Linux is Not Windows

[ElectricRider]

How about we all switch to PC-BSD Isotope 9.1. It IS a great OS for the desktop that can run hundreds of thousands of apps made for it as well as run almost any Linux app you throw at it. It has the most software written for it in the history of any OS. It looks sweet too, is similar to Linux in form and functionality Linux users can catch on fast. Trouble is it comes with a hefty 3.5 gigabyte size before instalation and bogs down the system if you dont have really fast hardware.

BSD's are a lost cause. And the most software written for it? I have to question that claim, I don't believe for a second that there's the "most software" written specifically for this one BSD variant.

Thing is, the BSD's will always be hindered and kept back by their ridiculous licensing, and unless someone takes a BSD and relicenses it under something sensible like GPL, they will be forever doomed to stay as niche OS's that cannot attract enough developers to stay competitive and relevant.

I read that claim someplace.. probably on a BSD page. The claim included all BSD's in general since all BSD distros can all run the same software, It's not meant just for this one PC-BSD distro which is the most popular desktop flavor.

I agree the licensing sucks. They could be a strong desktop contender or compitition for Linux distros if they had a more open license. They would grow much faster. I just finished watching a speech by Linus made back in 2001 where he talked about how Linux is evolving so fast due to the GPL.

[dee.]

I read that claim someplace.. probably on a BSD page. The claim included all BSD's in general since all BSD distros can all run the same software, It's not meant just for this one PC-BSD distro which is the most popular desktop flavor.

Well I seriously doubt that claim. They're probably counting all software that can be run on BSD, not just software specifically written for BSD. That's kind of fallacious, because software that is written for UNIX/POSIX compatible systems (and/or X11), runs just as well on Linux as it does on BSD's.

I agree the licensing sucks. They could be a strong desktop contender or compitition for Linux distros if they had a more open license.

Actually, the openness of the license is not the problem - the BSD license is very open, in fact it's a bit too open. The BSD license allows pretty much anything, it's basically just a step up from public domain - you can do whatever with the source code, you can relicense it, even make a proprietary fork - anyone can just appropriate the code for their own purposes and close down the code. And that's a problem, because developers have no guarantees that the code they contribute stays open. Anyone can take their code and turn it proprietary, without giving anything back to the open source community. There have been lots of examples of companies taking BSD and making a proprietary OS out of it - so far, only Apple has been succesful, and they had to buthcer BSD quite a bit, change the kernel and everything.

GPL is much better in this regard. It's kind of ironic, how BSD advocates are always harping on about how the BSD license is friendlier to businesses, and that GPL drives them away, yet the truth is in fact the exact opposite - the GPL-licensed Linux attracts more companies to contribute and support it, because they can be guaranteed that no one can just take their work and take advantage of it. The GPL enforces a level playing field, it enables collaboration even between companies that are otherwise in competition with each other.