In other words you consider users of BSD operating systems (such as Mr-Bisquit) to be 'unworthy' of your help (or for the very least you see no need in helping them even if you could). And that is regardless of the ammount of shit their dogs produced on the sidewalk. Once again, if you are a programmer, chances are BSD sockets mean something to you. History alone should generate at least a minimum of respect from computer programmers, or so I would naively think.

I thought it was a more realistic analogy.

UNIX vs LINUX VS BSD

Wrong.

It's Unix & Linix & Bsd.

Fruttenboel, I'll give you Unix and Linux, but BSD is an acronym, and as such, all three letters are capitalized.

posixculprit, I would more than likely help no matter what software someone decided to use if I can (look at my posts to see that). However, I'm not going to go out of my way to learn a BSD licensed system so that I can help as I often do with GPL software. I never said I had disrespect for any programmers. In fact, I tried to express that it is the programmers decision to choose the license they distribute their code under. I do not understand the motivations of someone who would choose BSD over GPL, however I certainly wouldn't try to force them to use GPL if they didn't want to. I'm sure there are BSD proponents that can't understand my motivations.

It is my belief that using GPL license fosters the OSS community and perpetuates that fostering whereas BSD type licenses foster the OSS community but do not necessarily perpetuate that fostering. Sure, people can take BSD code and give any changes back to the community, but they are not "required" to give it back. It is the perpetuation of fostering that I desire, and this is why I support GPL. If that isn't someone else's desire, then they have my full support in having the freedom to make that decision, but they will not have my support in getting others to come to that decision nor will they have my skills in making their software better. I'll give my efforts toward making GPL code better.

Forrest

It's an opinion based thread, it's not a matter of right or wrong.

I don't know everything about *BSD, but I've read/know this:
*BSD is pretty seriously behind in some things. I read Flash is at Flash 7 still. From what I know, most things are kept very up-to-date though. I care about Flash because it's used so much on the internet, and I'd be missing something. Also, *BSD doesn't have nearly as much hardware support as Linux.
Someone mentioned security. I've read about the differences between Linux and FreeBSD security, and it said that the only way FreeBSD is really more secure "out-of-the-box" is using it for a server. I know OpenBSD is supposed to be "possibly the most secure operating system in the world", though.
I like Linux more (I think) because it seems very up-to-date and on top of things, as far as Flash and hardware compatibility etc. I like to be able to use anything. Does FreeBSD have the software choices of Linux? I mean proprietary software and things, and drivers and everything else. I don't think so. I think that Linux has at least a version of pretty much everything and it runs on almost anything and that's pretty much the only reason I can come up with that I prefer it over *BSD.
I wouldn't mind using *BSD at all, but I think it would limit internet usage and hardware compatibility.

It's my opinion that the thesis is wrong.

that's fine, it still doesn't affect the thread question or change anything.

My main OS is linux...wouldn't a poll on a linux forum have majority of linux users??? I have ran FreeBSD before but at the time it was alot of work to setup and get going. The hard drive it was installed on died so I haven't bothered with it since. I do like both OSes.

^ AKA Strongly biased poll.

not necessarily, this forum has quite an eclectic user base.

ROFL
(I've been an Internet user for eighteen years, and that's my first "ROFL" . . . so there you go. Pretty effin funny.)

As a long-time and avid user of both FreeBSD and Slackware Linux, I must admit that I find many things about most other (non-Slackware) Linux distributions distasteful. I just can't stand those freaky package managers that spring to life after one command and start doing stuff unchecked like some kind of malfunctioning automaton. (I'm looking at you, apt and rpm!!!) Then again, my feelings are likely the result of a lack of exposure . . . a purposeful lack, but still . . .

Slackware's package manager I like for its spartan simplicity, but FreeBSD really nailed it with the combination of packages and the port system. Now THAT is an elegant solution.

Plus, Freebie's got native Linux binary support . . . how cool is that?

I suppose that I'd take BSD or Slack first, then Solaris (mostly due to the nice, versatile volume management and upgrade features), and then other (dare I say "inferior?") Linux distros . . .

Mac OS X I see as proof that anyone with enough cash can get their dog's shit on the sidewalk called "UNIX." (I had to throw in something for Mr-Bisquit.) They don't even have init or cron implementations anymore . . . I must have missed what it means to be "UNIX."

BTW, is somebody out there still trying to develop GNU HURD? Once that thing comes out, we can put it on the shelf next to the latest patches for the AmigaOS.

It's part of debian "unstable"[0].
If it would be completed it will run the same software as debian gnu-linux and gnu-kfreebsd.

If you ignore some of its missing features (mostly desktop related) the HURD part isn't even that bad (Samuel Thiebault[1] is doing most of the work for debian).

Sadly, the mach part is in a worse shape.

There's a (second) google summer project[2] for a new debian installer as well (the L1 series[3] aren't that difficult either).

[0] http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/index
[1] http://savannah.gnu.org/users/sthibaul
[2] http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/user/jkoenig.html
[3] http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/hurd-cd

Mac OS X and Ubuntu for me. So... Uhhh, Yeah.