Still Linux vs BSD
Mon, 5 May 1997 13:21:01 +0200 (MET DST)
> [Linux having more hardware support]
> FreeBSD is touting "dynamically loadable kernel modules" at runtime (for
> "new file system types" and "binary emulators") and "compatibility modules"
> which they are using primarily for binary compatibility between FreeBSD
> and most of the rest of the Un*x clone universe -- would these be useful
> to us in the beginning or for the LispVM effort? If so, are comparable
> capabilities available in the Linux OSs now?
Linux has had loadable modules for *years* now. It's very stable,
and there are lots of modules hanging around.
You might wanna read the META-FAQ and HOWTO-INDEX from the Linux HOWTO
GPL *helped* Linux grow, whereas BSD license actually prevented BSD grow;
people know that GPL code is not controlled by anyone;
they feel that BSD code can be stolen from them,
and that the original author/RUC gets too much credit for them
to want to hack the code significantly.
There are lots of documents in the GNU documentation
to dispell myths about it, and explain the rights of contributors;
I saw no such disclaimers or explanations in BSD documentation.
Maybe also an issue of knowing who is politically supporting
the software license. Finally, the legalese in the GPL/LGPL
guarantees you that the text would have value in court.
BSD license leaves you without right.
Which did you say was a virus?
All that is not to say anything against the technical quality of BSD...
Quality isn't everything. Proprietary technology killed the LispMs,
as they have been killing NeXT, Amiga, Acorn, Be, Taligent,
and so many other innovative computer products.
I feel like BSD license (or lack thereof) is preventing BSD growth, too.