Re: [tlug] Linux and Windows {2k|Xp|Vista} Comparison

[<stephen@example.com>]

Scott Robbins writes:

 > To the administrator, the fact that Linux sharply divides
 > kernel and userland while the BSDs integrate them (which is why one has
 > to agree with Mr. Stallman that it should be called Gnu/Linux) can be a
 > good thing or bad thing.  (Although, even with BSDs, if it's simply a
 > matter of adding a driver, one can recompile the kernel without having
 > to update the entire system. )

*hah!*[1]

I'm curious about what you mean by "BSDs integrate kernel and
userland", though.  Are you referring to the fact that development of
kernel and userland are both done in one organization?  But that's
simply not true in modern BSDs, where the great majority of the code
(including the core development tools!) are derived from third party
projects.  AFAIK the desktops (GNOME and KDE) are both available on
the three major free *BSDs, etc.

The FreeBSD ports system and pkgsrc (maintained by NetBSD) provide
most of the same advantages that Gentoo portage does.  You generally
rebuild *less* on a BSD system when you update a single application or
library/interpretative language.


Footnotes: 
[1]  You don't *need* to agree with RMS about that; for one thing,
RMS's original proposal was the abominable "Lignux", an attempt to
*integrate* Linux (the kernel) into a GNU whole.  Even taking his
compromise at face value, the "GNU System" subsumes TeX, perl, X11,
lots of "OEM" BSD code, and so on.  RMS has every right to call that
collection "the GNU System" if he likes; the rest of the world
similarly has the right to add a Linux kernel and call the whole thing
"the Linux OS" if it likes.