12/1    How come there's the anti-linux setiment on the motd?
        \_ Just your typical Berkeley not-invented-here syndrome. They're
           just a bunch of bitter fucks who can't stomach the idea that the
           orthodox BSD/Unix way, whether it was actually better or not,
           didn't win the hearts and minds of the modern Unix-like OS user
           base. If you want to drive the point home, ask your friendly
           neighborhood BSD advocate about installing on a laptop with
           cardbus support, or about the state of their USB subsystems given
           their vaunted bus/device tree autoconfiguration system, or about
           exactly which bloated userland they stole the compiler from.
           I ought to add that if you spend less time bitching about which
           tools you use and figuring out how to use the right tool for the
           job, instead, you will find this whole (meta-)discussion just as
           laughable as I do.
           \_ Look if I want USB, cardbus etc I'd go with a consumer OS
              like MacOS or M$. They do USB et al far better than LinSUX.
              And how about LinSUX's inability to change the speed and
              like MacOS or M$. They do USB et al far better than Linux.
              that fread,fwrite on LinSUX is *faster* than mmap()? Or
              how about lousy thread scheduling?
        \_ Cause LinSUX. It has a weak vm subsystem, a weak TCP/IP stack,
              And how about Linux's inability to change the speed and
              duplex of a NIC without a reboot? And how about the fact
              \_ NT can change anything without a reboot?
              that fread,fwrite on Linux is *faster* than mmap()? Or
              how about lousy thread scheduling? Or threads having
              different process ids, which means that SIGCHLD won't
              always be recieved correctly? What about TCP/IP queue drops
              on 100 Full Duplex? I could go on...
              I have to code for Linux and its a pain to get things
              to run at the same efficiency they do on BSD or Solaris.
                \_ This is a bad argument.  BSD, while generally a cleaner
                   and more manageable OS, has catching up to do in some
                   areas (and vice versa, mind you.)  -John
                   \_ I could care less about USB support or KEWL 3D.
                      Adding this stuff won't help me get bits from
                      net to ram, ram to disk and visa versa any faster.
                      UNIX is not a toy, if you want a toy use M$ or MacOS
                      or Linux. I would have a more favorable view of
                      Linux if it wasn't so concentrated on being all things
                      to everyone.
        \_ Well, in the real world, things like hardware and software support
           actually matter.  Typical sysadmin snottiness.  For things other
           than pure server duties like web hosting or motd flamewars, Linux
           has a clear advantage and that's why it's more popular.  Try doing
           ASIC engineering using BSD, or anything related to multimedia.
           Linux is the one for "real work."  BSD is for academia and net
           servers.  -- !sysadmin
           \_ what an odd little response so early in the morning! i don't
              use bsd so i won't compare, but: linux kernel modules have
              allowed dynamic change of speed/duplex flags on NICs for
              at least the last 6 years; changing framesize for gig-E
              NICs doesn't even require a module reload... you can just
              ifconfig the thing while it remains up; my clustered code
              mmaps little files (around 1 MB each) and rips through a
              few 100 GB in read-once mode much faster than with fread's
              extra copies (i measured them back when i started doing
              \_ I don't know which NICS you are using, but I've got
                 IntelEtherExpress Pro 100s (which work great under
                 BSD) with most of the driver rewritten to avoid problems,
                 and I still see lots of collisions and frame errors
                 and so on under high load ~ 4000K/s to 6000K/s data
                 transfer on 100BaseT.
              application profiling); haven't had any problems with my
                 I'm using mmap() for speeding the transfer of small to
                 medium sized files (few hundred k to few meg), but under
                 Linux there is no advantage to using mmap(), its acutally
                 slower (probably because of the vm subsystem) than fread,
                 by an observable amount.
                 Loading and unloading modules requires the entire module
                 subsystem to be compiled in, which is a bunch of overhead
                 I don't need. I should not have to build the drivers as
                 modules and use some stupid modload hack in order to set
                 speed and duplex (ifconfig and the corresponding system
                 calls should handle this, which is true of real OSs).
        \_ Cause LinSUX. It has a weak vm subsystem, a weak TCP/IP stack,
              portable threaded code, but ok if you say so; i routinely
              get 96 Mb/s duplex over 100baseT, about 178 Mb/s over
              dual-bonded 100baseT, and about 400 Mb/s over gig-E without
              jumbo frames... who cares if there were a few queue drops
              at that speed?  i'm not bagging bsd, just meritless
              knee-jerk criticism of something you apparently know
              little about.  -karlcz
        \_ Cause Linux. It has a weak vm subsystem, a weak TCP/IP stack,
           a weak scheduler, a hacky filesystem, weak I/O, poorly written
           drivers and a bloated GNU userland. However its just good enough
           for most people, thus its popular.
           ISPs, small business, big business, like it cause its cheap to
           get a linux box and set it up and serve some web pages and some
           db stuff etc. Yeah you may not have the best possible performance,
           but the time to market is more important than performance in
           vast majority of cases.
           Alternatives are much more professional.
        \_ pragmatically, the sysadmin salary survey showed that a solaris
        admin made $3K  more than a typical Linux admin, and $4K more than
        a BSD admin.   To be fair, the BSD license is nice to money-minded
        programmers.  However, the usercommunity (just look at the above
        comments) of BSD really should approach things in a more user-helpful
        state.  A perfect piece of softwar with no users is not very useful-
        and you're not going to get new users if you berate them.  It's a
        problem of increasing returns - without a usercommunity you don't have
        hw support etc etc.
           \- why do you give a rats ass what other people think about your
           OS of choice [or editor or what tom thinks about how you spell
           ALGOR]. it's one thing to talk about technical merits or theoretical
           ideas. you do need to keep in mind "i think linux has more technical
           merit than fBSD" is not a technical discussion but an opinion/state-
           ment of preference. --psb
        \_ Nice flame bait, troll.  What the hell.  I'll bite.  I prefer *bsd
           because the system level config is more consistent.  Linux looks
           like a giant hack job with random shit thrown all over the disk
           in a half assed willy nilly style.  I don't like wasting my time
           relearning half the os everytime there's a patch or new version of
                           \_ I would Solaris to this as well. OSs that were
                              written in order to help people to actual WORK,
                              not sit around and play with transparent terms.
           everything.  I also don't buy into the "security through many eyes"
           thing.  Linux is just as buggy and insecure as a MS box and a large
           percentage of Linux users wouldn't know the difference.  MS makes a
           good office productivity tool for desktops.  It's ok if they need
           to reboot once or twice a day.  Linux makes a nice toy for people
           running a home box or who don't know what they're doing and need
           lots of help from their almost-as-clueless linux buddies.  *bsd is
           for people with work to get done.   -unix admin