BSD is Unix.. said to be the professional cousin of Linux.
This piece of propoganda for BSD against linux gives as reason that linux is bad for it is told to be just hacked together. This because of the people who develop linux are just people from the community who put a little bit of time in it to get a feature (they probably want) added into Linux and don’t really concern about making it perfect, was said.
They took some of the sarcastic ‘todo’ comments in the kernel as example, blaming that if that stuff is in the kernel linux can’t be trusted at all.
But why does BSD hasn’t got the widespread hardware support Linux has? They blame the big company’s like IBM for instance. I just wonder whether their 60 dedicated BSD programmers could code all the hardware drivers that the thousands of contributers of Linux have coded, even if it were as bad as it is now according to them.
I bet that *BSD has got more than enough of those comments in their code too. If they haven’t they are just hiding the truth and hiding points of improvement, for these TODO’s and FIXME’s are fixed in the end. And even if they get rid of all the TODO’s and FIXME’s before they release any of it they waste a lot of time it could have been used already (less efficiently though.. but it usualy doesn’t make such a big difference).
Well, *BSD isn’t so bad as you supose it is. *BSD has been in development for a much longer time then Linux and Linux actually stole the idea of *BSD. Moreover, *BSD was one of the first OS’s that opened their source code. (open-source)
I don’t suppose BSD is bad, I suppose it isn’t that great as it is deemed to be by the BSD-fanboys. BSD is a good operating system although the main weakness is its lack of hardware support. But for for instance macOS which has been based on BSD like distro’s it suits the needs.