[Javasnob]

I've noticed for a while now that FreeBSD users tend to have a rather hostile attitude towards Linux and its users. Does anyone know if this extends to OpenBSD and NetBSD, or if it's just confined in the FreeBSD community?

[techieMoe]

Theo de Raadt, part of the OpenBSD project, thinks Linux is for losers.

http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinf..._0616theo.html

So no, I don't think it's confined to FreeBSD, sadly.

[DThor]

Well, the guy behind OpenBSD(Theo de Raadt) has publicly griped about how crappy Linux is on several occasions. It's like everything in this business, people seem to form themselves into little camps, and take turns sniping at each other. Makes them feel like they belong to something larger, dunno. Much of the crying in this case tends to relate to the inordinate attention(both monetary and otherwise) that Linux gets over BSD, which it's adherents claim has less bugs. /me shrugs. I have better things to do with my time.

DT

[EDIT] hehe tM is faster than me...

[Kojak]

I think that you will find both types of users in any OS, the arrogant and the "civilized" users. Sure, some people use BSD only because Linux isn't geeky enough for them anymore. But then, who cares about such people? I do not.

With the "normal" userbase that uses BSD, I mostly had pleasant experiences. Many shared my views and all agreed that BSD can be better suited to someones needs than Linux in special curcumstances and vice versa. I never had a clash with them.

Extra note: Many people say that Gentoo users are also snobbish and that Gentoo is for ricers. Sure, those users do exist, but I think they are a minority. The Gentoo users I know are a happy, helpful bunch of people.

[drl]

Hi.

If we were to take a step back and ignore the emotional load behind Theo's words, is his comparison of {Free,Open, Net}BSD with Linux correct? I think overall it has a ring of truth, mostly because of scale and focus -- the BSD developers tend to be a smaller group and focus much less on whiz-bang stuff to concentrate on security, correctness, etc. (OK, whiz-bang is stuff I don't use, want, or care about.)

If I were looking for cutting-edge stuff I probably would not be looking at *BSD, but if I wanted the best in security (well-reviewed code, etc.) I think I would be looking at one of the BSDs ... cheers, drl

[techieMoe]

Originally Posted by drl

Hi.

If we were to take a step back and ignore the emotional load behind Theo's words...

There is no substance behind the emotional load. People like Theo de Raadt hurt the very OS they're trying to laud by being zealous. Zealots serve no purpose other than to run people off. Every OS has them. They're best ignored, which is what I'm going to do starting now.

[carlosponti]

There's also a difference in motivation. "Linux people do what they do because they hate Microsoft. We do what we do because we love Unix,"

Theo is wrong on this statement. i love unix and the way it works which is why i wanted to go linux/unix. i hate windows not microsoft. i have used Freebsd and as of right now its where linux was 5 years ago. they are slowly catching up with more software. there were some statements about linux source being uncleen but i doubt he has ever looked at the code long enough to judge it. most likely he is basing it on thinking thier development cycle is better formulated.

[drl]

Hi.

OK, I am reluctant to continue here, but people will always have faults, character flaws, weaknesses, etc., that's part of the human condition. So let me point to two people who could easily be called zealots. Without their work, it is doubtful that we could even be chatting as we are: one from hardware, one from software. I think we should look beyond foibles to see the argument; they may be wrong, they may be speaking outside their specialty (celebrities come to mind here),or we simply might disagree with them, but I advocate facts and logical argument. But -- if we cannot do that -- let us live well since (I am told the Talmud says) it is the best revenge ... cheers, drl

William Bradford Shockley (February 13, 1910 – August 12, 1989) was a British-born American physicist and co-inventor of the transistor with John Bardeen and Walter Houser Brattain, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics. His attempts to commercialize a new transistor design in the 1950s and 60s led directly to the creation of Silicon Valley. In his later life Shockley was a professor at Stanford, and he also became a foremost advocate of eugenics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley

Richard Matthew Stallman (frequently abbreviated to RMS) (born March 16, 1953) is the founder of the free software movement, the GNU Project, and the Free Software Foundation. An acclaimed hacker, his major accomplishments include Emacs (and the later GNU Emacs), the GNU C Compiler, and the GNU Debugger. He is also the author of the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL or GPL), the most widely-used free software license, which pioneered the concept of the copyleft.
...
Many people describe Stallman as extremely difficult to work with. Around 1992, developers at Lucid Inc. doing their own work on Emacs clashed with Stallman and ultimately forked the software, creating what's now known as XEmacs; an email archive published by Jamie Zawinski gives their criticism and Stallman's response.[25] Ulrich Drepper published complaints against Stallman in the release notes for glibc 2.2.4[26], where he accuses RMS of attempting a "hostile takeover" of the project, referring to him as a "control freak and raging manic." Eric S. Raymond, who sometimes speaks for parts of the open source movement, has written many pieces laying out that movement's disagreement with Stallman and the free software movement, often in terms sharply critical of Stallman.[27]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_M._Stallman

[techieMoe]

I won't deny that the software work RMS has done isn't worthwhile, but his zealotry has slowed the adoption of the OS he lauds so much. Were he more moderate we'd all be better off. That's all I'm saying.

[DThor]

I think the problem, drl, is you're taking someone's positive and negative traits and saying you can't have one without the other. That might be true with certain individuals(certainly not all), but that doesn't mean the negative is anything other than negative. I've been lucky enough to work with some people that I used to idolize as a kid, but a few of them were complete and utter jerks - they slowed the process, they were arrogant, single-minded - it was awful. That never for one second took away from what they have done, but it didn't make me respect them any more, that's for sure. It made me appreciate those that had the talent but were genuinely nice people all the more.

There's nothing wrong with being proud of what you've done, but rather childishly pissing all over other products because they get more attention than you doesn't help anyone.

DT