
...and there's probably more out there as well
This piece just comes across as another sore *BSD user wondering why Linux is getting all the press. I might shed a little light as to why Linux is more popular.
OK so basically Linux is past the point of being a hacker OS and normal people are starting to use it. I've seen evidence of this as work mates (who use Linux at work) have started installing Linux at home. The major difference is then that Linux is damn easy to install now compared to a couple of years ago. I've got a FreeBSD installation at home because I wanted experience in installing it - and I must say that at several times I was pretty baffled during the installation process - and this after 7 years of Unix admin experience.
The conclusion *BSD's are still the domain of hackers/sysadmins - it's a great OS - but linux is making quicker inroads to the normal user market.
*BSDers will probably argue that the installation process is more powerful and that it's actually easy. But the fact is that it's just not that easy for Joe Public.
Why....... (Score:1)
What's wrong with Linux? Let's improve it! (Score:1)
So what's wrong with Linux? Can you point out specific details? And, excuse me for cutting away the BS, but I don't care about how *BSD does it right or wrong (except to learn from it); I care about what's wrong with Linux so that I can fix it.
So, after much thought, I've decided that one of the major ways to cut out the credible allegations against Linux is to do a thorough audit of the code, starting with the kernel and working my way up, just like they did with OpenBSD. Although I'd like to focus primarily on security bugs, I would be open to fixing and improving (read: make more efficient) the code wherever possible.
I have been studying the security patches for OpenBSD for the past couple of months, but I am still not entirely clear on what to look for when doing security auditing. I am aware of Zero-Defect software design techniques, but in my opinion, these would not be easily applied considering that most of the code has already been written and we'd have to write specs to the code then check that the specs are correct. So, I guess basically what I'm asking is, can anyone help me? Can you point me to good documentation on code auditing and making code secure? Also, is there anyone interested in this like I am?
Re:BSD = Berkeley Standard Distro? (Score:1)
Re:BSD = Berkeley Standard Distro? (Score:1)
Re:simson garfinkle (Score:1)
Re:So, Garfinkel the dweeb hates linux. Who cares? (Score:1)
-nme!
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:1)
This is completely understandable. The problem is that Slashdot posts even troll articles like this one. If they hadn't posted the WSJ and a few others in the past few weeks, I would have said they were trying to create FUD against BSD. Unortunately, its not Slashdot's FUD, its only there fault for accepting this as valid matterial for the site.
Here's how I view this stuff. For one, when I see an Anti-Linux BSD message (the short Daemon is better then Tux or other bs), I don't believe its even a zealot poster. I've never met one that... dumb. I also don't think its a Linux zealot trying to make BSD look bad by making useles FUD (before, Slashdotters always mad FUD on BSD).
I think its just some stupid kids who want to be 'cool' by being a zealot for whatever the underdog in computers are. Now that Linux is really popular in the press, they go to the next thing. These are the same zealots who pushed Linux because they hated Microsoft. They never, *ever*, have used any UNIX OS. You can tell who these people are by how they attack and promote, only using : 'M$ is a monopoly' or 'The Daemon will kick Tux's ass' in short messages.
Anyways.. that was just so Slashdotters wouldn't think it was BSD FUD. These are just idiots who attack whatever they're sure will get hot.
This article is by a guy who doesn't know enough to make any real sense. It should be ignored. He's new and making assumptions because of what the media (ie, ZDNet) says. We know ZdNet and the rest bs Linux (same who said UNIX would crumble under NT), so because your used to it and know its crap, others are not. He got pulled in, didn't think the media stuff made Linux look good, and then posted that. This is a new user, don't expect his arguments against Linux to be clear. Thus, why is it useful to even promote on
Now.. for the other part. Go to the BSD mailing lists / usenet for people who don't make FUD and are helpful. Many are fine with Linux, many use Linux, and many just want free UNIX to populate. So they prefer BSD, that doesn't make them anti-Linux and hate-mongrols. Hell, one guy on -newbies was giving away books and gave me about a dozen Linux ones (because Linux/UNIX info is relevent to BSD). In return, I sent out my copy of fbsd 3.1 to a guy who couldn't get it.. civilized.
PS. I like BSD better. But, I'd use it on my desktop (the next time I have one). I have a laptop I'm playing with to get xFree86 to work on it, and would always use Linux. For that, ease of use and packages such as OpenLinux are just nicer. I could do the same going over ports and such, but for a laptop, I wouldn't want to fuss around. So, I try to use BSD where I see it shines, and Linux where it shines. That's why I still have Windows98. In some ways, it doesn't get the credit it deserves.
CD writing (Score:1)
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:1)
Re:Misinformation? (Score:1)
Yahoo doesn't run Linux.
Hotmail runs Solaris *and* FreeBSD (Solaris only being responsible for the database backends).
The greater availability of cracks for Linux in comparision to *BSD most surely does imply that there is a greater chance of a Linux box being compromised than a *BSD one. Simple mathematics.
So, the author was correct in all respects, and you were not.
Re:*Sheesh* (Score:1)
"But I'm not rejoicing for the ascendancy of Linux or its penguin mascot."
In other words, if it's not BSD, he doesn't want it to succeed. We don't want users to have a choice. No, we just want them to have BSD.
He never said he was loathing the Linux ascendancy. He just doesn't care.
Observation 1: Linux zealots have a "if you are not with us, you are against us" mentality.
" If I had to pick out the single difference between the BSD community as a whole and the proponents of Linux, I would say it is something called ''correctness.''"
Ok...if that is true, then that is a very important point. But is it true? How can we know? Not from this article. It doesn't cite any ways in which BSD is more "correct" than Linux. I guess we're just supposed to trust Mr. Garfinkel.
Oh, but it does. He explains that the *BSD development teams are loath to accept code that "just works" but does not actually correct problems, but just get around them. Not in so many words, I admit, but I'm just translating the concept for you benefit.
I personally think this might be a biased view, but it is the same view that results in the "*BSD development is closed, Linux development is not" myth. If you do not accept the former, then you ought not to accept latter.
Alas, this is not relevant. He claimed *BSD development model is superior because it puts greater emphasis in getting it right instead of getting it working. If you are interested in this, then you should get off your ass and do further research for yourself. The development models are all documented, you just have to go and compare them. The article has no more obligation of explaining this sort of thing in details than it has of explaining what an Operating System is.
Observation 2: Whenever confronted with uncomfortable statements, Linux zealots will talk a lot to confuse the issue, and then state that nothing was really explained, and so it doesn't merit further investigation (or, at least, they try the very best to dismiss the issue without further investigation).
" This may be one reason proponents of Linux are frequently slow to admit the debt they owe to the Computer Science Research Group at Berkeley, which created BSD, and to the Free Software Foundation at MIT"
Oh, now I get it. I know Mr. Garfinkel's true identity. *wink* But why is he calling it Linux rather than GNU/Linux?
If you "get it", then why don't you share it with the rest of us?
He is calling it Linux because that's the name it is known by the public. This was not a slashdot article, it was a general press article directed to a wider public.
Observation 3: Whenever a chance comes by, Linux zealots will try to instigate suspicions that the "opponent" (ie, the one who is not "with us") has ulterior motives, instead of actually being objective/factual/honest.
Now, I can agree with this point. However, that "Linux is a fine operating system" is not the impression that I get from the rest of the article.
So? It is not an article about Linux, it's an article about *BSD. He is not talking about Linux strengths, he is talking about *BSD strengths. He is not even making a formal comparision about Linux and *BSD.
Observation 4: Linux zealots think the world revolves around them, and thus treat any comments as being in relation to Linux/Linuxen.
This could have been a really good article. It included some real meat, unlike most BSD articles in mainstream mags. However, it is ruined by the author's arrogance. An arrogance which unfortunately seems to be abundant among BSD users.
It only seems arrogant to those that fall into the "observation 4" category. "Hey, he is not talking good things about us! The arrogant bastard!".
Sigh.
What is THE REAL DIFFERENCE?` (Score:1)
both have been built from a lot of GNU stuff
and user built stuff and as of recent linux has been getting commercial binaries and some of those can run on *BSD?
I am not trying for flame bait I just have been using Linux and I am thinking of trying to get
*BSD for my old macs (mac II VX, classic II) and for a bunch of 8088's and 286's
Hah! (Score:1)
Re: Even Better Than Linux (Score:2)
straight about Linux. Here are some clues...
> While Linux can only run on a few kinds of computers,
> NetBSD can run on more than 22, including Intel-compatible PCs, Amigas, old
> 68000-based Macs, Digital VAXes, and even those sleek but defunct NeXT
> workstations
Sorry to disappoint you, but Linux runs on just about everything NetBSD
does plus Palm Pilots!
> This has made the system popular at places like MIT and NASA,
> both of which have large menageries of computer systems from a multitude of
> vendors.
I don't know about MIT, but Linux has a stronger presence in NASA.
> Earlier this year there were a number of well-publicized security problems
> involving the Linux operating system. During that time my computer was
> frequently attacked. However, since I wasn't running Linux, I wasn't
> vulnerable.
And there were less-publicized ones for *BSD which means many users
probably still don't know. Atleast the Linux developers can admit to
their mistakes. BTW, their TCP/IP stacks are different and most attacks
aren't portable across platforms. You know, Solaris had a hole once,
however, since I wasn't running it, I wasn't vulnerable. That's so weak.
> Linux is the favored operating system for most of the
> attackers on the Internet, which is another reason I don't use it.
Right. And now that you're promoting *BSD, they'll switch. Going to have
to move to something else then, eh?
> Linux developers, overall, are more interested in just putting
> together something that works.
BS.
> Where the BSD projects are largely the work of individuals, businesses
> are now the driving force in the Linux community.
BS.
> This may be one reason proponents of Linux are frequently slow to
> admit the debt they owe to the Computer Science Research Group at Berkeley,
> which created BSD, and to the Free Software Foundation at MIT, the charitable
> organization that raised money for Project GNU
This is complete BS. Everyone knows who the FSF is. Everyone knows Linux
is just the kernel and all the software on top is GNU. In fact, since you
don't seem to know this, people have been fighting to call it GNU/Linux!
> although Linux is a fine operating system, I would encourage businesses
> as well as advanced enthusiasts to take a serious look at the other choices.
How nice of you to say that after you rubs it's face in the dirt.
Incendiary? (Score:2)
Of course, I am not a religious follower of any of the freenix creeds. I run several of them.
And Windows 98 as well. All have their uses.
Almost anything is incendiary on Slashdot these days.
Great Article (Score:2)
Every OS has its advantages/disavantages. That's why the real computer professional knows when and where to use each OS.
Slashdot has a tendency to Defend Linux no matter what is said.. Even if it is not "slamming" content.
And you have to admit, Linux is the OS of choice for 13 year old script kiddies.
At any rate, let's keep up the good work on the fight to get OpenSource OS's on top!
Signed,
Avid OpenSource User.
Re:Agreed on SysV inits - they SUCK (Score:2)
What?!? This is sheer idiocy. All modern UNIXes use SysV init, because it's hands-down better. You have the ability to use the backwards, old-fashioned BSD way by lazily sticking stuff into rc.local, rc.sysinit, etc.
How can you seriously argue that the flexibility that runlevels provide is somehow a disadvantage?
Sheesh. It's stuff like this that makes me think less of BSD advocates. Crabby old men, indeed.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org]
BSD / Linux - my experiences (Score:2)
I'll start off with installation & package selection. I've exclusively done network installations, so that's what I'm comparing. In this area I've found Debian to be the most robust. For instance, installing on a corporate intranet where only a web proxy is available is no problem as Debian's installation and upgrade tools understand web proxies. If you lose a connection in the process of downloading, Debian will resume at the byte it left off. Also, it allows you to select the primary function of the machine so a corresponding set of packages can be installed.
FreeBSD has a user-friendly (full screen curses) install tool, but it doesn't grok web proxies, so it's a bit more difficult to install onto an intranet. Also, the packages selection tool is nicely hierarchically laid out so you can, for instance, select net -> ncftp to get the ncftp package - instead of having 1 huge screen like Debian's dselect does.
NetBSD's install is more spartan, but still gets the job done with a direct internet connection (I haven't tried it through a firewall/proxy) There was a fullscreen curses install tool last time I installed on sparc, though, so it seems to be getting "easier" on this front.
Neither of the BSD's seem to have an installation-type download recovery mechanism as robust as Debian's in case of a lost connection.
Getting packages after install:
NetBSD & FreeBSD have
Debian is about as easy - apt-get install packagename does the trick.
OS Upgrades: Debian is nice here, as it has friendly package scripts that try to (and mostly succeed in) making upgrades smooth & integrating changes well. Upgrades through web proxies work fine. apt-get update ; apt-get dist-upgrade does the trick.
For FreeBSD the most "correct" method seems to be CVS, but I haven't tried it yet. I've used sysinstall, which still could use a bit of improvement. My biggest gripe is that it downloads
Haven't upgraded NetBSD yet.
Regarding the actual systems, some quick comparisons:
Linux & FreeBSD utilize multiple processors in a machine, NetBSD does not.
NetBSD & FreeBSD both currently support NFSv3 in stable releases. Linux is supposed to RSN...
NetBSD uses 32 bit UID's, Linux is supposed to in 2.4 (as of 2.2.x, it's 16 bit), FreeBSD 3.2 is still on 16 bit, but I'm unsure of their future plans.
FreeBSD can do host-based (i.e., pci controller) hardware raid on the Alpha architecture, Linux & NetBSD cannot.
The BSD's support very large files (don't have the #'s), the largest file size on ext2 is 2gb. (Which is being worked on).
On Alpha, Linux supports quite a few vga video cards. NetBSD only supports TGA. (haven't looked at FreeBSD here)
Documentation:
FreeBSD & NetBSD both have their documentation more centralized, but there tends to be less task-oriented stuff than for Linux. NetBSD's task-oriented stuff tends to be a bit sparse. The mailing list archives are searchable, though, and often already have the answer you're after.
Stability: I've achieved > 100 day uptimes achieved with each of them.
The features overlap and tend to leapfrog quite a bit. Proposing one of the systems is "best" reminds me of the perl camel book's definition of binary: "Some people think in binary. You can tell by the questions they ask. 'Should we program everything in perl or C'".
I think that some people in the BSD community need to recognize that Linux is not Red Hat, btw. A good amount of the negative BSD advocacy I've seen has been pointed at Red Hat problems, not Linux problems.
If anything I've said here is wrong, I welcome corrections.
Maybe not incendiary (Score:2)
---------------------
the SlashDot spellchecker:
Yahoo never used Linux (Score:2)
This far down the line, FreeBSD is pretty much entrenched at Yahoo! - they have people there who can hack the kernel for specialised requirements, and a huge codebase that would be a nightmare to port.
Chris Wareham
Misinformation? (Score:2)
He mentioned that some Linux security holes were found and people were hammering his box, but there are plenty of *BSD holes too. Just because Linux exploits didn't work on a *BSD box, doesn't mean that BSD is any more (or less) secure. Most NT/Solaris/Irix/AIX/HP-UX/etc. exploits won't work on *BSD boxes either
Re:More choice! Yay! (Score:2)
Why does the good OS have to be Unix?
Don't get me wrong, I use Linux Mandrake on my home computer, FreeBSD on my firewall and I'm trying to get some Red Hat boxen installed at work.
but. . . (and it's a big butt) I believe the crucial element is the "goodness" of the OS, not the heritage or design philosophy. If an OS is good, use it. If it isn't, don't. The Palm OS is currently my favorite OS. It's not Unix but it does its job admirably. Let's not ignore any OS based on its "Unixness".
Re:Can't we all just get along? (Score:2)
Good idea. Windows 2000, right? What, you don't want that? That's what happens when you don't have competition. That's why we need Apple, and BeOS, and Sun, and SCO, and Linux and the BSD's.
That's why having Gnome and KDE exist as seperate projects is so important. They stimulate each other into creating a better and better tool. Think of Windows. It has a window manager into the OS. What innovation takes place? Only that which is needed to sucker innocent users into thinking it's better. But that's what we'll get if we don't have two Window managers being developed in parallel. The market *needs* competition, even if it is Open Source.
Or at least some system of making sure that no matter what platform I'm using, I can run ANY software available with no compatibility issues.A noble desire, but again one that isn't desirable. Sure, Java provides binary compatibility, and POSIX.1 provides source compatibility. These are fine for general type applications. But for optimized applications you need to take advantage of the hardware you're running on. Sun hardware, IBM hardware, SGI hardware. Yes, you can run the same apps on them, but you're not getting all the power you can out of them that way.
If I run a server on specific hardware and OS, I want it to be the best possible. If I run my Database on Sun's and Solaris, then I don't care how it runs on Alpha and Linux. However, easily being able to get it to run on different platforms if needed is a plus. For instance, say I'm a consultant and I develop a database for Sun and Solaris. If the next customer comes along and needs it on Alpha and Linux, then I need to be able to be responsive to my customer. Need I mention that if I'd developed my product on Windows, I'd have to completely rewrite it? Not so with the current Server OS's. That's the way I think it should be. Not fragmented, just optimisable.
-Brent--
Garfinkel misses the point (Score:2)
Garfinkel discussed several issues in his article. On the niggling technical points he's correct, or at least not provably incorrect. Some things are simply a matter of taste.
However, he failed to mention at least two Big Things in his article, even though he was touching on the periphery of one of them.
Garfinkel characterizes the difference between the philosophies of *BSD and Linux as one of "correctness". The snottiness of this distinction aside, he's not quite accurate. The distinction is between old-fashioned release engineering as represented by *BSD, and a strange model of free contribution used by the GNU project and, more recently, Linux. While BSD's release engineering might make some system architects happier, it's not necessarily better, any more than tight government control of the economy is necessarily going to result in a stronger economy. The free-software approach may have flaws, but Garfinkel can't plausibly state which approach is more "correct".
The other, bigger problem he entirely avoids: The general suckiness of Un*x. I firmly believe that Un*x is the best thing going, but IT STILL SUCKS. There is no system-wide abstraction, and a lot less conformance to standards than most people think. NeXT was an interesting attempt to remove some of the suckiness from Un*x, and it may yet prevail under Apple's aegis, but I'll be more impressed when I see it win.
Given that there is no really good OS out there, dwelling on the differences between two fairly similar flavors of Un*x seems stupid and pointless. Let's work instead on making something that doesn't suck so much. That might derive from BSD (as Mac OS X does), or from Linux, or from any other damn thing -- it really doesn't matter that much. Just make sure it doesn't suck!
--
Re:Commercialism? & CatB & Worse Is Better (Score:2)
The bazaar is important because it's surprising that it works at all. It suggests that people can usefully collaborate in a self organizing fashion, which is something *new* in the software world. Some of us think that this concept has importance in terms of promoting freedom and escaping corporate development nightmares. You don't need to agree, but please, don't come off like some aristocrat too good for the peasants. Your envy is showing.
It's really a shame both OSs have to put up with people who are more interested in being thought elite and correct than doing something to improve their OS. Both OSs deserve far better advocacy.
Can't we all just get along? (Score:2)
If you like a system, fine, use it, and tell us all about what it can offer, but don't try to deride others in the process. In the end, it's all about choice and freedom, and that's what we all want, right?
Linux ports (Score:2)
There is a fairly recent effort to port Linux to HP's PA/RISC architecture [thepuffingroup.com].
The Power (not PowerPC) port is being worked on by Cort Dougan and supported by IBM. (Any URL ?)
The port to Hitachi's SuperH architecture (sh3, sh3e, sh4, as earlier models have no MMU) was done by Yutaka Niibe and is included in the 2.3 development kernel series.
There are rumours about the 64-bit MIPS and PPC ports being worked on.
Re:Not Too Bad (Score:2)
I work for an ISP that has presence in 45 states(and a good bit of Europe) and I would say that 75 percent of our business are on *BSD boxes. Free and BSDI. With the leaning towards Free-BSD all around.
Of course we will rent you whatever box including Linux BUT our tech time is spent more on Linux and NT. The BSD boxes chug along quietly.
I run win98, Linux, and BSD at home. Linux has been a primer for Unix and me to enter the BSD world.
I think BSD is a corporate choice. But it is only chosen by corporations that have the in house skills to implement.
Re:Misinformation? (Score:2)
Well, he says, his box was not cracked, because it runs NetBSD. Reading your words I see you agree with him, it probably would have been cracked if he had Linux on it. And this is what counts IMHO.
BTW: Simson Garfinkel is one of the few people in the I would believe when he says "X is more secure then Y". Together with Gene Spafford he has written the "safe book" (Practical Unix & Internet Security, O'Reilly of course) perhaps the best book about general Unix security ever written. At least I guess it's the most popular. (And some parts are really quite funny written :-).
Two points I'd object to in this article (Score:3)
The second is the assumption that "correctness is superior to functionality". When it's correctness at the expense of functionality (as is arguably the case with certain of the *BSD lines, in certain cases), I take exception to being told "cope".
I do consider this article to be FUD. If you can't argue something's merits without falling back on attacking the perceived competition, you discredit yourself and the subject of your article.
Re: Even Better Than Linux (Score:3)
> both of which have large menageries of computer systems from a multitude of
> vendors.
Umm, after spending 5 years at MIT, I can only recall seeing 1 *BSD box, although there certainly might be more....
The campus computers these days are almost entirely Sun's and SGI's (running their respective commercial unices). Over the last five years, the campus computers that have been phased out have been IBM RS6000's (AIX), Sparc Classics (Solaris), DEC 5000's (ultrix), and VAX Station 3100's (ultrix). None of them *BSD.
I worked in both CS and EE labs, the CS lab was a SUN shop, the EE lab used Linux for the main server, and a combo of Solaris/Linux/95 for everything else.
Residential computers are a mix of 95/98/NT/and Linux, with a couple macs thrown in for good measure. Most of the technically orientated people I knew, if they weren't running Linux, had a second box running Linux under there desk. (The place I lived at had ~1.3 computers/person, which was fairly common).
If anyone had a different experience, pipe in.
BSD v. Linux (Score:3)
Stop the holy wars now - you can't argue which philosophy is better than another - only which implimentation is better.
--
*Sheesh* (Score:3)
In other words, if it's not BSD, he doesn't want it to succeed. We don't want users to have a choice. No, we just want them to have BSD.
" If I had to pick out the single difference between the BSD community as a whole and the proponents of Linux, I would say it is something called ''correctness.''"
Ok...if that is true, then that is a very important point. But is it true? How can we know? Not from this article. It doesn't cite any ways in which BSD is more "correct" than Linux. I guess we're just supposed to trust Mr. Garfinkel.
" This may be one reason proponents of Linux are frequently slow to admit the debt they owe to the Computer Science Research Group at Berkeley, which created BSD, and to the Free Software Foundation at MIT"
Oh, now I get it. I know Mr. Garfinkel's true identity. *wink* But why is he calling it Linux rather than GNU/Linux?
"Although Linux is a fine operating system, I would encourage businesses as well as advanced enthusiasts to take a serious look at the other choices."
Now, I can agree with this point. However, that "Linux is a fine operating system" is not the impression that I get from the rest of the article.
This could have been a really good article. It included some real meat, unlike most BSD articles in mainstream mags. However, it is ruined by the author's arrogance. An arrogance which unfortunately seems to be abundant among BSD users.
In some ways, I think the biggest (certainly in the mainstream world's eyes) difference between Linux and BSD are the types of users you encounter. Immature flamers or arrogant snobs. (Betcha can't guess which is which). Most of the people I know who run either OS are really cool people, who I'm glad to know. But those types of people aren't as loud as the stereotypes. Possibly the biggest advantage of Linux over BSD is that it's most stereotypical users (immature, foul-mouthed flamers) don't get published in the mainstream press.
There seems to be two schools of thought on this (Score:3)
I fall in the middle... I think an article espousing the virtues of the *BSD systems over Linux is good...there aren't many that I've seen in the mainstream press.
however, the article does contain a LOT of FUD.
The bit about "correctness" really struck me. While Linux is by no means designed to be the ultimately correct perfect academic example of operating system design (for instance, Linux is a monolithic design [the kernel is one big program], vs. the "correct" academic microkernel architecture [small, independent components with tightly-controlled communications linking them]), the design and architecture
The bit about Linux being very much a subject of attack for 'crackers': sure, Linux gets more attacks. But its probably because there are more Linux boxes than *BSD boxes. Windows is attacked far more than Linux (witness recent developments such as Melissa and ExploreZip). Why? Because there are more Windows boxes than Linux boxes. If BSD were more popular than Linux, I'm sure it would be the subject of more attacks.
But some of the things about OpenBSDs strong security vs. FreeBSDs excellent support for threads are very good points. But the guy definitely is spreading FUD: if you can't build up support for your operating system by pointing out its virtues, I guess you're left to attacking your competition. Of course, this tactic is simply tasteless, disgusting and simply downright childish.
More choice! Yay! (Score:3)
This is because the whole goal of Linux is choice, which having a viable *BSD option provides. One more good Unix OS is always a good thing.
So, fellow Linux users/admins, please don't flame the dude. Respect him as a colleague.
*BSD Advantages ??? (Score:3)
As for `correct` vs `working`, I don't want to get into the old sync debate. It boils down to a choice you make. Linux certainly has more hardware supported, even if `less correctly'.
As for "less commercial", I beg to differ. The BSD licence is wide open for source being taken private. The GPL virus prevents this in Linux.
-- Robert
*Sigh* So much for being unbiased... (Score:3)
But I digress. BSD has been around a long time. So of course it is going to be stabler and more robust than Linux in certain applications. I have no problem with that. It is nice that the BSD's are getting more press. More power to us all, I say. But I think the quality of that press is as important as the recognition that BSD (or Linux) gets.
My problem is with articles like these. Aside from a couple token points of recognition to Linux, he lavishes disputable credits to BSD.
For instance, BSD is ported to more architectures. The author sites 22. But I also know for a fact that if you go to the Linux Documentation Project [unc.edu] you will see that Linux is ported or being ported to *at least* 22 other architectures, more if you count the various subsets.
His "argument" that BSD developers are more concerned with "correctness" than Linux developers is pure flamebait and unsupported. That is a slap in the face. If this were true, Linus would never have started coding a new kernel nearly a decade ago and it would not have gotten the support it did.
"Businesses are now the driving force in the Linux community." I think this statement is a combination of jealousy over Linux's success and a statement of ignorance of Linux's roots. Ever hear of Debian: one of the stablest distributions with arguably the most advanced package management tools around, owing *nothing* to business? Is he trying to tell me that if IBM and Oracle decided tomorrow to drop their support of Linux and switch to one of the BSD's that the BSD developers would say "no thanks"?
I think the author also tries to capitalize on the whole GNU/Linux debacle by stating that Linux users neglect what Linux owes to BSD and GNU and that Linus "cobbled" the OS together. I think this is a diversionary tactic. What do you think GNU is for? GNU was envisioned as a non-Unix unix. How could it be inappropriate that the Linux kernel work with GNU software? Or BSD software for that matter? I may not *say* GNU/Linux or GNU/Linux-with-BSD-utilities, but I know where Linux came from, and I support GNU and BSD. I don't appreciate the author labeling Linux users/developers as essentially code thieves and ingrateful hacks.
Finally, the author gives no attention to how old Linux is compared to BSD. Sure, he sites a book proclaiming BSD's 20 year vintage. But does he mention that Linux is barely 10 years old? He seems to neglect the astonishing rate at which Linux has developed, with or without the support of business. Let's wait another 10 years and see how mature and stable and secure Linux is then.
If he wants to caution businesses about implementing Linux, that is fine. Any business *should* weight all the alternatives. Linux does have a long way to go, but it has also come a long way in a short time. It can *only* get better.
I think the author himself should have weighed all the evidence before writing such a flagrantly biased piece.
Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.
Open Source and Security (Score:3)
Schneier attributes Linux's enhanced security to its being open source.
So to say that Linux is insecure gives rise to the question, "Insecure as compared to what?".
Of the three BSD's, OpenBSD is the most secure. It is also Canadian, free from US export restrictions.
Since, as Schneier suggests, open source enhances security and since OpenBSD is the most secure, we might conclude that in some broad sense the term "open source" extends to freedom from export controls as well as freedom from various intellectual property restraints.
Not Too Bad (Score:4)
-- BSD is not a decendant of the GNU Project. It uses some GNU tools such as gcc, but largely it has an independent lineage.
-- Stability and security. This is the same thing Linux partisans talked about for a long time. The reply was always, "but what about applications and support". Now with the commericalization of Linux, it's the Linux camp bragging about apps and support. This is really where Linux has an edge today.
Commercialism? & CatB & Worse Is Better (Score:4)
The contrast between BSD and Linux is the contrast between the Cathedral and the Bazaar. Clearly, Linux development is more anarchic, and one might expect that BSD would have some temporary advantages because of that. However, Richard Gabriel wrote an interesting essay, Worse is Better [mit.edu], explaining why C and Unix had overtaken Lisp, etc. The title is somewhat facetious but the observation is a fine one. The key point (missed, I think, by Gabriel), is not that the weaknesses of C vs. Lisp contributed to its success, but that the "get it working, then get it right" nature, and the openness of C and Unix let it evolve and reach perfection faster than striving for absolute perfection right off would have.
Both approaches have a good deal of merit, and one is not more right than the other. However, I would suspect that Linux will advance at a faster rate than BSD. Perhaps not always in useful directions, perhaps not always doing the One Right Thing, but over time, it will get there.
Nit Picking (Score:5)
Currently Linux is actively developed for Alpha, ARM, IA64, x86 (IA32), PPC, MIPS, m68k, and sparc(64). There is also a sh3 port, but I'm not sure how active it is (9 architectures).
NetBSD currently runs on Alpha, m68k, ARM, PPC, ix86 (IA32), MIPS, ns32k, sh3, sparc(64), and vax (10 architectures).
Note these are chip architectures, the "kinds of computers" is much larger. Under NetBSD there are explicit ports to different computers running the same chip, for instance a macppc port and a ofppc port even though they both use PowerPC chips. Linux doesn't differentiate ports like this, so it would appear that Linux is ported to far less machines than NetBSD.
99.5% (give or take) of all exploits for the Linux OS are distribution binary exploits, not kernel exploits.
This means that if you had SSH installed on your box and a security announcement regarding SSH on Linux was put out, chances are you would be vulnerable as well. The real difference is that exploit code examples for Linux are far more common than for *BSD.
I would almost say though that a lot of the daemons *BSD uses are typically higher quality than what the Linux world uses, but nothing really stops someone from packaging say an OpenBSD FTP server with a Linux distribution (I believe Debian does now).
I've seen this argument a lot, but I have yet to see a benchmark performed on any modern kernel. The last benchmark I saw as for a 1.2.x kernel which was quite a while ago.
Linus Torvalds is one of the most anal retentive people on this planet (no offense Linus). You see him all the time rejecting patches because of poor architecture design. Of course, he only handles (for the most part) the intel port & generic linux system, but the other subsystem heads are just as bad.
Really, unless you are a kernel developer (ie, you've had patches accepted), you really can't begin to understand the pain and torture that one has to go through to get a patch accepted, especially when they implement new features
Really, when it all comes down to it, how different is Linux from *BSD? I mean, if you took a *BSD system and stuck a Linux kernel instead of a *BSD kernel and changed any type of incompatibilities... would you think it still inferior?
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong
--