Pinderkent

For many years now I have been a user of a wide variety of open source software systems. Linux, FreeBSD, and NetBSD have found a place on my home systems, as well as on numerous systems I have set up for various companies and individuals. And since the start of the OpenSolaris project, I have began to consider the use of NexentaOS and SchilliX. While most Linux distribution use the GNU tools and libraries, systems like FreeBSD and NetBSD have their own userland utilities and libraries. Nevertheless, such systems also use or support software like GCC, X.org and KDE.

This brings me to an article I read asking about why we like open source software. The article points out the financial benefits of open source software, in terms of purchasing the software itself. This is no doubt a major factor for many open source users.

The article also talks about the freedom offered by most open source packages. I'm not so sure that this is as important of an aspect. There are many people who will suggest that the various GNU licenses, for instance, are not very "free", in that they place limitations on closing the source code of projects. This is a debate that will likely rage on for years. But I do have to agree with such people to some extent: I much prefer the simplicity and conciseness of BSD-style licenses. But only a subset of open source systems use a BSD-style license, and thus there is much variation in what one can or cannot do with each particular piece of open source software. "Freedom" is not consistent throughout the open source spectrum.

However, the cost of the software has never really been a major factor for me, and like I just mentioned, I don't think freedom is that much of an issue, either. My main reason for using open source software is one of quality. Overall, I've found open source software to often far exceed the capabilities and functionality of many closed source, commercial systems. For instance, I have always been a fan of FreeBSD's stability and reliability. That's why I tend to use it for server deployments. I often recommend the use of Ubuntu to clients, friends and relatives who want an alternative to Windows on their home desktop systems, just because I know it's a quality distribution. In the end, it's a general trend towards maximizing quality that ends up moving me to favour open source software.

I know a number of people who advocate the use of Xubuntu on resource-constrained desktop systems. But there has recently been talk about how the resource usage of Xubuntu is growing at a rapid pace. Along these lines, today I read an article that considers the use of Ubuntu Lite as an alternative to Xubuntu for those with low spec computers. I haven't used Ubuntu Lite myself, but I would like to make a recommendation of an open source UNIX-like system for low-end desktop computers: NetBSD.

A quote from the NetBSD project's home page really makes clear what it is, and what its goals are: NetBSD is a free, secure, and highly portable Unix-like Open Source operating system available for many platforms, from 64-bit Opteron machines and desktop systems to handheld and embedded devices. Its clean design and advanced features make it excellent in both production and research environments, and it is user-supported with complete source. Many applications are easily available through pkgsrc, the NetBSD Packages Collection.

The goals of the NetBSD project result in NetBSD being a very high-quality system. The support for low-end platforms means that care must be taken to ensure that the kernel and userland tools and libraries use a minimal amount of system resources. Furthermore, the focus on supporting modern platforms means that NetBSD offers the capabilities one would expect from a modern UNIX-like system. That's why I think it can be used as an alternative to systems like Xubunt and Ubuntu Lite.

And when we consider its long history, dating back to when PCs were a mere fraction of the power of PCs from even a decade ago, we can see why it'd make a good choice. Compared to a 386 system, even a 300 MHz AMD K6-2 system is a powerhorse. A system like NetBSD, that even today runs suitably on a 386 or 486, is very usable on a more powerful computer. And with people considering a 1 GHz system to be "low-end" today, NetBSD makes an excellent workstation OS for such a computer.

A major feature of Debian and Ubuntu-derived Linux distributions is the extensive and friendly package management. NetBSD is quite comparable in this field. Its packages collection, pkgsrc, is very capable, complete, and up-to-date. It offers virtually all of the open source software one would expect or ever want. Support is included for all of the major open source desktops, including GNOME, KDE and XFCE.

Furthermore, i386 NetBSD offers excellent binary emulation support. This means that if you have a Linux application that is only available in binary form, you likely will be able to run it on NetBSD. In addition, NetBSD also can run binaries from a number of other systems, including x86 FreeBSD and x86 Solaris.

NetBSD is a truly remarkable and versatile system. And for many people, I think it would make a great alternative to lightweight Linux distributions like Xubuntu and Ubuntu Lite. The very philosophy of the project, that being widespread portability, will no doubt go a long way towards ensuring it remains a modern system that consumes minimal resources. If you're currently a user of a minimalistic Linux distribution that you think is beginning to get bloated, maybe you should give NetBSD a try. It may just be exactly what you're looking for.

As most Ubuntu users know, GNOME is the default desktop you'll get once your installation has finished. For many people that is fine and dandy, but there are others, myself included, who prefer other desktops over GNOME. I have a preference towards KDE, so the Kubuntu distribution appealed to me. Others prefer XFCE, and so a distribution like Xubuntu may be what they're looking for.

Kubuntu and Xubuntu both build upon the great foundation that Ubuntu provides. While KDE and XFCE can be quite easily installed on a typical Ubuntu installation, Kubuntu and Xubuntu have put forth effort to better integrate their chosen desktop environments. In spirit, I think this is a great idea. A better-integrated desktop environment does often lead to a better user experience. But like this article about the growing bloat of Xubuntu points out, things aren't perfect.

I think part of the problem is that distributions like Kubuntu and Xubuntu may not have enough to keep the bloat from expanding at an ever-growing rate. There is an incentive to further add well-integrated applications, from a usability standpoint. But likewise, for each default application added, that's additional space taken up on the installation CD or DVD, as well as additional space consumed on the hard drive of the computer it is being installed on.

Now, this often isn't a problem when we come to today's fast systems with ample storage. But it can still be said that a lean, effective operating system is a goal we should aim for. I think that unless one is really willing to put a foot down and say "No more default applications!" bloat will continue to be an issue. It's just a typical slippery slope situation: people will insist that adding just one more package won't hurt anyone. But soon enough things have gone out of control, and what was once a lean distribution has become rather heavyweight.

I like the stance taken by the FreeBSD and NetBSD projects. A minimal system is provided, but it is very easy to install packages after that. The FreeBSD ports system is quite remarkable, as is NetBSD's pkgsrc.

A typical FreeBSD or NetBSD installation will be quite bare. This is a good thing, as it encourages bloat to be minimized. But it is also quite easy to install packages from source or via binaries. So with minimal effort, one is able to create a customized system that only has the software they need. This has allowed me to easily install a FreeBSD setup that perfectly meets my needs, while being only slightly more time-consuming to install than a typical Kubuntu installation. And best of all, the bloat has been minimized. So while I can see why Kubuntu would be appealing, I have to say that I much prefer just using FreeBSD.

I have seen a lot of different network setups in my travels and doings. And what I've seen has made me think about what I read today in an article speculating about the future of Linux. The article considers the idea that Linux is no longer considered a "winner". It talks about what the word "winner" can be taken to mean, but the idea I get from the article is that people don't think of Linux as they did in the past.

When it was first getting popular in the beginning of the middle of the 1990s, many people saw Linux as a savior. Until then, we were pretty limited when it came to what systems we could use on our commodity x86 servers. We could either go with a MS-DOS solution, or a SCO OpenServer or UnixWare solution. There were other systems available, of course, but those were the main ones we were dealing with. Many people would avoid BSD-based systems due to the uncertainty caused by the legal troubles, for instance. So when Linux became available, and it proved to be usable, I know many of us were quite happy. Here we had a powerful UNIX-like system at our disposal, with full source code available to us. Combined with the GNU utilities, we were basically set.

I have to agree, that is not the mindset we have today. Linux has become entrenched in many organizations. It's not really seen as the savior it once was. This is especially true when we consider all of the other developments that have happened since the early and mid 1990s. The major two have been FreeBSD and OpenSolaris.

FreeBSD, and to a lesser extent NetBSD and OpenBSD, offered us all a really great alternative to Linux. BSD/OS was another option, but most people I know just ended up choosing FreeBSD or NetBSD. I know that it can become a heated dispute between the proponents of the *BSDs and the proponents of Linux. But what I found from working in the trenches is that when it comes to servers, I'd rather be running FreeBSD than Linux. This is mainly due to, in my experience, what was higher reliability and performance from FreeBSD. While that has changed somewhat since then, I know several system administrators who much prefer the coherency of FreeBSD to that of the major Linux distributions.

So in my opinion, FreeBSD reduced what was special and unique about Linux. It provided a free, open source x86 operating system suitable for server use. The main reason I think Linux may have remained ahead is media hype and corporate support from industry giants like IBM, as well as better hardware support.

More recently, the creation of the OpenSolaris project has likely had somewhat of an impact as well. Many of us who have worked in the field for years have become very familiar with Sun's Solaris. We know that it is often an excellent platform to use on servers, and it also makes a damn fine workstation OS. With it now being available as open source software, the unique aspects of Linux have further been diminished. I know several administrators who had years of Solaris experience on Sun hardware, and who are now moving their infrastructure from Linux to Solaris on x86 hardware.

At this point, Linux may have lost a lot of what made it unique. It now has to deal with some serious competitors in the form of the BSDs and OpenSolaris. For many situations today, it doesn't matter much which one you choose. In many cases an infrastructure can be built upon any of those systems, and it will likely perform well enough. It becomes more a matter of the experience of the system architects and administrators, and what platform they would prefer to work with. Even then, many are flexible. They know Linux as well as they know FreeBSD or Solaris.

These days, it doesn't surprise me if many people don't see Linux in some glorious light, as many did a decade ago. That is because it has become such an integral part of our toolbox. We know where it can and should be used, and so we use it. Just as we don't think twice about hammering in a nail with a hammer, we don't think twice about using Linux to solve a difficult server task.