4 ms·
> This is revisionist history. […] FreeBSD came quite a bit later than GNU and Linux. The BSDs were also plagued by the whole AT&T mess. As someone who was a
by amszmidt 2y ago
> This is revisionist history. […]
FreeBSD came quite a bit later than GNU and Linux. The BSDs were also plagued by the whole AT&T mess.
As someone who was around at the time… I cannot really relate to your comment.
- jandrewrogers 2y agoWhile Linux was technically released a year or two earlier, the contemporaneous versions of FreeBSD were much more mature. Linux was pretty unusable as a production server for the first several years but FreeBSD was more than serviceable. I used them both almost from the beginning of their existence. Linux was a novelty early on but FreeBSD was serving a lot of the load in Silicon Valley for a big chunk of the 1990s. Linux didn’t really hit its stride until the 2000s. Linux was pretty actively bad early on if you just needed a UNIX server.
- amszmidt 2y agoWe will have to disagree, by 1993 we (University) used it all over the place for production with either Slackware or Debian. Which where rock solid. FreeBSD barely worked around the time, and even with the FreeBSD 2.0 release which nuked a bunch of things due to the whole AT&T mess, people eschewed it like the plauge. That GNU/Linux hit its stride "in the 2000s" is ... what is revisionism of history here to the point of it being an absurd thing to say.