3 ms·
I don't necessarily agree with this. Running on servers was not a priority for Linux but it took off in servers. I think part of this is because a lot of people
by wbkang 7y ago
I don't necessarily agree with this. Running on servers was not a priority for Linux but it took off in servers. I think part of this is because a lot of people tried Linux at home, liked it a lot, and then brought it to work. Kind of like how iPhones got adopted in big companies.
I am worried that if FreeBSD completely ditches the desktop side completely, it will become one of the OSes that the next generation of developers would not even encounter unless it happens to be used at their jobs.
- no_wizard 7y agoI think it’s because Linux had no Licensing costs, and I’m pretty sure history bares this out. I don’t think Linux on the desktop contributed at all to its server popularity https://www.wired.com/2016/08/linux-took-web-now-taking-world/ https://www.wired.com/2016/08/linux-took-web-now-taking-worl...
- pjmlp 7y agoNaturally it took off on servers, GNU/Linux is primarily used as free beer UNIX, and it had corporate backing, including UNIX vendors that saw it as a means to cut down costs. The BSDs were in legal problems back then, plus with their license, many of its users never contribute anything back. Except for SGI and NeXT, there was hardly any desktop culture on UNIX land.
- mekster 7y agoBSD are staying relevant for its license (and for that zfs) and if it wants more adoption, it would be because of maturity on server usage and adding more manpower on desktop isn't. I would use BSD if the server usage is more friendlier but right now, o don't see any benefit than using them for zfs.