On 8/28/2011 1:01 PM, Chris Bennett wrote:
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 02:52:19PM -0500, J Sisson wrote:
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Loganaden Velvindron<logana...@devio.us>wrote:
If other BSDs worked this way, they would have been
successful in attracting a larger userbase. They
have the means to do it with their larger developer
community.
This begs the question of whether or not their developer community
would be as large if they held higher standards...
It also begs the question of how many developers were lost because they
did not want to work within such a messy situation.
OpenBSD pulled me in with such words as clean code, security is important, etc
I was pulled into OpenBSD by the documentation, I haven't had to do a
single search online for anything excepts for some complicated tasks.
(getting diskless booting to work with some odd-model Sun machines)
That and I have been able to run snapshots on production boxes without
error since 4.2, or all the restful nights while everyone else is
working all night to fix* their linux boxes.
I used to work on linux servers, but after using OpenBSD, I realize how
poorly documented, terribly coded and resource-hogging it was. Hell the
community is still divided on whether the name linux refers to a full
distro or just the kernel and about whether the correct name is linux of
GNU/linux.
Plus we have the benefit of not being lead by some egomaniac (he named
an OS after himself and, is suspect, only pushes it to boost his ego)
that resorts to ad-hominem attacks; a man who will gladly give up his
belief in free software when some big company gives him a bunch of
binary blobs to put into the code. It seemed to me that having code
copyright of some huge company in linux was the rule rather than the
exception.
In my opinion, Linux is the worst thing to happen to have ever happened
to Open Source.
* well, making them less broken.
--
-Christopher Ahrens
