5 ms·

Linux Torvalds said he would never have created Linux is FreeBSD was available at the time. And the only reason it wasn't available is because it was embroiled

Linux Torvalds said he would never have created Linux is FreeBSD was available at the time. And the only reason it wasn't available is because it was embroiled in a lawsuit over embedded ATT UNIX code back in the 1990s(?).

chimeracoder 12y ago
I'm not sure how this is relevant. Saying he wouldn't have created Linux at the time is not the same thing as saying he wouldn't work on it or use it today instead of FreeBSD.
- morganvachon 12y ago
  I may be wrong, but I took GP to mean that FreeBSD is a good enough OS to use daily, hence Torvalds wouldn't have had a need to create Linux. Obviously, Torvalds hasn't abandoned Linux in favor of FreeBSD today, and no one said he has or is planning on it.
  - chimeracoder 12y ago
    > I may be wrong, but I took GP to mean that FreeBSD is a good enough OS to use daily, But that's not at all what Torvalds's quote means. He meant that, if FreeBSD had been available, he would have worked on contributing to that instead and improving it for daily use, rather than building Linux to be used for daily use. (The state of FreeBSD in this hypothetical world has no bearing on the state of FreeBSD today). In terms of FreeBSD today, while it's possible to use it for daily use, it suffers from even worse driver issues than Linux does, and of all the problems of just simply having much smaller market share (both for contributing developers and users) than Linux does. This may or may not be 'good enough' for OP's purposes, but it's disingenuous to suggest that Torvalds's hypothetical from the early 1990s implies that FreeBSD is a clean substitute for end-user Linux today.
    - imanaccount247 12y ago
      >In terms of FreeBSD today, while it's possible to use it for daily use, it suffers from even worse driver issues than Linux does No it does not. It has fewer driver issues by far. Because it does not have broken half-assed binary only drivers by obscure vendor X that don't actually work. Unsupported hardware is simply unsupported, rather than broken.
      - morganvachon 12y ago
        > Because it does not have broken half-assed binary only drivers by obscure vendor X that don't actually work. I've always found it interesting that Nvidia offers a more complete and stable BSD driver than its GNU/Linux counterpart. That said, AMD/ATI support is abysmal, and even Intel video is lacking compared to GNU/Linux. > Unsupported hardware is simply unsupported, rather than broken. That's a matter of interpretation. If FreeBSD doesn't support my hardware, it's the equivalent of being broken for me, given that I can't use it anyway. That said, I try to build or buy the most OS-agnostic workstations possible so my options are always open.
        imanaccount247 12y ago
        >If FreeBSD doesn't support my hardware, it's the equivalent of being broken for me, given that I can't use it anyway That's the point. People like to pretend linux has more hardware support, but mostly what is has is broken drivers for obscure buggy hardware that you can't actually use. The "well supported stable hardware that actually works" list is practically identical between them.
        jrapdx3 12y ago
        > ... and even Intel video is lacking compared to GNU/Linux. Not so sure about that, or maybe it depends on the situation. For instance, I've been running FBSD and Linux in VMs (specifically, Hyper-V/Win 8.1 on a Surface Pro 2). After updating to FBSD 10.1, I decided to try the Lumina DE (from PC-BSD). I've been surprised at the performance of the GUI under the constrained memory and CPU availability. It's about as good as the host (Windows), albeit running minimally demanding applications. OTOH Linux versions (SUSE, CentOS) have been much more sluggish and GUI usability much lower. I realize this is impressionistic and hardly a deep analysis. Nonetheless, I think it points out that it's risky to make assumptions when circumstances and system requirements are so tremendously variable.
byuu 12y ago
And if Linux weren't available, Lennart would most likely be working on systemd for BSD. Whether or not he would be successful in getting it adopted there is unknowable, but it would be possible. This is why choice is good, and lock-in is so bad.
- bashinator 12y ago
  I don't think it would get adopted in its current form. Systemd is a massive violation of the Principle of Least Astonishment[0]. [0] http://www.unixguide.net/freebsd/faq/16.17.shtml http://www.unixguide.net/freebsd/faq/16.17.shtml
  - the_why_of_y 12y ago
    To avoid violating this principle, the commonly accepted industry best practice to never change anything at all.
    - bashinator 12y ago
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it is broke, make sure people still know how to use it after you're done fixing it. As an aside, I've heard it theorized that part of the reason Microsoft tends to do massive GUI facelifts every few releases, is to keep the Windows/Office training industry going strong.

chimeracoder 12y ago

I'm not sure how this is relevant. Saying he wouldn't have created Linux at the time is not the same thing as saying he wouldn't work on it or use it today instead of FreeBSD.

morganvachon 12y ago
I may be wrong, but I took GP to mean that FreeBSD is a good enough OS to use daily, hence Torvalds wouldn't have had a need to create Linux. Obviously, Torvalds hasn't abandoned Linux in favor of FreeBSD today, and no one said he has or is planning on it.
- chimeracoder 12y ago
  > I may be wrong, but I took GP to mean that FreeBSD is a good enough OS to use daily, But that's not at all what Torvalds's quote means. He meant that, if FreeBSD had been available, he would have worked on contributing to that instead and improving it for daily use, rather than building Linux to be used for daily use. (The state of FreeBSD in this hypothetical world has no bearing on the state of FreeBSD today). In terms of FreeBSD today, while it's possible to use it for daily use, it suffers from even worse driver issues than Linux does, and of all the problems of just simply having much smaller market share (both for contributing developers and users) than Linux does. This may or may not be 'good enough' for OP's purposes, but it's disingenuous to suggest that Torvalds's hypothetical from the early 1990s implies that FreeBSD is a clean substitute for end-user Linux today.
  - imanaccount247 12y ago
    >In terms of FreeBSD today, while it's possible to use it for daily use, it suffers from even worse driver issues than Linux does No it does not. It has fewer driver issues by far. Because it does not have broken half-assed binary only drivers by obscure vendor X that don't actually work. Unsupported hardware is simply unsupported, rather than broken.
    - morganvachon 12y ago
      > Because it does not have broken half-assed binary only drivers by obscure vendor X that don't actually work. I've always found it interesting that Nvidia offers a more complete and stable BSD driver than its GNU/Linux counterpart. That said, AMD/ATI support is abysmal, and even Intel video is lacking compared to GNU/Linux. > Unsupported hardware is simply unsupported, rather than broken. That's a matter of interpretation. If FreeBSD doesn't support my hardware, it's the equivalent of being broken for me, given that I can't use it anyway. That said, I try to build or buy the most OS-agnostic workstations possible so my options are always open.
      - imanaccount247 12y ago
        >If FreeBSD doesn't support my hardware, it's the equivalent of being broken for me, given that I can't use it anyway That's the point. People like to pretend linux has more hardware support, but mostly what is has is broken drivers for obscure buggy hardware that you can't actually use. The "well supported stable hardware that actually works" list is practically identical between them.
      - jrapdx3 12y ago
        > ... and even Intel video is lacking compared to GNU/Linux. Not so sure about that, or maybe it depends on the situation. For instance, I've been running FBSD and Linux in VMs (specifically, Hyper-V/Win 8.1 on a Surface Pro 2). After updating to FBSD 10.1, I decided to try the Lumina DE (from PC-BSD). I've been surprised at the performance of the GUI under the constrained memory and CPU availability. It's about as good as the host (Windows), albeit running minimally demanding applications. OTOH Linux versions (SUSE, CentOS) have been much more sluggish and GUI usability much lower. I realize this is impressionistic and hardly a deep analysis. Nonetheless, I think it points out that it's risky to make assumptions when circumstances and system requirements are so tremendously variable.

byuu 12y ago

And if Linux weren't available, Lennart would most likely be working on systemd for BSD. Whether or not he would be successful in getting it adopted there is unknowable, but it would be possible. This is why choice is good, and lock-in is so bad.

bashinator 12y ago
I don't think it would get adopted in its current form. Systemd is a massive violation of the Principle of Least Astonishment[0]. [0] http://www.unixguide.net/freebsd/faq/16.17.shtml http://www.unixguide.net/freebsd/faq/16.17.shtml
- the_why_of_y 12y ago
  To avoid violating this principle, the commonly accepted industry best practice to never change anything at all.
  - bashinator 12y ago
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it is broke, make sure people still know how to use it after you're done fixing it. As an aside, I've heard it theorized that part of the reason Microsoft tends to do massive GUI facelifts every few releases, is to keep the Windows/Office training industry going strong.