Is Linux For Losers?
 

I just saw an article at forbes.com talking about how Linux code is ugly, that we hate Windows but at the same time Linux becomes more like Windows. And also, that Linux does not focus on quality.

I see the article as another childish fight between BSD and Linux. But maybe some of you people have some arguments to put into this debate. I would find it interesting to see what you guys think. :)

I myself do not fight for any of them, I use BSD as my server OS and I am confident in using Linux as my desktop OS. I can understand why De Raadt says that Linux is becoming more like its enemy, Windows. I see a lot of distros being more Windows-like and there are a bunch of people out there, complaining about how Linux should be more like Windows (this LQ thread for example). But there are also a lot of distros that DO NOT follow this path. Take Slackware, Debian, Gentoo for example, or even LFS, there are many people in the Linux community that DO NOT want Linux to go from being a UNIX clone to becoming a Windows clone.

I can't see why De Raadt says that Linux is not about quality and that BSD is. I find that to be a bad generalization. This is a horrible statement, saying that this applies to all the Linux developers. I am sure that there are people that don't care about quality, but I am also sure that there are people that DO focus on quality of their code. I don't think that BSD is more about quality is than Linux, since Torvalds does not have much benefit in doing Linux, what other goal may he have?

I would put this article in my 'childish' category. I did not find many 'good' arguments in it, and I do not support the fight between BSD and Linux, I find them both to have good/bad sides.

I would like your opinion too.

Regards.

You can see my thoughts on the Forbes article here http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/blo...17/952287.html and here http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/blo...17/952301.html

--jeremy

The Register has an short article on this story here
which makes some interesting points, although they say that De Raadt is just bitter because Linux is more popular than BSD which may be true but is hardly quantifiable without actually asking the guy imo:
Anyway the more interesting parts of the article:
and:

I don't know much about these things but those seem logical points to me, although they are too general. One can hardly accuse Debian for example (or even Slackware) of rushing to market without testing (I am interpreting "Vendor" as distribution maker here which may be incorrect if they are only talking about commercial distros).

The final paragraph:

A better question would be "Is Windows for Losers?"

You might find this article interesting.


http://www.thetriangle.org/media/pap...9.shtml?page=1

More and more tools allow for Linux-based OS to look and act like Windows, for users who feel more comfortable this way.

However, Linux itself does not !
I use the Ion window manager on XDMCP or tunneled through SSH, and screen inside my bash-powered xrvt. Believe me, Linux is no more like Windows than before. It has always be very different.

And on the contrary from what is said, I find that quality is taken more and more into account in Linux applications nowadays.

Yves.

The last time Forbes.com published a FUD piece (and they do it often) I found somewhere where it said that they love getting huge amounts of hits and lots of angry letters, and begged not to humor them by linking directly to the article...

So maybe the link should be removed. I didn't click on it, for one... :)

Anyways, Linux isn't 'becoming like Windows.' As the previous poster said, more and more tools allow Windows users to feel more and more comfortable. Also, more and more distros allow the Windows user to jump in and feel comfortable right away.

I would instead say "Linux is becoming better, and also easier to use."

Well, I tend to take such artiles as just money making venture's for magazines and add supported web sites. I'ts sad that you have to create controversy to get attention these day's.

Before windows Mr. Bill was all about the command line as it could be called. When Windows came most people said he got the idea from Mac's, (hence another war).

I am not going to bash windows anymore. It's a waste of my typing. I would say though that Linux has given me a choice. I can use the CLI or jump into any number of Destops and WM's.

Also considering that Software Development is 95% Windows, I think Linux does a pretty good job holding it's own.

Oh, and contrary to the above article. I am a Linux user and have Kissed a girl!

KC

So they say that, too 8|
:D I didn't read the article. I felt they didn't deserve it. I was right: I do kiss my wife sometimes :)

Yves.

I believe the author was talking about the overall qualilty control of the linux kernel. How does someone check code in, who is allowed, who goes over it, how is it tested, how long, release cylcles, who decides the dirction of the technology, etc. I happen to agree with the author about this subject. Freebsd quality control system is far far better then the linux kernel. Linus in his arogance has not employed any quality control system for the kernel, excpet that he decides, which does not work on such a large project and hasn't been working for a while. This is evident with the 2.6 kernel and why most the well know respected distro's havn't even touched it yet. Basically, the linux kernel is becoming unmanageable... especially if linus continues on the same path.

Which respected distros are you talking about..???

Redhat, SuSE, Debian, Mandriva (Mandrake) aren't respected..???

News bulletin: almost every distro out there is using the 2.6 kernel, has been for some time now.

That happens to be the kernel I started out with, back in October 2003...