[ Note:  You could very well simply substitute the word "NetBSD" for Linux
  in the argument that follows ]

From time to time, a thread in both the comp.os.386bsd.misc and
comp.os.linux.misc groups flares up regarding which operating system is
"better", FreeBSD or Linux.  This generally provokes controversy from
users on both sides, with one group claiming that their OS is "better"
for some reason and the other group claiming that the first group
doesn't know what the heck it's talking about.

Both arguments are a waste of time.

Rather than trying to win a rather questionable debate on relative
(and constantly changing) technical merits, we should be asking ourselves
what both groups are REALLY about and what they represent.  This is
naturally going to be a matter of personal opinion, but I believe even the
most seriously at-odds members would agree that both operating systems
represent a unique and long-awaited opportunity: The ability to run a
fully featured operating system on popular, easily affordable hardware
and for which all source code is freely available.

Those who have been in computing for awhile will remember when the term
`operating system' referred almost exclusively to something provided solely
by the hardware vendor, with very little in the way of alternative options.
It was never EVER given out with source code, and true "wizard" status could
only be achieved by exerting mind-numbing amounts of effort and patience in
digging through forbidden bits of binary data. By comparison, the situation
today seems almost too good to be true!  Certainly, the feeling of achievement
that came from finally ferreting out some esoteric bit of information from
a 4MB printed system dump was high, but I don't think that anyone would argue
that it was hardly the most optimal way of truly getting to know your
operating system! :-)

So now, within a very short space of time, we're almost spoiled for choice in
having machines several times more powerful than the first multi-user VAX
machines and available for under $2000, and we've got not one but SEVERAL
perfectly reasonable free operating systems to chose from.  We are in a
comparative paradise, and what are some of us doing?  *Complaining* about it!
I suppose too much is never enough, eh? :-)

So, my essential point is simply this:  For the first time ever we
have what previous computing generations could only dream about; 
powerful computers at a reasonable prices and a wonderful selection of
things to run on them.  Be happy, read the source code you're so
privileged to now have available (*believe* me!  What I wouldn't have
given, even 5 years ago!) and spend your energy in making constructive
use of it, not in arguing with the guys on the other side of the
fence!

Additionally, it should be said that none of the FreeBSD team has
anything but the highest degree of respect for Linus Torvalds and his
"team" of dedicated volunteers (and we occasional exchange gripe mail
about the huge volume of messages each of us gets as a direct result
of being insane enough to volunteer to do something like this :-).
Our common commitment to the Intel platform also gives us more common
ground (and interests) than one might think and, if anything, it's a pity
that we do not endevor to share more code and effort - ideologically,
at least, I'd say we share pretty similar goals.

As to which is "best", I have only one standard reply: Try them both,
see for yourself, think for yourself.  Both groups have given you
something for free, at considerable personal effort, and the least you
can do is give them the benefit of exerting enough effort to try what
they're offering out before passing judgment (or worse, blindly
accepting someone else's!).

Whichever you run, you're getting a great deal - enjoy!


				Jordan Hubbard