4 ms·

To think, if it weren't for the AT&T lawsuit, we may all be using FreeBSD (or some other BSD) rather than Debian, Redhat, Ubuntu, etc.

pjmlp 8y ago
Actually I think we would all using Aix, Solaris, HP-UX, Tru64, DG/UX, .... instead, given the amount of contributions that BSD has gotten back throughout all these years.
lmm 8y ago
We'd probably still be using Debian (which does have a kFreeBSD distribution, or at least did prior to systemd ruining everything). The GNU userland is genuinely more user-friendly (even on BSD I tend to use gnu ls, tar, make, ...), and the bazaar "distribution" model (where a "linux distribution" is an assemblage of packages from any number of different projects) works better than the BSD cathedral.
- nils-m-holm 8y ago
  I'm glad that BSD's have their own ls, tar, make and friends. Color that will not go away even with TERM=vt100? Seriously? Give me a BSD userland any time!
  - lmm 8y ago
    Are you sure you're not forcing colour on with an alias or something? I'm pretty sure it's off by default.
    - JdeBP 8y ago
      Xe might be referring to the oft-made error of thinking that DEC VT 1xx terminals supported multiple colours. * https://invisible-island.net/ncurses/ncurses.faq.html#vt100_color https://invisible-island.net/ncurses/ncurses.faq.html#vt100_... There is irony in your "off by default" statement when it comes to GNU toolsets. ECMA48 colour and italics support is on by default in GNU troff, which should not come as a surprise as GNU troff was begun over a decade after ECMA48 was first published and the idea of multiple colours was fairly normalized and widespread at that point. Linux distributors and FreeBSD people later went to significant lengths to turn it off, with extra flags and macros. * http://jdebp.info./Softwares/nosh/italics-in-manuals.html http://jdebp.info./Softwares/nosh/italics-in-manuals.html
- trasz 8y ago
  The BSD userland is genuinely more user-friendly - I strongly prefer software with functionality I might actually need, as opposed to every pointless thing somebody could imagine. ;-) But here's another FreeBSD's advantage: it gives you the choice. Just do "pkg install coreutils", change your $PATH and voila: GNU tools.
  - znpy 8y ago
    > The BSD userland is genuinely more user-friendly - I strongly prefer software with functionality I might actually need I see your point, but quite frankly I like the fact that in some cases I need something outside the usual use case and most times gnu grep (and other gnu utilities) have me covered and I don't have to go crazy fiddling with stuff. It's just preferences, I guess?
    - trasz 8y ago
      Yup. And it’s good to have an alternative solution available at hand.
      - znpy 8y ago
        I agree, It's nice to have a plurality of voices, opinions and ways of living.
danieldk 8y ago
This is often used as a the reasoning behind the succes of Linux. But the AT&T lawsuit was already settled in 1994. I first installed FreeBSD in 1996, long after the settlement, and FreeBSD was a better more polished system with ports, good documentation, etc. Remember that in Linux-land Slackware was the most popular distribution, RPM did not exist yet, and SUSE had just rebased their distribution from Slackware to Jurix. At the time, FreeBSD and BSD/OS were also quite popular for servers (web, mail, DNS, etc.). The AT&T lawsuit may have been a factor, but I think a more plausible explanation is that the Linux ecosystem just moved faster by having short incremental release cycles, where FreeBSD only branched from -CURRENT every few years. So, you in FreeBSD-land you basically had to choose between something that is unstable or something that is old. Another factor (I think) is that the Linux ecosystem marketed itself better. FreeBSD was a non-profit project (even though Walnut Creek supported them), Linux had a lot of commercial vendors (Red Hat, SUSE, Caldera) that were actively pushing boxes to book stores, etc.
- sureaboutthis 8y ago
  Your post contradicted itself. First you claim the lawsuit isn't the cause, then you say it "may have been a factor". The truth is, it was the main reason.
  - Fnoord 8y ago
    > The truth is, it was the main reason. Alas, this word "truth" doesn't have the meaning you believe it has.
    - sureaboutthis 8y ago
      Well, we can make things up or we can follow history and the documents everywhere that outline it.
- phkamp 8y ago
  The Lawsuit was a big factor. It was more complex than most people realize and it was unclear for some time where it left the open source BSDs: Were we covered or not ? One way or the other, we got sent back to "Start" (Do not collect...), and had to spend a number of months to get from Net/2 (once it were ready) to a working system. And it didn't really help either that the 386BSD people felt we stole their thunder, that caused some low-level frictioon and copyright uncertainties. But I think the biggest reason FreeBSD "did not become Linux" is that we didn't want it to. We were all UNIX veterans, we wanted something stable, reliable and fast - hence the tagline "FreeBSD - The power to serve" Linux back then, less so now, was a paradise for hackers and experimenters, people wrote 60% of a device driver for all sorts of crappy hardware and had endless fun with it. I used a car comparison a lot in those days: Linux is an open GTI, FreeBSD is a 18-wheeler truck. The GTI is no good for haulin' - the truck is no fun for cruzin' Amongst other differences, that gave Linux a much bigger mindshare in universities and dorm rooms, but then, as now, people get to a certain age and just want things to work.

pjmlp 8y ago

Actually I think we would all using Aix, Solaris, HP-UX, Tru64, DG/UX, .... instead, given the amount of contributions that BSD has gotten back throughout all these years.

lmm 8y ago

We'd probably still be using Debian (which does have a kFreeBSD distribution, or at least did prior to systemd ruining everything). The GNU userland is genuinely more user-friendly (even on BSD I tend to use gnu ls, tar, make, ...), and the bazaar "distribution" model (where a "linux distribution" is an assemblage of packages from any number of different projects) works better than the BSD cathedral.

nils-m-holm 8y ago
I'm glad that BSD's have their own ls, tar, make and friends. Color that will not go away even with TERM=vt100? Seriously? Give me a BSD userland any time!
- lmm 8y ago
  Are you sure you're not forcing colour on with an alias or something? I'm pretty sure it's off by default.
  - JdeBP 8y ago
    Xe might be referring to the oft-made error of thinking that DEC VT 1xx terminals supported multiple colours. * https://invisible-island.net/ncurses/ncurses.faq.html#vt100_color https://invisible-island.net/ncurses/ncurses.faq.html#vt100_... There is irony in your "off by default" statement when it comes to GNU toolsets. ECMA48 colour and italics support is on by default in GNU troff, which should not come as a surprise as GNU troff was begun over a decade after ECMA48 was first published and the idea of multiple colours was fairly normalized and widespread at that point. Linux distributors and FreeBSD people later went to significant lengths to turn it off, with extra flags and macros. * http://jdebp.info./Softwares/nosh/italics-in-manuals.html http://jdebp.info./Softwares/nosh/italics-in-manuals.html
trasz 8y ago
The BSD userland is genuinely more user-friendly - I strongly prefer software with functionality I might actually need, as opposed to every pointless thing somebody could imagine. ;-) But here's another FreeBSD's advantage: it gives you the choice. Just do "pkg install coreutils", change your $PATH and voila: GNU tools.
- znpy 8y ago
  > The BSD userland is genuinely more user-friendly - I strongly prefer software with functionality I might actually need I see your point, but quite frankly I like the fact that in some cases I need something outside the usual use case and most times gnu grep (and other gnu utilities) have me covered and I don't have to go crazy fiddling with stuff. It's just preferences, I guess?
  - trasz 8y ago
    Yup. And it’s good to have an alternative solution available at hand.
    - znpy 8y ago
      I agree, It's nice to have a plurality of voices, opinions and ways of living.

danieldk 8y ago

This is often used as a the reasoning behind the succes of Linux. But the AT&T lawsuit was already settled in 1994. I first installed FreeBSD in 1996, long after the settlement, and FreeBSD was a better more polished system with ports, good documentation, etc. Remember that in Linux-land Slackware was the most popular distribution, RPM did not exist yet, and SUSE had just rebased their distribution from Slackware to Jurix. At the time, FreeBSD and BSD/OS were also quite popular for servers (web, mail, DNS, etc.). The AT&T lawsuit may have been a factor, but I think a more plausible explanation is that the Linux ecosystem just moved faster by having short incremental release cycles, where FreeBSD only branched from -CURRENT every few years. So, you in FreeBSD-land you basically had to choose between something that is unstable or something that is old. Another factor (I think) is that the Linux ecosystem marketed itself better. FreeBSD was a non-profit project (even though Walnut Creek supported them), Linux had a lot of commercial vendors (Red Hat, SUSE, Caldera) that were actively pushing boxes to book stores, etc.

sureaboutthis 8y ago
Your post contradicted itself. First you claim the lawsuit isn't the cause, then you say it "may have been a factor". The truth is, it was the main reason.
- Fnoord 8y ago
  > The truth is, it was the main reason. Alas, this word "truth" doesn't have the meaning you believe it has.
  - sureaboutthis 8y ago
    Well, we can make things up or we can follow history and the documents everywhere that outline it.
phkamp 8y ago
The Lawsuit was a big factor. It was more complex than most people realize and it was unclear for some time where it left the open source BSDs: Were we covered or not ? One way or the other, we got sent back to "Start" (Do not collect...), and had to spend a number of months to get from Net/2 (once it were ready) to a working system. And it didn't really help either that the 386BSD people felt we stole their thunder, that caused some low-level frictioon and copyright uncertainties. But I think the biggest reason FreeBSD "did not become Linux" is that we didn't want it to. We were all UNIX veterans, we wanted something stable, reliable and fast - hence the tagline "FreeBSD - The power to serve" Linux back then, less so now, was a paradise for hackers and experimenters, people wrote 60% of a device driver for all sorts of crappy hardware and had endless fun with it. I used a car comparison a lot in those days: Linux is an open GTI, FreeBSD is a 18-wheeler truck. The GTI is no good for haulin' - the truck is no fun for cruzin' Amongst other differences, that gave Linux a much bigger mindshare in universities and dorm rooms, but then, as now, people get to a certain age and just want things to work.