主题：【文摘】Torvalds: A Solaris skeptic -- 无双公子

FUDs are not only from enemy, but also friends. :) Being a fan of Linux and Linus Torvalds, I have to defend.

I have followed Linux kenerl development for quiet a few years. I visit LWN.net, kerneltraffic.org and kerneltrap.org daily. I also read messages on the Linux kernel mailing list occasionally. These places are well known as the prime Linux newsrooms. So far, I haven't heard anything terribly negative about Linus. Otherwise he couldn't successfully lead the community for so long.

Personally I think Linus Torvalds is one of the kind that knows what he needs and how to get it. Everyday, around the world, millions of people work for and with Linux. Some are for fun, some are making their livings of it. Not to mention those big names such as IBM, CA, HP, Oracle, etc. Everyone has her own goals and agenda. You can imagine how difficult to have everyone agree on where Linux is going and move the ball forward. Linus has been successful so far. He is well accepted as the leader in the community, not only spiritually, but also technically. His position is irreplacible. And he earned it.

Nobody is perfect. In some rare occasions, Linus did act like a bastard (he once said so publicly). But more often than usual, he was right. And more important, he is always willing to admit it when he was wrong. And it is well known that some *BSD developers are hard to work with.

If you have any solid evidence that shows Linus is an asshole, I'd like to see it. But if all you have are from those "BSD losers" web sites, please save us the time.

As for deciding which is better among Linux and *BSD, it really depends. Linus and his lieutenants have never claimed Linux is better than *BSD. We all know that there isn't such a thing as "the perfect OS that fits all". Linux and *BSD all have their own strengths and weaknesses. If, in YOUR case, FreeBSD works better than Linux, congratulations. You have done your homework and found the right solution to your problem. In the meantime, myself and many many others have found that Linux is more suitable than *BSD for our cases.

Linux has gained serious support and commitment from so many individuls and organizations all over the world. Nobody can afford ignoring Linux now. Not even the once invincible Microsoft. Linux must have something that makes it different from *BSD.

First, it is the license that Linux is released under. The General Public License version 2 protects contributions to the Linux kernel from being taken to benefit a third-party without returning to the community. It also makes sure that Microsoft's infamous "brace and extent" tactic won't work here. That is what *BSD lack. It is one of the reasons that IBM and SGI ported JFS and XFS to Linux but not to *BSD. More and more software are designed and developed on Linux and then ported to *BSD. It used to be the other way around.

Linux supports more architectures than FreeBSD and OpenBSD. It is only behind NetBSD. Linux has better support to hardware components such as Infiniband, Wifi, 10Gb Ethernet.

Linux has established its reputation in performance. It is the No. 1 choice in grids and clusters. As of November 2004, more than half of the top 500 supercomputers in the world run Linux. On the other end of the scalability spectrum, Linux become more and more popular in embedded devices. WindRiver which is a big BSD player and used to be hostile to Linux joined OSDL where Linus works.

One of many projects under the OSDL umbrella is called "Carrier Grade Linux". It represents the highest level of stability requirements because the operating system will be for the telecommunication carriers. Guess who are those working on the specifications? Ericsson, Nokia, Alcatel, Hitachi, etc. Had they not seen Linux as a solid platform, they wouldn't spent the time and money on it.

There are countless reports that people run Linux on all kinds of load for months and even years without a single restart. Stability has never been an issue for Linux. If well tuned, a Linux box is just as stable and secure as any well-tuned *BSD ones. And you wouldn't expect a default installation works for you out of box, would you?

After doing Linux jobs for five years, I switched my job to work on Mac OS X recently, mostly because I believe that Mac OS X will be successful on desktop. Just as Linux will be taking over the server room. By some people, Mac OS X is considered a "beautified" FreeBSD. In that sense, we will both win. :)