Re: [cobalt-developers] nice knowing you all!

[corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Dennis wrote:

> the original point of this thread, was the its unlikely that the
> "tinkerers" are buys rather expensive raqs. most people who buy a raq

?!  Is that a real sentence?  If I understand you correctly, then let me
remind you that Raqs quite often serve as a stepping stone to more complicated
services.  However, many people do indeed try to get more of their existing
equipment, rather than replace it with a completely new custom solution.  In
my experience you can count on 20%-40% of Raq owners to do so.

> yes, but freebsd ethenet driver dont lock up under heavy load, and most of
> their "features" areent experimental for 10 years.

FreeBSD is an excellent OS, we're both agreed on that.  Compatibility layers,
though, still suck.

> The problem with linux is that there are no solutions for its inner design
> flaws. We support linux and freebsd, and believe me, linux is a nightmare.
> Plus, every major release requires a major overhaul of drivers because
> there is no conherent underlying structure to linux. Porting from Freebsd
> 3.x to 4.x, for example was a 1 day project because BSD internals are
> well-defined and stable. Porting from 2.2 to 2.4 in linux will be a drawn
> out nighmare because 1) 2.4 will be released with tons of poorly tested
> features and 2) the basic driver structure has changed.

At the kernel level, you have a point.  At an application level, you don't.
And when it comes to any OS, it's the application level that people will tinker
with most.  In that regard, Linux is no more a burden than any other OS,
*especially* when it comes to traditional services.

> The fact that there are so many linux distributions makes support difficult
> because they all use different libraries, so distributing binaries is a
> nightmare.

Bull.  That's just out and out FUD.  Most of the major distributions can still
run binary tarballs put together years ago, and still run the latest gadgets.
All of the actively maintained distributions are very close together in the
revisions be ran.  And even where differences exist, you can still compile
from source with little trouble, if any at all.

> Most of the important applications run on both linux and freebsd. Most of
> the other garbage (like drivers for obscure hardware) dont work well enough
> to suit commercial use anyway, so there are of little use except to the
> hobbyist.

FreeBSD is better supported than may other BSDs, but you still can't deny
there's a lag.  More development is happening on Linux than any other free OS,
and I believe that can be statistically proven rather easily.

> Your problem is that your ideas are trivial. 

Your problem is that your use of logic in your analysis was trivial.

> You can't add functionality to the kernel with giving away the source,
> which is why no commercial company will invest time and resources in kernel
> changes (which is why the linux kernel is such garbage). So, if a
> commercial vendor wanted to develop ATM (and didnt feel like waiting for
> the scads of linux weenies to get it to work), they'd have to make the
> source available when they are done. So guess what, they dont do it.

Tell me how kernel level linking applies to someone wanting to run more
application services on a Raq?  Nine times out of ten, it doesn't.  Your
argument still doesn't wash.  Don't try to bring this into arenas that have no
application to the subject at hand.

> if you are going to spend hundreds of man-hours building a custom product,
> you do it with BSD because you own it when you are done. I know of many
> commercial routers based on freebsd, none on linux (and Im talking about
> ascend GRFs, real routers, not some garbage based on linux that some guy
> builds in his garage)

I know of more than a few major installations that are running Linux in just
those situations, so what's your point?  Does Linux require a bit more of a
communal spirit to develop on?  Yes.  Does this have any bearing on delivering
proprietary services that run on Linux.  Absolutely not.  Oracle supports
Linux just fine, so what's your problem?

> Im not whining, Im just stating that GPL is anti-commercial and promote
> mediocrity. Why is BSD rock solid? Because commercial vendors contribute to
> making it rock solid. so they can use it as platforms for custom products.
> Its a communist concept, and we all know why communism failed; Theres no
> incentive to be anything by mediocre.

GPL *is* anti-commercial, no one is denying that.  But your argument still has
no bearing to leveraging application services (even proprietary ones) on a
GPL's platform.  Hell, most of the tools used even on Linux are licensed under
the Artistic or BSD'ish license.  Quit trying to throw in herrings.

> Thats right, im a commercial vendor and the GPL license inhibits our
> ability use linux (not that i would want to) Your arguments are mostly
> trivial and wrong. You dont have much insight into what commercial
> developers consider when designing a product. The fact that very few, if
> any, commercial vendors contribute to the linux kernel is a pretty good
> indicator without having to argue.

My company does commercial software development using both Artistic and GPL
licenses, and I choose GPL when I have to the freedom to do so.  Why?  Because
unlike a lot of one-trick horse development groups, we like to build things,
we're not interested in shrinkwrapping and mass producing crap.  We leave that
nonsense to the Microsofts of the world.  And guess what?  You can make money
at that, too.

You have yet to bring up a convincing or supportable argument yet.

	--Arthur Corliss
	  Programmer/Administrator
	  Gallant Technologies (http://www.gallanttech.com/)