Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Alupis 1734 days ago
> to forget the point is open source, not linux.

For you, perhaps. But for most companies, they use Linux because it's the best server OS around in regards to performance, compatibility, customizability, footprint, support, etc.

Sorry BSD folks, I know BSD is great too, but it's just not as widespread as Linux and therefore doesn't quite have the compatibility and support Linux enjoys.
3 comments
1vuio0pswjnm7 1734 days ago
"... but it's just not as widespread as Linux..."

Of course "BSD" means more than just a kernel. Nevermind all those OSX and iOS users. Companies are interested in more than just the BSD kernels. Many years ago, I remember someone from Google approached NetBSD asking about their libc.

Most "BSD folks" seem to know a lot about Linux. Yet I dont get the same feeling from "Linux folks". I have never learned anything about BSD from "Linux folks", but I have learned various things about Linux from "BSD folks".

NB I use both. I do like Linux.

link
pjmlp 1733 days ago
You missed Playstation as well.
link
1vuio0pswjnm7 1733 days ago
Plus the old AirPort Extreme and some Cradlepoint routers. Plenty of other examples Im omitting.
link
LargoLasskhyfv 1733 days ago
When it's about open source(somehow UNIXy, maybe POSIXy) compatibilty shouldn't matter(much).

Because it one rebuild from source, and it's there.

Ah, yes, forgotten concepts from long before the war

of eternal attrition.

link
gHosts 1734 days ago
The point is it became that _because_ it is open source.
link
Alupis 1734 days ago
> The point is it became that _because_ it is open source.

I still disagree. Most companies happily pay for their server OS's and support (Red Hat, SUSE, Oracle, etc), and don't even think about the open source aspects.

Maybe a long time ago it got traction from being open source, but so is all the BSD's and they aren't nearly as prevalent as Linux is. Something else has to be a factor here besides it being open source.

Perhaps you mean it became that way because open source attracted talented developers? Perhaps... although today most contributions to the kernel are from paid developers working for mega corps like Google, Amazon, IBM, etc, who do that as part of their day job.

As an aside, I love and support open source projects, I just don't think it really matters for Linux (at least anymore). Plenty of folks would happily use it if it were closed source and proprietary - it's that good today.

link
haswell 1734 days ago
> I still disagree. Most companies happily pay for their server OS's and support (Red Hat, SUSE, Oracle, etc), and don't even think about the open source aspects.

This is only partially correct, IMO. I'd argue that both are happening:

1) Companies are willing to pay

2) People in those companies are thinking about open source aspects

The key is that it's not necessarily the same people. The buyer probably doesn't care about open source, and it's not the sysadmin/developer/etc. that worries (or doesn't worry) about the cost.

Companies pay for open source operating systems because they're running a business and need support when things go wrong.

Sysadmins ask for open source operating systems because they do care about the ecosystem and how open source made Linux what it is today.

There's a reason a former employer of mine that ran a mix of AIX, Red Hat and Windows gradually moved more and more towards standardizing on Linux. The AIX boxes where incredibly difficult to manage because of ancient libraries and lack of access to modern versions of common tools. Lack of tools = sysadmin pain, sysadmin pain = someone pushing leadership to buy a better operating system.

At the end of the day, Linux was just simply better. I think a case can be made that it was better because of the open source ecosystem backing it.

link
Annatar 1733 days ago
This just tells me that the person "pushing for a better operating system" didn't have the technical chops to compile, link and cleanly package software for AIX she or he needed, so it's a matter of throwing money at the problem and buying an inferior product (GNU/Linux) because of incompetence. Happens very often and predominantly in IT.

SEE ALSO

"A Brief History of Sadness" chapter

http://dtrace.org/blogs/wesolows/2014/04/10/libsunw_ssl-or-h...

link
haswell 1733 days ago
Why would you conclude that GNU/Linux is the inferior product here? The year was 2009, and the Linux ecosystem was in a very different place.

Technical chops and "the OS has such a poor set of build tools we need a specialist" are two very different things. If you follow this line of reasoning too far, it quickly descends into absurdity: "Buying an operating system just tells me the person didn't have the technical chops to write their own" is something that I'm fairly certain neither of would use as an argument.

If a product is "superior" but is so difficult to use that people abandon it, was it ever superior to begin with?

link
tonyedgecombe 1733 days ago
I'd argue it became that because it is free (as in beer).

People who do things for ideological reasons are always in the fringe and not representative of the whole.

link