Jump to content

User:Taxman/BSD and Linux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User:Taxman
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 128.194.38.243 (talk) at 05:41, 21 September 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

BSD and Linux are two families of open-source computer operating systems. Both are classed as Unix-like because they have a kernel, internals, and libraries, programmed using algorithms and data structures derived from historic AT&T Unix. The most significant non-technical aspect of both families is their availability as free software.

The BSD and Linux families each consist of several to many distributions (distros). Each distribution is a specific operating system (OS), with a brand name known to the public through advertising or advocacy. Distributions are created or implemented by groups of software programmers known as developers, who can be paid professionals or volunteers, living anywhere in the world that has an Internet connection.

BSD and Linux distributions are selected by brand name and installed by a system administrator (admin), for the benefit of one or more users, who run or execute BSD or Linux application programs. The classification of BSD and Linux distros by installation packaging system, and the differences and issues of distro installations will be discussed in sections below.

A personal or small business computer owner may be both admin and user. As an admin, the owner may have to make a confusing set of choices about which operating system distribution will best suit their computing needs. Such choices exist infrequently for commercial Windows or Macintosh OS's. BSD and Linux distribution choices, however, can be overwhelming in number, and subtle in their differences and specialties. Distributions are sufficiently different that a careless choice can lead to lost productivity. Lost time and effort can result if the OS is used in a way that other users have not thoroughly tested, or if the new admin/user lacks the distro installation and configuration skills typically assumed by the community. Good advice is to choose a distribution that clusters new users with an existing user community doing the same type of computing at the same average skill level.


Scope

  • This article introduces new admin/users to the BSD and Linux experiences, especially as they may be unfamiliar from experiences installing and using the commercial operating systems of Major Software Windows and Apple Macintosh at home, school, and workplace.
  • This article intends to assist admin/users in either making a migration consumer or small business choice among the many BSD and Linux operating systems, or choosing to keep their current OS. (Medium and large businesses hire BSD or Linux admins who are not new users.)
  • Also this article attempts to clarify the general similarities and differences between BSD and Linux families, with specific differences highlighted by examples comparing distributions sampled from each family.
  • The creation of totally free BSD and Linux OS software costing over a billion dollars in person hours to develop commercially, raises totally new economic issues for existing software businesses, including "Major Software"* the world's largest corporation. Will Major Software's patents crush Linux development just when it gets really popular? Will BSD developers cut a deal with Major Software to avoid a software patent lawsuit? Will BSD developers agree to charge for every copy of BSD? And will that be the end of free software? (*The purpose of this obvious alias is to hide out from search engines, and help prevent this article from becoming about Major Software instead of BSD and Linux)
  • Finally, this article attempts to parse the phenomenon of OS advocacy by explaining it, describing the problems it causes, and neutrally summarizing the user group positions of pro and con issue advocates.

Readers are assumed to have previously used computer applications such as browsers and word processors, and to have installed, reinstalled, upgraded, or at least configured applications for a desktop commercial operating system. An example of configuration is changing the home page of a browser. Readers are not assumed to have any knowledge of programming, but are assumed interested in the OS consumer and small business choice issues raised by programming and programming businesses.

Differences and issues are encountered by admin/users during several BSD and Linux system implementation phases:

  1. advocacy
  2. packaging systems
  3. supported hardware
  4. installation
  5. configuration
  6. administration
  7. operation
  8. applications

Specific examples can obsolesce rapidly due to competition among distribution developers. For example, a developer might decide to eliminate a specific difference that they see featured in this article.

  • FreeBSD will be used as a specific BSD distribution example, since it has one of the largest of the BSD distribution communities.
  • Slackware will be used as a specific Linux distribution example, since it is the oldest Linux distribution with several further distribution forks.

FreeBSD vs. Slackware here is only a sample to assist the general comparison of BSD and Linux. A comprehensive comparison is beyond the scope of this article.

Similarities

General Similarities

Because the BSD vs. Linux debate is so common, it may be easy to forget all the similarities.

BSD and Linux distros are generally available as free downloads, but lacking some proprietary programs that are packaged with the paid versions. Downloading typically very large OS distributions can be difficult to impossible using dialup internet connections. Fortunately many distros are available on CDR discs from free software copy vendors, by internet order and postal mail delivery for a few dollars each. (See the external link DistroWatch.com.)

Specific Similarities

BSD and Linux operating systems share much of the same functionality. They are often able to run programs coded for the other system. When a complete desktop environment, such as GNOME, CDE, XFCE or KDE is running, the two systems are often difficult to tell apart.

BSD can also run most Linux programs with a compatibility layer subsystem, which is capable of running even proprietary Linux software. The BSDs each have a Linux-compatibility layer that is installed in a different manner depending on which operating system used.

For example, FreeBSD's Linux-compatibility layer can be installed by compiling FreeBSD with AAC_COMPAT_LINUX or loading already compiled FreeBSD systems with a Linux compatibility program: aac_linux.ko (Per BSD release engineer Scott Long in 2003)

Linux cannot run BSD-specific software, although such software is uncommon. It is the compiled and executable program binaries that are somewhat different for each OS family. Generally, any program binary compiled from source code for BSD can also be compiled as a binary for Linux. However, compiling is a learned computer skill, and it doesn't always work as expected.

BSD and Linux Branches in the UNIX OS Family Tree

File:UnixHistory.jpg

Lists, Descriptions, and Comparisons of BSD and Linux Distros

Differences

Advocacy

Advocacy focuses on the differences among both OS families and brand-specific distributions. There are many similarities forgotten when families or specific OS's are contrasted.

Both BSD and Linux have dedicated user and developer communities. Every OS community makes a heavy investment of personal time, in distro implementing, and user learning to install, configure, and operate a branded OS. This focus of time and effort often leads to intense emotional investment. It sometimes results in overzealous advocacy leading to personal disputes that can harm OS communities. Emotional attachment to a consumer choice is familiar from branded merchandise loyalty toward designer clothing and automobiles. Rarely, extreme OS advocacy can take on an unhealthy similarity to religious persuasion, known to psychology as becoming a true believer. (See operating system advocacy).

Advocacy excess led to bad mass-media publicity for BSD and Linux in 2000 (see DeCSS). Bad publicity can politically assist commercial OS competitors, or digital rights management organizations, who are lobbying for laws to prevent the use of free software in government regulated hardware, such as cable and satellite TV decoders.

Hostile counter-advocacy is an important special case that will be sociologically and psychologically analyzed in its own section at the end of this article.

A positive value of rational, ethical, and consumer-oriented advocacy is that it can replace paid advertising that may not exist for free OS distributions.

The Linux Kernel and the GNU Utilities

-

Distro Installation Packaging Classification

Distribution installation packaging is sufficiently complex as to be shared by a number of distros. There are several standardly-named package systems:

BSD package systems

  • pkg/ports
  • pkgsrc

Linux package systems

  • apt
  • portage
  • yum
  • rpm
  • Although, apt and portage are original Linux package systems, both are being used in BSD eviroment.
  • The Gentoo Linux portage system has similar advantages to BSD ports, it being FreeBSD ports re-written in Python.

Hardware Issues

  • Commercial UNIX is usually designed for a specific hardware architecture intended for business enterprise applications. Redundancy, hot-swap/hot-plug (even some hot CPU swaps), and other technologies are utilized to minimize enterprise downtime. Commercial UNIX companies advertise five 9's reliability; 99.999% uptime, or about 15 minutes downtime per year. The BSD and Linux distros are working toward these goals, but specific hardware gives commercial UNIX a probably unbeatable reliability advantage.

Installation Issues

BSD and Linux installation experiences range from fairly easy to difficult, with occasional complete installation failures. New admin/users may not be aware that how the distro package installer works can have a significant effect on their satisfaction with choice of OS brand. Installations may need to be repeated. A difficult install tends to discourage learning the next phase of OS configuration and operation. A complete failure is usually due to choosing a distro with a small range of supported hardware. Admin/users should make an effort to learn the distro's likely supported hardware range before finalizing an OS brand name choice.

Configuration Issues

-

Administration and Distro Release issues

-

Operation Issues

When not using the graphic user interface (GUI), users enter commands on a command line presented by the shell, a command interpreter program. It is called a shell because in a flow chart diagram it surrounds the kernel. It interfaces data to and from the kernel for the user and other programs.

The traditional UNIX shell is sh, used both for scripts and for interactive use via the command line interface (CLI). It is considered to be somewhat lacking for interactive use, usually without working backspace and arrow keys, among other user's problems.

BSD historically added csh for interactive use, while keeping sh for scripting. csh is incompatible with sh, and csh lacks features needed for advanced scripting. Advanced users usually need to learn about both. Most BSD systems are configured with this combination of sh and csh, including FreeBSD, NetBSD, and DragonFlyBSD.

OpenBSD has chosen to use pdksh for as the default shell for all purposes, doing essentially what Linux and MacOS X have done with bash. Although OpenBSD uses pdksh, csh is still available as an option in the default install.

Linux uses bash, which, unlike csh, is an sh-compatible shell that has been enhanced with features for better interactive use. A single bash shell serves both interactive and scripting purposes well. MacOS X, despite being derived from BSD, has switched to using bash.

It is possible to install the bash shell on BSD distros which do not use them by default, but this may be difficult for a beginning BSD user.

Application Issues

-

Developer Communities Organizational Styles

Generally, BSD is more centralized than Linux. The BSD OS (including Darwin and Tru64) is more properly compared to Linux OS, while the FreeBSD distribution is more properly compared to Slackware, Red Hat, SuSE, Debian, or Gentoo distributions.

Linux by itself can refer to the bare Linux kernel itself, or more commonly to any system based on that kernel. To function as an operating system, other utilities (file and system utilities, shells, etc. see the GNU project) are required. These other utilities are gathered from various sources and collected together with the kernel by various groups in distributions ("distros"). Kernel and system utilities are developed independently and merged together to form an operating system. This means that the Linux kernel has a version, and all the utilities in the operating system have their own versions unrelated to the kernel.

BSD presents as more centralized. The kernel and basic system utilities are developed, versioned, and distributed together. Other programs, such as X and web browsers, can be brought in from elsewhere, but the basic system comes from one source and is designed specifically for BSD. Being versioned together in the same Concurrent Versions System (CVS) tree affects interfaces between the parts. The parts need only to function in cooperation with other parts from the same supplier and time period, allowing nonportable assumptions to be made. The concept of a kernel version different from the rest of the system is not significant in BSD.

Linux is often claimed to be fragmented, yet the BSD OS family is also fragmented. There are quite a number of Linux distributions that all create their own patchwork of versions of all related components. While this sometimes applies to BSD (e.g., DragonFly BSD has multiple major versions in parallel use), the number of library version combinations and packaging decisions that one will encounter, is much lower if one does not consider NetBSD, OpenBSD, Darwin, Tru64, and others.

Centralized and distributed can each be better, and both models have their advocates; for example, focusing security or flexibility. BSD and Linux projects are not equal in size by number of contributors. A model that works for one doesn't necessarily work for the other.

Licensing

BSD

The BSD licenses are designed to be completely usable, so that the code can be exploited to the fullest extent; conserving resources and relieving developers from reinventing the wheel by duplicating work which has already been completed and almost all code in a BSD operating system is licensed under one of the BSD-style licenses individually identified as the 2, 3, or 4-clause text.

This style of license puts very few restrictions on what can be done with code licensed under it. Depending on whether old, or new 1999+ version of the license ("BSD-old" / "4-clause BSD", or, "BSD-new" / "revised BSD" / "3-clause BSD"), the restrictions can be as simple as:

  • preserving code source credits in the documentation,
  • keeping the existing license in place (prevents code adopters from claiming an original work), and

Other possible restrictions include that:

  • adopters cannot claim that the previous contributors endorse the adopter's new code derivative
  • adopters must list the copyright holder in any advertisements for derivatives
  • adopters cannot hold the contributors liable for any mistakes in the code.

After meeting those simple license restrictions, essentially anything else can be done with the code, including distributing closed-source modified versions. For example, Major Software and Apple have both used BSD code in their proprietary OS products, with Major Software choosing closed-source and Apple choosing open-source for its Mac OSX version of BSD.

However, BSD-style licenses with 2, 3, and 4-clause texts are still in use for various BSD distros and other free software components such as libraries. See BSD license:BSD-style licenses

FreeBSD uses a 2-clause license with an additional statement at the end that the views of contributors are not the official views of the FreeBSD Project.

Linux

The Linux kernel and many of the utilities commonly distributed with it are licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL). The GPL allows free use of the software while imposing rigid commercial restrictions upon any adopters who wish to use the code.

GPL v2 is the most common free software license in use today. It was designed specifically to morph all software into Free Software. GPL v2 does this by requiring that:

  • all works derived from GPL v2 licensed code must maintain the same restrictions on future derivatives of the code, which include,
  • releasing the source code to any parties who are supplied a binary compiled from the code,
  • supplying all parties who receive any GPL v2 code derivatives, with access to the code's companion license (such as by packing the GPL v2 license text in the same compressed archive with compiled binary and source code files),
  • not obfuscating released code
  • nor charging for derived works - only services related to the work can be charged, such as:
  • consulting
  • documenting
  • customized programming labor
  • disk-copying charges for materials and labor
  • preventing any further restrictions to be placed on the GPL-licensed code - thus code licensed under the original BSD license cannot be licensed under the GPL v2

GPL v2 is intended to prevent the conversion of a free program into a proprietary competitor, so that all future GPL software will remain free, as conceptualized by the Free Software Foundation.

For discussion of the advocacy of one license over the other, see BSD and GPL licensing.

Market Economics of BSD and Linux Free OS's

All OS consumers benefit from free software even if they do not use it. The public advantage of having much software available under the BSD-style and Linux/GNU-GPL licenses is that free-market prices for proprietary licensed commercial software cannot rise without limit, because users can always turn to near public-domain free software. Yet because commercial software can be seductively innovated from free BSD licenses, GPL free software developers cannot fail to counter-innovate,* or users will abandon GPL free in favor of reasonably priced commercial software. Innovation failure is a classically observed problem of industrial socialism.

Thus a commercial vendor monopoly is avoided, and market prices are balanced by classic microeconomic laws of supply and demand that would fail if a monopoly prevailed. This particular balance is achieved due to free software's moderation of the unregulated free market, resulting in a mixed economy of privately socialized consumer demand and publicly capitalized commercial software corporations.

TCP/IP: The origin of Unix-like free software

Though the present free software socialization is private, the government socially capitalized free software through defense budget grants to ARPAnet, that paid for BSD's near universally used TCP/IP Networking Tape 2 software, first released circa 1990, that is usually known as Net/2.

TCP/IP was coded during the height of the cold war to supposedly help military computer network communications survive a nuclear war with the former Soviet Union. Nuclear war explosions with a total megatonage exceeding the threshold of nuclear winter, turned out to not be survivable by humans on the planet (see The Cold and the Dark by the late physicist Carl Sagan, et al.); but, TCP/IP networking was unintentionally an excellent taxpayer investment in software that couldn't be copyrighted or patented, and was therefore available free for every public use.

Is irrational "right to profit" trying to ban free software?

Because free software's moderation reduces the industrial profits of a software license monopoly, circa 2003-2004 news media reported that commercial software organizations (and probably digital rights management organizations) lobbied Congress for laws to prevent the use of free software in government regulated hardware, such as cable and satellite TV decoders. Achieving passage of such laws is the first step toward banning free software, and thus increasing commercial software monopoly license profits.

While their connection to lobbying for the free-software ban is not documented, nothing concerning this issue is generally believed to happen without Major Software's approval. E-list readers and reporters have previously reported a Major Software operative involved in trying to privatize Linux free software (see this well-known poster's offer to the linux.kernel mailing list attempting to buy a BSD-licensed copy of the Linux kernel worth over $600M for only $50,000, including judicial notice of evidence for his being an agent for Major Software.)

The philosophical basis claimed for passing laws banning free goods or services, is a revival of an old corporate claim of a "right to profit", which presumes that free goods and services should be banned because goods and services for sale cannot compete with free goods and services. This is not fundamentally true because of economically illogical passions such as brand names, personal vendor loyalties, and economic cooperation in coops; but, it is true that free goods and services reduce the market value of goods and services for sale. The idea of banning free goods and services is also impractical, since governments at all levels must give free education and other free things to children, disaster victims, the aged, and the poor. As close as has been achieved, some business-friendly states have antisocialist-economy laws banning state competition with private enterprise, which prevents coops from using the purchasing power of the state to lower the cost of commodities like generic pharmaceutical medicines or gasoline.

The basis of corporate shareholder stock purchase, is the risk of losing one's private capital, against the hoped reward of profit in some direct proportion to the shareholder's financial risk. Since economic risk cannot be legislated away, the economic result of all "right to profit" laws, is the transfer of some or all corporate business enterprise risk to taxpayers. Taxpayers then must pay if the corporation does not profit, yet receive nothing if the corporation does make a profit. At a minimum, taxpayers are providing corporations with enterprise risk insurance, but with no insurance premium paid back to the government treasury.

The ultimate result of an entrenched "right to profit" guaranteed by government, is that the corporation will, in all cases, receive the taxpayers' corporate welfare for doing, making, and selling nothing. In short, the economic notion of a "right to profit" is simply a disguised way of laying unlimited claim to the public treasury. That amazing claim is achievable in political practice, when very large campaign donations bypass taxpayer representation, sound fiscal policies, economic science, and the common sense of nearly all politicians of nearly all parties. The best analogy is that "right to profit" is a corporate fairy tale.

Major Software hints at software patents on Linux (and BSD)

Major Software's leadership has publicly suggested in outline form, that the next step against free software is enforcing software patents on routine computer operations. For example, using a mouse to click in a GUI window. Corporate leadership has mentioned Linux OS in other competitive contexts, so Linux is their obvious target. Major Software, being the holder of most such patents, could theoretically sue any Linux free software developer who wrote a program that used a mouse, and gave the patented program away without a charge in violation of patent licensing terms requiring a monetary fee exchange.

While abridging the human right of gift would seem to be a serious political rights violation, USA citizens are guaranteed considerably fewer Constitutional rights when the government is privatized, or not involved. Therefore it is quite realistic that Linux development could be halted by a USA Federal court order in the next 10 years. Furthermore, such an order would be binding on all countries that are signatories to patent treaties with the United States, and those treaties will be enforceable under the penalty provisions of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Major Software could theoretically set the minimum prices of competing software, through the terms of a patent license, but in practice, they might get sued for engaging in a monopoly restraint of trade. Their second option is to deny patent licensing to any competitor, but that too could result in an anticompetitive practices lawsuit.

Major Software's third option is the best: demand a significantly hefty royalty on every copy of a Linux OS using their patents. Major Software could set this fee so that the Linux OS would sell, but not very well, and they could probably avoid a successful anticompetitive lawsuit. Having established patent control and even a piece of the Linux profit, Major Software would then engage all of their other previously known market practices to limit Linux to something like the sales of IBM OS/2 or BeOS, which sales were/are categorically also ran.

Major Software's history of co-opting open standards

Major Software has historically adopted open standards, gained installed base control of that open standards market, and then gradually changed the open standard by adding proprietary extensions, until all users are locked into the Major Software extensions that no one else is allow to copy. The final step in the cycle is to abandon that market in favor of a totally proprietary new system, leaving the installed base with no choice except migration to the new system.

With control of Linux's (and BSD's) software patents, Major Software could probably control most new Linux developments. Because they control the patents, they would always know what Linux developers were going to do. By foot dragging at critical contract signing times, they could make sure that any new Linux feature was always late to Major Software's critical corporate business market, and they would always have a campaign ready to suck the media oxygen away from whatever Linux was going to do to gain that business market.

When selecting between BSD and Linux*, it is only fair to point out that many influential software businesses have a strong interest in continued BSD development, including Apple Computer and its Mac OSX. Therefore BSD developers are less likely to be sued for software patent violations, than are Linux developers. Also the BSD license is less of a threat to software giants like Major Software and Nearly-as-large software. Unlike Linux developers, BSD developers generally dislike GUI's, and don't really want to compete the way Linux developers seem to want.

Centralized control of BSD is a disadvantage in an indirect takeover scenario. Among other things, the BSD community is presently small enough that Major Software could buy up the major BSD development talent, and so control the innovations that BSD produces. If BSD free releases fail to innovate, and Linux development is halted by patent violations, then users must to turn to Major Software and other commercial software monopolies at rising free-market prices.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Taxman/BSD_and_Linux&oldid=23655641"