You mean the entire fucking world where *BSD is basically dead and Linux is fucking everywhere? Yeah… sure, buddy.
*BSD has always been a poor alternative to Linux because of design decisions, poor hardware support, and a garbage license that allows non-free software to “steal” (take) and use your code irresponsibly. *BSD sucks.
Someone is just jealous of Linux’s success but is so caught up being a contrarian shitlord that they can’t admit the truth.
You mean the entire fucking world where *BSD is basically dead and Linux is fucking everywhere? Yeah… sure, buddy.
This is not a valid argument and also you are quite ignorant of what’s everywhere and what is dead.
*BSD has always been a poor alternative to Linux
The other way around technically, one came before the other and was a more mature system, with ongoing lawsuits however.
Also SunOS 4 and Ultrix are BSD, if you didn’t know. Commercial high-end OSes before Linux even started. About “poor alternatives”.
because of design decisions,
You don’t know what you’re talking about, anything but this argument. BSDs’ design decisions allow them to solve the same problems orders of magnitude cheaper (in human effort) than Linux. That’s how they still survive.
Under FreeBSD there are GEOM, netgraph, properly working ZFS since long ago, proper separation of base system and packages, the ports system, Linux emulation for legacy software, all orderly and clean. Under Linux the horrible mess starts with Debian netinstall.
By the way, you don’t even know your own team, Eric S. Raymond of the “cathedral vs bazaar” glory notoriously disagreed with you, despite the comparison being supposed to put Linux on top. His point was that if you allow thousands of monkey developers, they might not do things so well, but they’ll do so much more that it’s justified, and thus Linux wins due to having shittier architecture, but developing faster.
poor hardware support,
Go use Windows then, it has almost perfect hardware support.
and a garbage license that allows non-free software to “steal” (take) and use your code irresponsibly.
So Google uses GPL code responsibly, right? Microsoft? Apple? Meta?
This argument is obsolete.
I dunno where the circus is, but the clowns are already here.
Holy fuck, I swear. This is exactly why I tell people that if they think Linux people are delusional, they know absolutely nothing about delusional because they’ve never seen a fucking *BSD luser try to argue his way out of a wet paper bag and fail.
So the idea that the overwhelming majority of every single place/person/entity that wants a free UNIX-like OS with a choice choosing Linux over *BSD is somehow not valid? Sure, buddy. *BSD had its time to rise up and win over Linux and it did not. It failed because of the reasons I said. It has zero advantages over Linux and so many disadvantages.
Of course, *BSD came first, but even back then, *BSD wasn’t the primary system, UNIX and other systems like MINIX and the ones you mentioned were so much more popular than *BSD ever was. But when Linux arrived, *BSD began to die out. *BSD was a poor afterthought, even before Linux. There’s a good reason the “*BSD is dying” meme appeared very early in internet culture even back when Slashdot was a huge thing, because it was absolutely based on the reality of the world.
Don’t make me laugh about *BSD’s “design decisions”, ones that basically create a system that is much more difficult to work with because it has a much more simplistic base than the much more robust Linux ecosystem. The idea of separation of base system and packages has nothing to do with efficiency and more to do with a simple design option, something Linux can also do with atomic distributions, which while not quite equal to what *BSD does but has the same idea of separation of base OS and packages, have their certain advantages but aren’t flexible enough to do more advanced, low-end system work, which gives Linux an advantage by far.
ESR’s Cathedral and the Bazaar arguments have been repeatedly argued against as a good model for Free software development for a very long time, and Linux wins because of more flexible development done by more people but with a very strong and centralized point of vetting said code for most Linux software, which means it’s not just “thousands of monkey developers” randomly throwing code at Linux. Your use of ESR as an argument against Linux shows how out of time you are with understanding Free software and how it all works to come together to create a great system.
No one wants to use non-free hardware support, troll.
If Google, Microsoft, Apple, or Meta were caught using GPL against its license, they’d be sued to oblivion and they know it. That’s why they don’t. If you think GPL is unenforceable, you are a fool. Meanwhile, ALL of those companies are, in fact, using the hell out of *BSD licensed code and you fucking know it. Your garbage development model helps those garbage companies exist.
Your argument is obsolete, and the clowns are all in the *BSD tent.
You mean the entire fucking world where *BSD is basically dead and Linux is fucking everywhere? Yeah… sure, buddy.
*BSD has always been a poor alternative to Linux because of design decisions, poor hardware support, and a garbage license that allows non-free software to “steal” (take) and use your code irresponsibly. *BSD sucks.
Someone is just jealous of Linux’s success but is so caught up being a contrarian shitlord that they can’t admit the truth.
This is not a valid argument and also you are quite ignorant of what’s everywhere and what is dead.
The other way around technically, one came before the other and was a more mature system, with ongoing lawsuits however.
Also SunOS 4 and Ultrix are BSD, if you didn’t know. Commercial high-end OSes before Linux even started. About “poor alternatives”.
You don’t know what you’re talking about, anything but this argument. BSDs’ design decisions allow them to solve the same problems orders of magnitude cheaper (in human effort) than Linux. That’s how they still survive.
Under FreeBSD there are GEOM, netgraph, properly working ZFS since long ago, proper separation of base system and packages, the ports system, Linux emulation for legacy software, all orderly and clean. Under Linux the horrible mess starts with Debian netinstall.
By the way, you don’t even know your own team, Eric S. Raymond of the “cathedral vs bazaar” glory notoriously disagreed with you, despite the comparison being supposed to put Linux on top. His point was that if you allow thousands of monkey developers, they might not do things so well, but they’ll do so much more that it’s justified, and thus Linux wins due to having shittier architecture, but developing faster.
Go use Windows then, it has almost perfect hardware support.
So Google uses GPL code responsibly, right? Microsoft? Apple? Meta?
This argument is obsolete.
I dunno where the circus is, but the clowns are already here.
Holy fuck, I swear. This is exactly why I tell people that if they think Linux people are delusional, they know absolutely nothing about delusional because they’ve never seen a fucking *BSD luser try to argue his way out of a wet paper bag and fail.
So the idea that the overwhelming majority of every single place/person/entity that wants a free UNIX-like OS with a choice choosing Linux over *BSD is somehow not valid? Sure, buddy. *BSD had its time to rise up and win over Linux and it did not. It failed because of the reasons I said. It has zero advantages over Linux and so many disadvantages.
Of course, *BSD came first, but even back then, *BSD wasn’t the primary system, UNIX and other systems like MINIX and the ones you mentioned were so much more popular than *BSD ever was. But when Linux arrived, *BSD began to die out. *BSD was a poor afterthought, even before Linux. There’s a good reason the “*BSD is dying” meme appeared very early in internet culture even back when Slashdot was a huge thing, because it was absolutely based on the reality of the world.
Don’t make me laugh about *BSD’s “design decisions”, ones that basically create a system that is much more difficult to work with because it has a much more simplistic base than the much more robust Linux ecosystem. The idea of separation of base system and packages has nothing to do with efficiency and more to do with a simple design option, something Linux can also do with atomic distributions, which while not quite equal to what *BSD does but has the same idea of separation of base OS and packages, have their certain advantages but aren’t flexible enough to do more advanced, low-end system work, which gives Linux an advantage by far.
ESR’s Cathedral and the Bazaar arguments have been repeatedly argued against as a good model for Free software development for a very long time, and Linux wins because of more flexible development done by more people but with a very strong and centralized point of vetting said code for most Linux software, which means it’s not just “thousands of monkey developers” randomly throwing code at Linux. Your use of ESR as an argument against Linux shows how out of time you are with understanding Free software and how it all works to come together to create a great system.
No one wants to use non-free hardware support, troll.
If Google, Microsoft, Apple, or Meta were caught using GPL against its license, they’d be sued to oblivion and they know it. That’s why they don’t. If you think GPL is unenforceable, you are a fool. Meanwhile, ALL of those companies are, in fact, using the hell out of *BSD licensed code and you fucking know it. Your garbage development model helps those garbage companies exist.
Your argument is obsolete, and the clowns are all in the *BSD tent.