2 ms·
Yeah, these comparisons suffer from the fact Linux really is just a kernel: There's no single Linux community, no single Linux technical standard, etc. Instead,
by derleth 14y ago
Yeah, these comparisons suffer from the fact Linux really is just a kernel: There's no single Linux community, no single Linux technical standard, etc. Instead, we have Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, Ubuntu, SuSE, etc., all sharing software but not necessarily sharing culture or methodology.
(And on the Linux side, we have people who apparently believe that the distro you choose determines what desktop environment you have to run. If I hear about one more person dropping Ubuntu because of Unity ... I'll get more confused, I suppose, and wonder why they don't just install Window Maker or Xfce or something else from the package repos and use that, instead.)
It would be more enlightening to pick a specific distro to do your comparing to, as a specific version of a BSD project (OpenBSD, say) is more comparable to a whole Linux distribution than to a specific version of the Linux kernel.
- dalke 14y agoThen you have missed the point of the article. The intro even says that the point is to compare the Linux world with the BSD world, not specific distros. The author highlights - stresses even - that there is no homogenous Linux community, that Linux development is 'chaotic' compared to BSD development, and that that chaos is the source of Linux's strength. That sense of chaos is the core shared culture in Linux. What you want - distro-to-distro comparison - would suck; and age rapidly.