3 ms·
As an additional point: in the spectrum between centralization and decentralization, there's a clear difference between Linux and FreeBSD. This is what I highli
by DCKing 12y ago
As an additional point: in the spectrum between centralization and decentralization, there's a clear difference between Linux and FreeBSD. This is what I highlighted in my post: FreeBSD's greater degree of centralization seems to me to be more efficient and leading to a better integration. That much is a correct observation.
But I did not want to imply that "decentralization equals less choice". As an example: Android is as centralized as you can get for an open source project. That does not stop people from customizing it to bits, so much that it's barely recognizable as Android anymore. The beauty however is that people can do that without influencing the direction of the original project (although that happens to a limited and uncredited degree), or bitching and moaning about it.
- asveikau 12y agoThat's a fair point. When I wrote "centralization" I mainly meant components rather than development model. Systemd is very "centralized" in that a single package does a lot, but Linux as a whole is very decentralized in development model. BSDs are "centralized" in the sense that they have a single tree in source control, but the main result is a rather small, very configurable base system. (Then you deal with ports and packages on top, which feels more like a Linux distro: scripts that pull distfiles from lots of different sites and apply patches; not unlike the experience of building a .deb from source.)