Something insulted you in my comment or you feel the urge to take sides in things you most likely haven’t compared? Linux is a mess compared to BSDs. Anyone who used them all can confirm this.
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This argument is obsolete.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.
What a sycophantic shitlord.
Something insulted you in my comment or you feel the urge to take sides in things you most likely haven’t compared? Linux is a mess compared to BSDs. Anyone who used them all can confirm this.
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.