Linux/Unix - Why no BSD cert?

Author

Why no BSD cert?

Boulware5

2002-08-07, 8:15 pm

Just wondering: Why hasn't BSD come out with a certification track for their BSD's (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD).

ccieToBe

2002-08-08, 8:13 pm

I wonder the same thing. If there were any BSD certs out there I'd most likely get them. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that even the most popular BSD distribution, FreeBSD isn't as commericalized as a lot of the Linux companies. I don't mean it's not used a lot because there no doubt it's very popular, especially with ISPs. What I mean is that RedHat has a lot of suites while FreeBSD has very few. Still, it seems like some 3rd party should be able to jump in with a cert. At the rate CompTIA's adding new certs I'm sure BSD+ is just around the corner

Bingram

2002-08-20, 10:51 am

I'd think it is a "form and function" issue. BSD and Linux share a common developement path. Biggest difference is Linux was embraced early on by folks looking to make money (not money as is M$ but rather money as in enough to make this a reputable day job money). Red Hat, Mandrake, and SUsE have done some great things for Linux, and will continue to add to the OS, but they are for profit organizations. As such, it is in their interest to have "certified" techs out and about to support and push their product.

The problem early on for BSD had to do with the AT&T source code. The original Berkeley distro from 1978 included a lot of original AT&T Unix. Thus, could not be distributed under the GPL, and therefore companies such as Red Hat would have to pay lisense fees to AT&T if they based their OS on BSD. It wasn't until 1988 that a non-AT&T BSD appeared, and even then lawsuits tagged it until 1994.

So in short two reasons:
1) Red Had, etc. are looking to make money with their product, and following the MS example, promote certification.

2) Red Hat and others picked Linux over BSD in the mid-1990s primarily becuase of legal stability and true GPL GNU portability.

Sponsored Links