u-must}@jusme.com   
   -dot-com-i@vm46.home.jusme.com> 660914ec   
   From: ${send-direct-email-to-news1021-at-jusme-dot-com-if-you-must}@jusme.com   
      
   On 2026-01-22, Aharon Robbins  wrote:   
   > In article <10ktbbd$ge1$1@reader2.panix.com>,   
   > Dan Cross  wrote:   
   >>...or you could just run FreeBSD and avoid the whole issue.  Why   
   >>bother with Linux?  What's so special about it that people feel   
   >>_compelled_ to run it?   
   >   
   > I don't use ZFS, so maybe your question is what's so special   
   > about the combination of ZFS and Linux?   
   >   
   > But if you're really asking the general question, I can tell you:   
   >   
   > 1. The user land is usually based on the GNU tools: No arbitrary limits   
   > applies.  I have no idea if there are still fixed limits in   
   > the BSD user land.   
   >   
   > 2. These days, just about *everything* just works, without fuss or muss.   
   >   
   > 	- Install on even fairly new hardware goes smoothly   
   > 	- Installers are usually graphical   
   > 	- One's choice of GUI environments (I use Ubuntu Mate)   
   > 	- Software updates (at least on Ubuntu) work super smoothly   
   > 	- Installing additional software is trivial   
   >   
   > 3. Linux performs quite well, and certainly better than Windows   
   > (yeah, not the comparison).   
   >   
   > I don't remember which BSD I recently tried to bring up in a VM   
   > (maybe FreeBSD) but installation was like jumping back 40 years   
   > in time to the ASCII-art spinning wheel. It didn't even come up   
   > with a GUI, or else it was X with TWM and no menus, or something   
   > ridiculous like that.   
   >   
   > I'll agree. A lot of it is familiarity, but also the fact that I see no   
   > compelling reason to switch.  Why climb a brand new learning curve   
   > just to get to the same point I'm already at?   
   >   
   > I have real work to get done, I don't need to spend weeks learning   
   > how BSD does the same thing I already know how to do.   
   >   
   > 4. The elephant in the room: Everybody else is on Linux, which   
   > means if I want something commercial that only runs on Linux, I   
   > can get it. Not so on *BSD.   
   >   
   > I've been using Linux as my daily driver since mid-1997. It's done   
   > real well for me. Why switch to something that I don't see is   
   > better?   
      
   Yes, Linux is becoming the new Windows - if you want something to   
   "just work", rather than become a project in itself.   
      
   Unfortunately there are still at least two major factions in the   
   Linux world, the debian/Ubuntu-like and the RedHat/Fedora-like,   
   and if your chosen tool was developed by fans of one camp you're   
   on a hiding to nothing trying to use it on the rival distribution.   
      
   Yes, some things really are truly portable, but not everything,   
   and the higher up the functionality-stack you go the less portable   
   it seems to be - understandably.   
      
   Fortunately I have a nice big virtualisation host, so deploying   
   a VM of the appropriate flavour for a tool isn't such a big deal   
   (CentOS, Alpine, Ubuntu, Windows, whatever).   
      
   --   
   Ian   
      
   "Tamahome!!!" - "Miaka!!!"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)