Re: Re (2): NetBSD documentation-hackathon from August 10th to August 14th

[jnemeth%victoria.tc.ca@localhost (John Nemeth)]

On Dec 12,  3:32am, Scrap Happy wrote:
} On 7/22/2011 2:24 AM, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote:
} > On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:32:15 -0700, Scrap Happy wrote:
} >>>> One of the great strengths of *BSDs over other OSs is its good
} >>>> documentation
} >>>> and its clear design.
} >>>
} >>> Also there is the hardware universality claim, "Of course it runs
} >>> on NetBSD". Not many contemporary systems run on a Sparc 2.
} >>
} >> I think you'll find that Linux variants run on far more
} >> contemporary *iron*. I suspect this is more important to
} >> the vast majority of users than support for 4m/4c machines,
} >> etc.
} >
} > Indeed; but the key difference here is "variants." Linux (wherever you
} > got it from, e.g. tarballs, git:, ...), doesn't come with a tool chain
} > for cross compilation, image building, documentation (for porting) or
} 
} Of course!  "Linux" is little more than "/netbsd" (or whatever
} the Linux folks call their kernel).

     /vmlinuz typically.

} > even regression tests. People tend to forget that their favorite distros
} > isn't just "Linux" but a bunch of other stuff made around, and that it
} > does not really match other operating systems also labelled as being Linux.
} 
} Yes.  When I try to have a discussion with a client/customer and
} "Linux" comes up (as in, "Why should we use NetBSD?  Why can't we
} just use Linux?"), I rarely encounter anyone who understands how
} *little* "Linux" actually is -- yet how much it will influence the
} (e.g., licensing of their) product!
} 
} Unfortunately, there is no simple, intuitive parallel to draw to
} the PC world that just rolls off your tongue.  Instead, you have
} to try to draw on parallels that migrate into the application
} domain (e.g., "OK, Bob, everyone in your organization runs Windows,
} right?  But, do they all use MSWord for their document preparation
} tool?  Or, do some folks use WordPerfect, FrameMaker, etc.?").
} Most people are savvy enough to realize that these *are* applications
} so the analogy fails to take hold in their mind.  There's nothing
} *big* enough (in that world) to put the issue into proper perspective.

     I typically use an automobile analogy.  I consider the kernel to
be the engine of an operating system.  Linux by itself is useless.  It
would be just like having a car engine sitting in the middle of your
garage floor (it doesn't even have a starter).  The distributions are
the vehicles (every variety from mopeds to Mac trucks; econobox to
luxoboat; manual transmission, automatic transmission; left-hand drive,
right-hand drive; etc., but they all have the same engine).

}-- End of excerpt from Scrap Happy