The lack of copyleft makes a difference. We don't have a time machine to go find out how profound the difference is, but it's clearly _some_ difference.
There have also been very important cultural differences. Again you could say that in the absence of Linux maybe there would have been cultural changes in FreeBSD but that would be pure speculation. Historically the BSDs have suffered schism, not once but several times, and the same hasn't happened to Linux. Is it just one man making that difference?
Very fundamentally, Linux is a kernel and the BSDs pride themselves on building whole operating systems. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing doesn't matter for this purpose - it's a mammoth difference.
Posted Aug 19, 2011 14:05 UTC (Fri) by djs_tx (subscriber, #29646)
[Link]
Wow... that is the best single paragraph explaining the key differences between Linux and BSD.
The cohesive development enabled by a benevolent dictator. The licensing difference and the kernel vs. whole OS suite.
David
"everything would've been the same"
Posted Aug 19, 2011 17:04 UTC (Fri) by Wol (guest, #4433)
[Link]
The personality difference is, I believe, crucial.
Not only is Linus a benevolent dictator, he just wants "the kernel to be the best". He has no strong feelings as to what it should do or how it should do it, just that it should do it the best way possible.
Plus, he's a pragmatic engineer. "What's the point of error handling code in unusual situations? If you hit a hardware fault, just crash because there's no guarantee your error handling won't fail too!".
Yeah, I know it's not that simple, but he's happy to make engineering trade-offs, while most of the BSDs aim for mathematical perfection.