On Mon, 17 Dec 2007, Josh Paetzel wrote: > A linux distribution is an independantly developed kernel + a bunch of > independantly developed 3rd party userland tools + an independantly > developed package management system + an independantly developed > installer released as an operating system. > > In FreeBSD (and the other BSD projects follow this model as well) the > installer, package management, userland, and kernel are all developed > together by the same project. > > Take for instance the split in development between gnu libc and the > linux kernel. At one point in the past it was a difficult enough > situation that the linux kernel crowd forked gnu libc so they could > maintain their own, and only their inability to keep up with feature > development sent them back to using straight gnu libc. So you end up in > a situation where the linux kernel devs criticize gnu libc and vice > versa...."You got your chocolate in my peanut butter!" and in the > ultimate examples of absurdity the distros provide a fix! (a doesn't > worth with b so x provides a patch) > > That's what I mean by FreeBSD having a coherent development model. Those are the advantages of using FreeBSD instead of Linux? As a user, I don't see how that would help me at all. Why should I care, for example, about the history of glibc in relation to the Linux kernel? I see what you mean about coherence but I don't see why it would matter to me. Mike