Linux vs FreeBSD
Jack Hou
I am choosing between Linux and FreeBSD for my home PC. Can anyone please
tell me the difference between the two? Which one is more stable?
Which one is easier to install and maintain? How many applications
can each operating system run? Is there something that Linux can do
and FreeBSD can't do or vice versa? Any answer is greately
appreciated. Thanks in advance!
Jack
h...@cs.ucla.edu
Joe Sloan
They are both bitchen.
FreeBSD is more well developed, has more things working smoothly.
Linux has attracted more commercial interest.
FreeBSD is more secure.
Linux is a bit easier to learn on.
FreeBSD is more stable.
Linux has more games.
FreeBSD is based on 4.4 BSD
Linux appears to be based on SVR3 with a lot of BSD features.
Running bash & fvwm, it gets really hard to tell them apart sometimes.
I don't think you can lose, whichever one you choose.
--
Joe Sloan | http://dostoevsky.ucr.edu
j...@engr.ucr.edu | College of Engineering
Upgrade to Linux95! | University of California
~
Simon Lai
: In article <489kuu$r...@pelican.cs.ucla.edu>,
: Jack Hou <h...@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
[Question about Linux vs. FreeBSD deleted]
: It depends on whether you perfer BSD to SV. If it
: doesn't matter, I'd choose Linux only because it
: has a bigger base. We have a few PCs' around here
: running FreeBSD (mostly project servers) and trying
: to install freeware on them is usually a pain.
: There's never any FreeBSD platform option to choose
: from when installing so one has to choose a BSDish
: platform and start tweaking.
: Steve
I'm not sure what software you are trying to compile, but I've rarely
had a problem trying to compile software for FreeBSD. Generally if it
comes with GNU configure, I just run that, it configures itself and
compiles without a problem. Some older software can present problems,
but if it's older it generally has support for a BSD-type system
anyhow(?). FreeBSD also has a lot of prebuilt packages, Linux
has a similar system.
Choosing something because "more people have it" is not necessarily
the best way of making a choice. I would choose the tool
that does the job best, whether it be FreeBSD, Linux, etc ... .
Simon
PS I run both FreeBSD and Linux which helps when comparing the two.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Lai | Philospher's Union : "We demand
sj...@broncho.ct.monash.edu.au | rigidly defined areas of doubt
Department of Computer Technology, | and uncertainty!".
Monash University (Caulfield Campus) | Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe
Caulfield 3145, Australia, Earth. | (Douglas Adams)
-------------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
A distributed system is one in which the failure of a computer you didn't
even know existed can render your own computer unusable.
-- Leslie Lamport, CACM, June 1992
Julian Elischer
Joe Sloan <j...@dostoevsky.ucr.edu> wrote:
[1]In article <489kuu$r...@pelican.cs.ucla.edu>,
[1]Jack Hou <h...@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
[2]Hello,
[2]
[2]I am choosing between Linux and FreeBSD for my home PC. Can anyone please
[2]tell me the difference between the two? Which one is more stable?
[2]Which one is easier to install and maintain? How many applications
[2]can each operating system run? Is there something that Linux can do
[2]and FreeBSD can't do or vice versa? Any answer is greately
[2]appreciated. Thanks in advance!
[1]
[1]They are both bitchen.
[1]
[1]FreeBSD is more well developed, has more things working smoothly.
[1]Linux has attracted more commercial interest.
[1]
[1]FreeBSD is more secure.
[1]Linux is a bit easier to learn on.
[1]
[1]FreeBSD is more stable.
[1]Linux has more games.
[1]
[1]FreeBSD is based on 4.4 BSD
[1]Linux appears to be based on SVR3 with a lot of BSD features.
[1]
[1]Running bash & fvwm, it gets really hard to tell them apart sometimes.
[1]
[1]I don't think you can lose, whichever one you choose.
[1]
One thing you didn't mention..
FreeBSD can now run Linux binaries (e.g. doom,, (now with sound too))
but not the other way around
FreeBSD-current can now also read/write linux filesystems
so it's quite possible to run BOTH systems and I think you can even set
things up under FreeBSD to be able to compile and run (not sure
about debug though) Linux binaries..
I believe Linux ELF support for FreeBSD is being worked on at the moment..
+----------------------------------+ ______ _ __
| __--_|\ Julian Elischer | \ U \/ / On assignment
| / \ jul...@tfs.com +------>x USA \ in a very strange
| ( OZ ) 300 lakeside Dr. oakland CA. \___ ___ | country !
+- X_.---._/ USA+(510) 645-3137(wk) \_/ \\ ><DARWIN>
v LL LL
ka...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu
>>
>
> It depends on whether you perfer BSD to SV. If it
> doesn't matter, I'd choose Linux only because it
> has a bigger base. We have a few PCs' around here
> running FreeBSD (mostly project servers) and trying
> to install freeware on them is usually a pain.
> There's never any FreeBSD platform option to choose
> from when installing so one has to choose a BSDish
> platform and start tweaking.
>
>
When it comes to freeware packages, you should check out the
ports collection. There are over 350 ported applications
in the collection (with more being added all the time). Adding
a piece of software can be as simple as
%pkg_add pkg_name
or
%cd /usr/ports/dir/path/to/freeware
%make
%make install
Steven G. Kargl | Phone: 206-685-4677 |
Applied Physics Lab | Fax: 206-543-6785 |
Univ. of Washington |---------------------|
1013 NE 40th St | FreeBSD 2.x-STABLE |
Seattle, WA 98105 |---------------------|
Nate Williams
Larry Daffner <ldaf...@news.eng.convex.com> wrote:
[ Thanks for answering the question, but a bit of confustion arises ]
>2) UNIX model - There are essentially 3 main flavors of UNIX. POSIX,
>BSD and SysV.
Actually, POSIX isn't a flavor but a standard. There are really only 2
flavors, BSD and SysV.
> They're very similar, but they vary slightly, mostly in
>programming models. If you're not going to do any programming, this
>is probably not an issue either. FreeBSD tends toward the BSD model
>where they differ, so if you're familiar with SunOS4.x or some other
>BSD-style UNIX, you might be more comfortable on FreeBSD.
Yep.
> Linux tends towards POSIX, which is more SysV-ish.
Nope, Linux tends towards SysV.
Both FreeBSD and Linux tend towards POSIX, and strive to maintain POSIX
compatability except where it makes no sense. POSIX is just a model, so
saying the Linux is 'flavored' towards POSIX is not necessarily correct.
FWIW - Both DEC's OpenVMS and M$'s WNT are both 'POSIX' systems, and they
don't even have a unix flavor.
>3) Support/development model - FreeBSD is being developed by a more
>closed group.
Not necessarily any more closed. The main 'commits' to the tree are
probably done by as many people as are done in Linux, but the kernel
development isn't (mostly) controlled by one individual in FreeBSD,
unlike Linux by Linus.
>4) User base: from what I can tell, there's a LOT more Linux users out
>there than FreeBSD users. So there's more people out there that might
>be able to help if you run into a problem. Then again, depending on
>how standard your hardware is, it might not be a problem.
Too true, but the tide is shifting. Many 'new' users use Linux, but many
experienced unix and former Linux users have been switching to FreeBSD.
>So, look at which OS answers the questions above for you. Also
>another consideration: Do you have friends who are FreeBSD or Linux
>users? Ask them how they like their systems?
This is the #1 question to answer. Use what other folks are using and
you'll be a lot happier since you'll have someone to help you get
started.
Nate
--
na...@sneezy.sri.com | Research Engineer, SRI Intl. - Montana Operations
na...@trout.sri.MT.net | Loving life in God's country, the great state of
work #: (406) 449-7662 | Montana.
home #: (406) 443-7063 | A fly pole and a 4x4 Chevy truck = Heaven on Earth
BENJAMIN A LINDSTROM
:
: FreeBSD can now run Linux binaries (e.g. doom,, (now with sound too))
: but not the other way around
<frown> I could have swear I saw BSD support under Linux...Because I've
heard people talking about if netscape drops Linux totally they can use
IBCS2 to emulate BSD. Or is the BSDi only?
: FreeBSD-current can now also read/write linux filesystems
: so it's quite possible to run BOTH systems and I think you can even set
: things up under FreeBSD to be able to compile and run (not sure
: about debug though) Linux binaries..
:
<shrug> Linux has the same support..I know people doing the same thing
from Linux to SCO/Interactive. =) So it's still a wash.=)
: I believe Linux ELF support for FreeBSD is being worked on at the moment..
:
ELF is not as grand as it is made out to be right now.=) We are all split
at this moment.=) ELF will take over sooner or later.
The only think I'll say about BSD is the following:
BSD has a stabler development. Since there are not 30 different
versions roaming around of it. Linux might get that way in the future, but
ELF will be the major factor.
Jordan K. Hubbard
stuff to FreeBSD. However, papering over those niggling little
annoyances is what the FreeBSD ports collection (see
http://www.freebsd.org/ports) is all about. It's currently up to 361
ports, in 26 different categories, and requires about 1.5MB of space
compressed. Clearly, we could triple this number (1000 ports being a
reasonable goal) and cover just about every branch of free software
without expanding much beyond 5MB, so I think it's reasonable to say
that rather than curse the darkness, why not light another candle in the
FreeBSD ports collection? :-) We've plenty of room for expansion, and
having a utility expressed as a port also buys you the ability to have a
packaged binary version of it (which can be added or deleted easily) at
no extra cost.
--
Jordan
Chris Mauritz
: That's interesting, since I generally have very little trouble porting
Note, my experience has been that a noticeable portion of the ports
are broken. The pine/pico and tcsh ports come to mind.
This isn't really a complaint, just a point of information. Turns
out there were binaries available in the packages area. I just
prefer to build my own (when it's possible).
Best regards,
Chris
p.s. For future reference, where does one send a port? :)
--
Christopher Mauritz | For info on internet access:
ri...@mordor.com | finger/mail in...@ritz.mordor.com OR
Mordor International | http://www.mordor.com/
201/212/718 internet access | Modem: (201)433-7343,(212)843-3451
Clint Olsen
Chris Mauritz <ri...@ritz.mordor.com> wrote:
>
>Note, my experience has been that a noticeable portion of the ports
>are broken. The pine/pico and tcsh ports come to mind.
>
>This isn't really a complaint, just a point of information. Turns
>out there were binaries available in the packages area. I just
>prefer to build my own (when it's possible).
Here's another point of information :) The lynx port is busted as well.
I find that BSD make is a big pain in the ass. If GNU ever adds the BSD
extensions to make, I will be free from this beast forever. Yes, some of
the ports are plug and pray :)
-Clint
Larry Daffner
>Larry Daffner (ldaf...@news.eng.convex.com) wrote:
>: A good question... It's not a simple one either. Personally, I'm a
>: satisfied Linux user, but I'll do my best to be non-biased. :)
>What CD drive do you use? I'm getting pretty disgruntled myself.
>Better yet, what one is Linus using?
I personally don't use a CD-ROM drive, but there are a hell of a lot
of people out there using all sorts of CD -ROM drives with no trouble.
One thing you've failed to mention in your ranting and raving is
exactly what sort of trouble you're having. Maybe that would help
someone answer your question?
>: 1) Hardware compatibility - Make sure that both OS's support the
>: hardware you have. I haven't looked closely, but I'm sure there's
>: some hardware that linux supports that FreeBSD might not, and vice
>: versa. As long as your hardware is fairly standard, this should be a
>: non-issue. But still definitely worth checking.
>Oh, like the compatibility list is really telling the truth. Can you get
>a Wearnes CDD 110 to work? It's on the list.
I see from the CDROM-howto that the Wearnes CDD-110 is a proprietary
interface and uses the AZT CDROM driver. Did you try compiling your
kernel with AZT CD-ROM support (Or using a kernel that has AZT CDROM
support)? Might you have an IRQ conflict somewhere? Is it recognizing
your CDROM at boot-up? We aren't there, we don't know what you tried.
>: 4) User base: from what I can tell, there's a LOT more Linux users out
>: there than FreeBSD users. So there's more people out there that might
>: be able to help if you run into a problem. Then again, depending on
>: how standard your hardware is, it might not be a problem.
>Or more likely RTFM flame you.
People get pointed to the documentation on sunsite often, yes. That's
because the documentation ANSWERS THEIR QUESTION. How big of a leap
is it, when there's a file called CDROM-Howto to figure out that that
might have some suggestions on how to get a CDROM drive to work? Not
that much, if you ask me. That's when people get told to RTFM.
Newsgroups get awfully cluttered when people ask the FAQ's every 2
days. That's why FAQ lists exist. Or havent you heard of nettiquite?
>: bearing on #4 above. Good luck on your new UNIX! :)
>You said it, not I.
And might I add, for your sake, good luck on the brain.
-Larry
--
Larry Daffner - Software Engineer | email: ldaf...@convex.com |
Convex Computer Corporation | tel: (214)497-4274 / home: (214)380-4382 |
Ray's Rule of Precision:
Measure with a micrometer. Mark with chalk. Cut with an axe.
Orc
>
>I am choosing between Linux and FreeBSD for my home PC.
Ask your technically knowledgable friends which they run. Ask
yourself who you'd rather ask for help when the machine doesn't
work properly, then find out what she's running and use it. FreeBSD
and Linux are close enough to being the same thing so that you won't
notice any difference 99% of the time.
____
david parsons \bi/ o...@pell.chi.il.us
\/
Simon Karpen
From: j...@dostoevsky.ucr.edu (Joe Sloan)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Date: 14 Nov 1995 17:33:07 GMT
Organization: University Of California
Xref: ecsgate comp.os.linux.advocacy:35880 comp.unix.advocacy:13540 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:10904 comp.unix.misc:22464 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:10052
Path: ecsgate!concert!gatech2!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!galaxy.ucr.edu!dostoevsky.ucr.edu!js
Lines: 34
References: <489kuu$r...@pelican.cs.ucla.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dostoevsky.ucr.edu
In article <489kuu$r...@pelican.cs.ucla.edu>,
Jack Hou <h...@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I am choosing between Linux and FreeBSD for my home PC. Can anyone please
>tell me the difference between the two? Which one is more stable?
>Which one is easier to install and maintain? How many applications
>can each operating system run? Is there something that Linux can do
>and FreeBSD can't do or vice versa? Any answer is greately
>appreciated. Thanks in advance!
They are both bitchen.
FreeBSD is more well developed, has more things working smoothly.
Linux has attracted more commercial interest.
Agreed... I use Linux and have not had any crashes, but from what I
understand the part about FreeBSD is especially true with lots of
network traffic
FreeBSD is more secure.
Linux is a bit easier to learn on.
Slackware is not secure, but other distributions can be brought up to c2.
FreeBSD is more stable.
Linux has more games.
Linux definitely has more games, although I despise svgalib. BSD
supposably, again, is much more stable on a network.
FreeBSD is based on 4.4 BSD
Linux appears to be based on SVR3 with a lot of BSD features.
Linux has a code base that was started from scratch. It took some
ideas from both BSD and SVR4 (and some BSD code, particularly network
related) but definitely contains no AT&T code.
Running bash & fvwm, it gets really hard to tell them apart sometimes.
Probably true... however, Linux is much better supported (or so it
seems) with some of the GNU packages.
I don't think you can lose, whichever one you choose.
Agreed, especially compared to that crap called Windows 95
--
Simon Karpen visit my homepage at
kar...@ncssm-server.ncssm.edu http://www.ncssm.edu/~karpens
ro...@ncssm-server.ncssm.edu sysadmin for NCSSM's workstation network
kar...@opus.ncssm.edu
Michael J Hammel
In article <48b7ra$2...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>, sj...@will.ct.monash.edu.au (Simon Lai) writes:
|> Choosing something because "more people have it" is not necessarily
|> the best way of making a choice. I would choose the tool
|> that does the job best, whether it be FreeBSD, Linux, etc ... .
True. If the "mores" were in charge we'd all be using M$ stuff. Thank
<insert favorite deity here> we have freedom of choice.
|> PS I run both FreeBSD and Linux which helps when comparing the two.
True again.
My personal opinion (not speaking for X Inside) is that its about a dead
heat for the two. I got alot of written material that I could read and
experiment with for Linux. For FreeBSD I've had Jordan help keep me pointed
in the right direction. In either case, it wasn't alot of trouble to get
done whatever I needed to do. A little frustrating at times, but these
are computer OS's, not toasters. (Oh, and I didn't start working with
FreeBSD till I got to X Inside, and someone else did the installations for
me, so I don't know how much documentation there is for it.)
From a commercial perspective, having a focal point to bounce questions off of
helps alot. FreeBSD seems to have a central group. Linux doesn't. The
switch from aout to elf on Linux has been a nightmare from the point of view
of commercial support. I'm not convinced ELF is stable (lots of reasons for
that), so I need to keep my aout stuff running. Unfortunately, all the
commercial distributors jumped right to ELF and haven't been all that
concerned with helping customers keep their aout stuff running. Thats fine
for hackers, but its tough on the masses who have jumped on board the Linux
train who just want a running system.
I don't know if FreeBSD has ever had to go through this. It might not be
a big problem if there isn't much support for commercial products (is there?).
If anyone does want commercial products for FreeBSD, please keep the aout/elf
scenario in mind. Try to avoid such things if possible. Please note that
there is a demand for commercial products on Linux (we get a vast majority
of requests for product from Linux users) but that didn't seem to help their
situation (ok, it didn't help *my* situation :-).
Just my 2 cents (ok, a buck and a quarter) worth.
--
Michael J. Hammel@X Inside| Now available: MWM - X Inside's 100% Motif 2.0
mjha...@xinside.com | compatible Runtime, Development and
#include <std/disclaim> | Demonstration kits for Linux and BSDI BSD/OS!
http://www.xinside.com | 1-800-XINSIDE/1-303-298-7478
Ravi Krishna Swamy
Are you just trying to install Linux or trying to get your CD-ROM drive
to work while in Linux? If you still have msdog on the machine, then
copy all of the files to the dos partition and install from there.
I originally got Linux via floppy, but copied it to the dos partition
and installed from there. Quite fast after the floppy transfer.
Ravi
--
Ravi K. Swamy http://www4.ncsu.edu/eos/users/r/rkswamy/www/
rks...@eos.ncsu.edu ro...@genom.com
Orc
Nate Williams <na...@sneezy.sri.com> wrote:
>In article <48ajue$3...@muirwood.convex.com>,
>Larry Daffner <ldaf...@news.eng.convex.com> wrote:
>>4) User base: from what I can tell, there's a LOT more Linux users out
>>there than FreeBSD users. So there's more people out there that might
>>be able to help if you run into a problem. Then again, depending on
>>how standard your hardware is, it might not be a problem.
>
>Too true, but the tide is shifting. Many 'new' users use Linux, but many
>experienced unix and former Linux users have been switching to FreeBSD.
Hmm. That's an interesting observation; how are you measuring
this tide, anyways?
____
david parsons \bi/ And isn't it better to get the warm bodies away
\/ from DOS and its ilk?
Michael L. VanLoon
Last I checked, gnu make built and ran on NetBSD and FreeBSD.
Not that I have ever use it...
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Michael L. VanLoon mich...@HeadCandy.com
--< Free your mind and your machine -- NetBSD free un*x >--
NetBSD working ports: 386+PC, Mac 68k, Amiga, HP300, Sun3, Sun4,
DEC PMAX (MIPS), DEC Alpha, PC532
NetBSD ports in progress: VAX, Atari 68k, others...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Matt Thomas
In article <48d7hu$a...@tribune.mayo.edu>, jim williams <jwil...@mayo.edu> writes:
|>Does freebsd have token ring support?
Not yet (he says while looking at his SMC 8115T programming info).
--
Matt Thomas Internet: ma...@lkg.dec.com
3am Software Foundry WWW URL: <pending>
Westford, MA Disclaimer: Digital disavows all knowledge
of this message
J Wunsch
>Note, my experience has been that a noticeable portion of the ports
>are broken. The pine/pico and tcsh ports come to mind.
Dunno about pine, but where has tcsh been broken? I've compiled my
own version some time ago in order to replace the buggy binary that
was on the 2.0.5 CD. (This was the tcsh version that took forever to
start on a machine with a slow network connection.)
>p.s. For future reference, where does one send a port? :)
If it's just a fix for an existing port, better yet use send-pr(1).
--
cheers, J"org
joerg_...@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Kazimir Kylheku
>In article <489kuu$r...@pelican.cs.ucla.edu>,
>Jack Hou <h...@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
>>Hello,
>>
>>I am choosing between Linux and FreeBSD for my home PC.
>
>yourself who you'd rather ask for help when the machine doesn't
>work properly, then find out what she's running and use it. FreeBSD
>and Linux are close enough to being the same thing so that you won't
>notice any difference 99% of the time.
I can't even believe that there are FreeBSD vs. Linux threads. Duh.
This is one of those rare times when I have to put purely UNIX postings
into a kill filter.
--
I have taken all the Gates out of my computer, and it still works!
BENJAMIN A LINDSTROM
It's good every once in a while to step back from your OS (or try as the
case maybe with some people =) and see what others support that you don't.
This thread could EASIABLE Linux vs Windows or Linux vs Mac (note I
have seen a few of these. =). No matter how much people don't want to
admit it. We have to pull our heads out of the sand once in a while to
catch a new coming idea.
Matthew Jason White
FreeBSD by Michael L. VanLoon@MindB
>
> Not that I have ever use it...
I use gnu make all the time, no problems. I have found that some of the
FreeBSD ports want gmake to compile, which I don't consider to be a big
deal.
As a matter of fact, now that I think about it, I don't think a port has
*ever* failed to compile for me with gmake...(of course the kernel won't
compile under gmake, but I guess that's life)
-Matt
Clint Olsen
Michael L. VanLoon <mich...@MindBender.HeadCandy.com> wrote:
>In article <48dnoj$5...@nntp5.u.washington.edu> ols...@kodiak.ee.washington.edu (Clint Olsen) writes:
>
> In article <DI37q...@ritz.mordor.com>,
>
> >Note, my experience has been that a noticeable portion of the ports
> >are broken. The pine/pico and tcsh ports come to mind.
> >out there were binaries available in the packages area. I just
> >prefer to build my own (when it's possible).
>
> Here's another point of information :) The lynx port is busted as well.
> I find that BSD make is a big pain in the ass. If GNU ever adds the BSD
> extensions to make, I will be free from this beast forever. Yes, some of
> the ports are plug and pray :)
>
>
>Not that I have ever use it...
Yeah, so phase out BSD make so we don't have to have two versions of
make on our systems. It makes compiling the ports a real bitch when you
have to switch between the two (as in the case of lynx). "You can
compile this, but you have to switch to the _other_ make to do _this_".
Fooey...
-Clint
Matthew Cummings
kar...@sauron.ncssm.edu (Simon Karpen) writes:
>Slackware is not secure, but other distributions can be brought up to c2.
I have seen nothing on c2 for these other distributions, can you tell me
where and what would be needed for c2 security.
--
Internet: cumm...@stingray.net
MICHAEL
I have also found this to be very true. If people remember, I was having
great problems with "kernel panics" in Linux. They were happening
regularly, causing the entire system to stop.
Then I erased Linux from my system and installed FreeBSD 2.05 from the
Walnut Creek CD-ROM and my system has been run non-stop for months now,
without a single problem.
I highly recommend FreeBSD.
MICHAEL __________________________________________
GNJ Spectrum Tokyo +81-3-5377-2401 ï½¥ mic...@gnj.or.jp
Featuring Internet, OneNet and Pride International Networks
IP Address 202.243.53.3, Port 3004
Jordan K. Hubbard
that BSD make does. It's easy to think that there would be room for
only one make if all makes were created equal, but they're not. If we
ever came up with a make that combined the best features of both, I'd be
interested. For now, bmake has the ability to create macro files and
such that don't look like the forest of spaghetti that GNU make macro
files look like. GNU make is the wider used, due to its easy
portability to multiple platforms. Combine, perhaps. Throw one away?
Hah, in your dreams!
--
Jordan
Ragnar
> Julian Elischer (jul...@mailhub.tfs.com) wrote:
> :
> : FreeBSD can now run Linux binaries (e.g. doom,, (now with sound too))
> : but not the other way around
> :
> <frown> I could have swear I saw BSD support under Linux...Because I've
> heard people talking about if netscape drops Linux totally they can use
> IBCS2 to emulate BSD. Or is the BSDi only?
Linus can run FreeBSD binaries (the newer kernels), and the latest
FreeBSD has linux binary support (not ELF binary). You did see it. I am
using freebsd (started usning unix on sunos 4.x) and prefer BSD style
unix, but linux is getting to be a very stable and GOOD os. I still
prefer BSD due to my intro to unix (hate solaris, but have to deal with
it), but linux is a good SysV style for PC's, if that's what you like.
Jamie
If Zeno's paradox is true, then how did he get halfway there in the first
place?
Evan Leibovitch
Kazimir Kylheku <c2a...@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
>I can't even believe that there are FreeBSD vs. Linux threads. Duh.
In all honesty, though, this has probably been the most civilized
computer-religion thread I have seen in a long, long time. I've
certainly encountered more light than heat in it.
--
Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
SCO & Novell Unix Master Reseller / ev...@telly.org / (905) 452-0504
There are two types of people: those who divide people into two types,
and those who don't.
Peter da Silva
Byron A Jeff <by...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> [ As you folks probably know Max has been whining, bitching, and
> complaining about Linux for weeks now. This particular post is the
> last straw for me. Excuse me while I let him have it. BAJ ]
No problem. Pop over to alt.sysadmin.recovery and let off some steam...
and raise a toast to the BOFH while you're about it...
--
Peter da Silva (NIC: PJD2) `-_-' 1601 Industrial Boulevard
Bailey Network Management 'U` Sugar Land, TX 77487-5013
+1 713 274 5180 "Har du kramat din varg idag?" USA
Bailey pays for my technical expertise. My opinions probably scare them
Martin Ibert
2) UNIX model - There are essentially 3 main flavors of UNIX. POSIX,
BSD and SysV. They're very similar, but they vary slightly, mostly in
programming models. If you're not going to do any programming, this
is probably not an issue either. FreeBSD tends toward the BSD model
where they differ, so if you're familiar with SunOS4.x or some other
BSD-style UNIX, you might be more comfortable on FreeBSD. Linux tends
towards POSIX, which is more SysV-ish. So if you've been working on
SunOs 5.x (Solaris 2) or HP-UX, you'd probably be slightly more
comfortable with Linux. Again, if you're not programming, this is
probably a non-issue.
Hmmm. Personally, I've found that Linux leans more the BSD way when
there are differences. That may be because I'm pretty much used to do
things the POSIX way (if there is one), and that works well on all
contemporary UN*Xiods. But with pseudo TTYs, for example, Linux is as
vanilla BSD as they come.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dipl.-Inform. Martin Ibert, BB-DATA GmbH, Brunnenstraße 111, D-13355 Berlin
>> e-mail <m...@bb-data.de>, phone +49-30-245-56582, fax +49-30-245-56577 <<
Lau
Mad Max <poul...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Byron A Jeff (by...@cc.gatech.edu) wrote:
>
>: Max you keep whining and bitching about the CDROM drive. If you're having
>
>[rest of flame snipped]
>
>Ben Franklin said it best, fuckhead:
>
>"If it sounds too good to be true, it is"
>
>CLUE: I did get one of my CD drives to be seen by Linux, but Slackware
>ver.3 is also fxxked. I have already realised that there is no technical
>support for Linux.
>
>Why we dissatisfied users seem so rare is simple: I'm the only one
>willing to speak up, becuse you fxxkheads are so happy to flame. This
>flame was written on a CRIPPLED Linux box.
So what you're saying is that Linux shouldn't support your drive at all,
that way, you won't have *anything* to whine about right!
"Here's a free loaf of bread."
"What!! It isn't sliced... I want mine sliced... Hey, this is whole
wheat! I want plain white! Where's the butter!!"
You're not in a restaurant, you are *NOT* being served. If you want to
be *SERVED*, go shell out the $$$$ for $CO or Micro$oft. Better yet,
find a local TLUG group and offer $$ for some high-school/college hacker
to fix it for you.
Kin Lau
Mad Max
Byron A Jeff (by...@cc.gatech.edu) wrote:
: Max you keep whining and bitching about the CDROM drive. If you're having
[rest of flame snipped]
Ben Franklin said it best, fuckhead:
"If it sounds too good to be true, it is"
CLUE: I did get one of my CD drives to be seen by Linux, but Slackware
ver.3 is also fucked. I have already realised that there is no technical
support for Linux.
Why we dissatisfied users seem so rare is simple: I'm the only one
willing to speak up, becuse you fuckheads are so happy to flame. This
flame was written on a CRIPPLED Linux box.
--
"When I collect two solar masses of AOL Disks, I will use them to detonate
the Sun" Web Page URL: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/po/poulosio/poulosio.html
Mad Max, LT, TRES Corps, Kappa. Shut the immigration inlet valve NOW!
3 trolls have been slain by my Aussie Accent(tm)
Golan Klinger
>In all honesty, though, this has probably been the most civilized
>computer-religion thread I have seen in a long, long time. I've
>certainly encountered more light than heat in it.
I apologize for making a me-too followup but Evan, your call is
right on the money. All the posts were level headed and far more signal
than noise. Pinch me, I must be dreaming.
> Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
I've been to Brampton Evan, maybe I'm just not seeing it. Bah,
what do I know? I'm from crappy downtown Toronto, Ontario. <grin>
--
Golan Klinger [fa...@io.org] For long you live and high you fly
And smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
Good, fast or cheap. And all you touch and all you see
Pick two... Is all your life will ever be
Mad Max
Lau (ga...@io.org) wrote:
: So what you're saying is that Linux shouldn't support your drive at all,
: that way, you won't have *anything* to whine about right!
No. If it's on the "compatibility list" it's supported, right? Well, I
found out that when one person somewhere manages to make something work
once, it's deemed "compatible".
: "Here's a free loaf of bread."
: "What!! It isn't sliced... I want mine sliced... Hey, this is whole
: wheat! I want plain white! Where's the butter!!"
: You're not in a restaurant, you are *NOT* being served. If you want to
: be *SERVED*, go shell out the $$$$ for $CO or Micro$oft. Better yet,
: find a local TLUG group and offer $$ for some high-school/college hacker
: to fix it for you.
I BOUGHT the CDs. I did not get them free. If I were FTPing it, you would
have a point in your ranting about my ranting. Have you ever heard of
dissatisfied users? You should fdlame the rogue manufacturers that
produce fucked up CDs, not the victims of their marketing.
Fuck off.
--
"When I collect two solar masses of AOL Disks, I will use them to detonate
the Sun" Web Page URL: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/po/poulosio/poulosio.html
Mad Max, LT, TRES Corps, Kappa. Shut the immigration inlet valve NOW!
Linux: You get what you pay for.
Craig Shrimpton
>
>They are both bitchen.
>
My sentiments exactly!
I really think you need both if you want to run an ISP. FreeBSD for your
network gateway/router and news server. Linux for your FTP/Web/Shell machine.
I think FreeBSD excels in fast networking and I/O activity but I think it
makes a terrible Web server or shell machine. Linux is more suitable for
interactive type work but blows as a network router.
If all you want is a home Unix PC, either is fine but Linux is probably easier
for a newbie.
Craig
===================================================================
Shrimpton Consulting Orbit Systems
Craig Shrimpton Email: cra...@os.com
17 Monroe Avenue Phone: (508) 753-8776
Worcester, MA 01602 http://www.os.com/
J Wunsch
> I BOUGHT the CDs. I did not get them free.
The sue your CD vendor. Good luck.
John S. Dyson
Jordan K. Hubbard <j...@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>Craig Shrimpton wrote:
>>
>> In article <48ajsj$f...@galaxy.ucr.edu>,
>>
>> >
>> >They are both bitchen.
>> >
>> makes a terrible Web server or shell machine. Linux is more suitable for
>> interactive type work but blows as a network router.
>
>--
Web servers require quick TCP connect times, disk reads and (given use of cgi
scripts) fork/exec times. FreeBSD is very good at each. The key is (as in
any system with SVR4/SunOS style shared libs) to build frequently executed
programs static. My measurements have shown that FreeBSD is on par with Linux
for fork/exec when both systems use shared libs (FreeBSD-SunOS, Linux-SVR3), and
is faster than Linux for fork/exec when both systems do not. Note that I
would expect that Linux-SunOS (ELF) would be even slower. There are some
very impressively (big, not just 10K-100K hits/day) large Web sites
that use FreeBSD -- very effectively.
Also, except under certain circumstances, FreeBSD has very smooth
performance (and has had for quite a long time) when using X-windows in
an interactive environment. Some changes were made in '94 (a long time ago)
to fix the BSD scheduling algorithm especially in the area of interactive
response.
FWIW,
Gary Kline
> In article <poulosioD...@netcom.com>,
> Mad Max <poul...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >: Max you keep whining and bitching about the CDROM drive. If you're having
> >
Altho I've been a uNix booster for umpteen years, I'm
relatively new to the cheap or free versions. From
what I've seen of FreeBSD, it is as solid as anything
out there, commercialware or freeware. Hopefully,
Linux and *BSD will merge---at least in part. For now,
both versions are useful. Especially if you are willing
to get into the code.
As far as drives are concerned, go SCSI. I've got
a SCSI tape, CDROM, and hard drive. Works perfectly.
--
Gary Kline | kl...@eskimo.com | kl...@tao.thought.org
Timothy Murphy
>CLUE: I did get one of my CD drives to be seen by Linux, but Slackware
>ver.3 is also fucked.
I've been using Slackware 3.0 continually since it came out,
and I have had absolutely no problems.
If you stopped using bad language,
and tried to explain your difficulty in rational terms,
you would probably find there is a simple solution.
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: t...@maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
Joe Sloan
>
> Altho I've been a uNix booster for umpteen years, I'm
> relatively new to the cheap or free versions. From
> what I've seen of FreeBSD, it is as solid as anything
> out there, commercialware or freeware. Hopefully,
> Linux and *BSD will merge---at least in part. For now,
> both versions are useful. Especially if you are willing
> to get into the code.
Interesting you should say that - I recently learned of the Linux
emulator for FreeBSD, as well as the planned ext2fs support - I also
hear rumors of ufs support for Linux. Linux & FreeBSD already use much
of the same software, e.g. the gnu toolset, XFree86, Voxware sound drivers...
Then again, the FreeBSD and Linux kernels are 2 very different designs.
> As far as drives are concerned, go SCSI. I've got
> a SCSI tape, CDROM, and hard drive. Works perfectly.
Good advice -
--
Joe Sloan | http://dostoevsky.ucr.edu
j...@engr.ucr.edu | College of Engineering
Upgrade to Linux95! | University of California
~
Matthew Vandergrift
j...@dostoevsky.ucr.edu (Joe Sloan) writes:
>Interesting you should say that - I recently learned of the Linux
>emulator for FreeBSD, as well as the planned ext2fs support - I also
>hear rumors of ufs support for Linux. Linux & FreeBSD already use much
>of the same software, e.g. the gnu toolset, XFree86, Voxware sound drivers...
Then again, we run GNUs toolsets on our SunOS machines and IRIX based SGIs
too ;). Seems like the GNU products are more effiecient, have less limits,
and still cost a whole lot less :).
- Matt
Christian Henry
>have a point in your ranting about my ranting. Have you ever heard of
>dissatisfied users? You should fdlame the rogue manufacturers that
>produce fucked up CDs, not the victims of their marketing.
(What I'm about to say doesn't relate to just the article I'm responding to;
it relates to your comments throughout this entire thread.)
Just out of curiousity, what exactly do you feel is the correlation (sp?)
between the Linux in general and the distribution you're using? Have you
tried a distribution other than Slackware in order to see if your difficulties
are, in fact, due to a bug in Linux? Also, if you're having problems with the
_distribution_ you purchased a copy of, I fail to see the point in blaming the
entire Linux community. :-)
I feel the following example illustrates a somewhat applicable parallel of
your faulty logic:
A small percentage of the American population cannot find the United States
of America on an unlabeled world map. Therefore, if I were to talk to a
randomly-picked American, I would have to assume that he or she _also_ cannot
find the USA on an unlabeled world map. After all, since I know that a
portion of the country behaves this way, the _entire_ country must. Right?
(Disclaimer: In no way do I believe that this conclusion holds any truth
whatsoever.)
Peter da Silva
Depends on what you mean by "supported".
By your definition of "supported" it seems that NO free software would
satisfy you.
> I BOUGHT the CDs. I did not get them free.
You bought them from the developers? Funny, I thought the CDs were sold by
third parties. All you buy when you buy a CD with freely distributable
software on it is the convenience of not having to FTP it.
> Linux: You get what you pay for.
No doubt. FreeBSD too. The funny thing is, with NT you don't even get that
much...
BENJAMIN A LINDSTROM
:
: Byron A Jeff (by...@cc.gatech.edu) wrote:
:
: : Max you keep whining and bitching about the CDROM drive. If you're having
: [rest of flame snipped]
:
: Ben Franklin said it best, fuckhead:
:
: "If it sounds too good to be true, it is"
: CLUE: I did get one of my CD drives to be seen by Linux, but Slackware
: ver.3 is also fucked. I have already realised that there is no technical
:
: Why we dissatisfied users seem so rare is simple: I'm the only one
: willing to speak up, becuse you fuckheads are so happy to flame. This
: flame was written on a CRIPPLED Linux box.
<weak grin> Sorry...I KNEW from past 2.x experience that 3.0 would be
really fubared. =)
BTW, Linux != Slackware...Try 2.3 or RedHat 2.0 or Debian.
Or build your own.=) That is what people told me in 2.1 days...=)
(of slackware)
E. Eli Boaz
: In article <48ajsj$f...@galaxy.ucr.edu>,
: >
: >They are both bitchen.
: My sentiments exactly!
: I really think you need both if you want to run an ISP. FreeBSD for your
: network gateway/router and news server. Linux for your FTP/Web/Shell
: machine.
: interactive type work but blows as a network router.
From my experience, FreeBSD will work much better as a gateway/router (as
you said), but it is also much better than Linux when it comes to Web. The
reason? One of the newest NCSA servers (no flames, please) does use sema-
phores to help increase the response time from the "web server." That is,
it will launch N copies of the server, where Linux (because of weird
kernel IPC) has to fork a new process for each new http connection, which
takes time. Linux is most definitely better for a FTP/Shell machine if the
useage is going to be light (ie. <16 users on 64Mb P100 each running trn, etc.)
but FreeBSD would be better if the usage is going to be heavy.
: If all you want is a home Unix PC, either is fine but Linux is probably
: easier for a newbie.
Not necessarily easier, better. Linux is MUCH, MUCH faster than FreeBSD for
a SINGLE user machine. FreeBSD tends to respond faster to things like network
I/O and disk I/O faster than Linux, but Linux tends to respond more to 'user'
visible processes...
ttyl,
--
E. Eli Boaz e...@mail.pernet.net
PERnet Communications, Inc. 1.409.729.4638 (voice) 1.409.727.3019 (fax)
#include <std-disclaimer.h> System and Network Administrator/Programmer
"I could be chasing an untamed ornithoid without cause." - Data, ST:TNG
Mad Max
Joel Garry (joe...@rossinc.com) wrote:
: Nettiquite (SIC) is worse than useless in this Brave Newbie World. If
: you disagree with me, read the misc.jobs faq, then try to apply it to
: misc.jobs.misc. Good luck.
Sheesh! How about the flamers of RTFM flamers? If you want newbies to
flame, just look for AOLamers in alt.sex.* !
--
"When I collect two solar masses of AOL Disks, I will use them to detonate
the Sun" Web Page URL: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/po/poulosio/poulosio.html
The Surgeon General Has Determined That MS-DOG is More Addictive Than
Nicotine.
Michael L. VanLoon
Not necessarily easier, better. Linux is MUCH, MUCH faster than
FreeBSD for a SINGLE user machine. FreeBSD tends to respond faster
to things like network I/O and disk I/O faster than Linux, but
Linux tends to respond more to 'user' visible processes...
I would like to know where you find data to support such questionable
hypotheses.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Michael L. VanLoon mich...@HeadCandy.com
--< Free your mind and your machine -- NetBSD free un*x >--
NetBSD working ports: 386+PC, Mac 68k, Amiga, HP300, Sun3, Sun4,
DEC PMAX (MIPS), DEC Alpha, PC532
NetBSD ports in progress: VAX, Atari 68k, others...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Joel Garry
>People get pointed to the documentation on sunsite often, yes. That's
>because the documentation ANSWERS THEIR QUESTION. How big of a leap
>is it, when there's a file called CDROM-Howto to figure out that that
>might have some suggestions on how to get a CDROM drive to work? Not
>that much, if you ask me. That's when people get told to RTFM.
>Newsgroups get awfully cluttered when people ask the FAQ's every 2
>days. That's why FAQ lists exist. Or havent you heard of nettiquite?
Nettiquite (SIC) is worse than useless in this Brave Newbie World. If
you disagree with me, read the misc.jobs faq, then try to apply it to
misc.jobs.misc. Good luck.
>
>Larry Daffner - Software Engineer | email: ldaf...@convex.com |
It only worked when everyone was a Software Engineer - and not always
then.
>Convex Computer Corporation | tel: (214)497-4274 / home: (214)380-4382 |
> Ray's Rule of Precision:
> Measure with a micrometer. Mark with chalk. Cut with an axe.
Be careful with that ax, Eugene. :)
--
Joel Garry joe...@rossinc.com Compuserve 70661,1534
These are my opinions, not necessarily those of Ross Systems, Inc. <> <>
%DCL-W-SOFTONEDGEDONTPUSH, Software On Edge - Don't Push. \ V /
panic: ifree: freeing free inodes... O
Butler Gerald E
prefer, insult and counter-insult ) and felt I absolutely had to comment.
As a relatively new Linux user I have had my difficulties setting up
and configuring Linux. Not only am I new to Linux, but also new to UNIX. My
distribution of Linux came on a 4 CD-ROM set from Infomagic. Over the last
3 1/2 months I've managed, with a little sweat and elbow grease, to install
Linux on my home machine, get X-windows running ( on a Diamond video card )
and use the gcc compilers for various projects for school. My experience with
Linux has been nothing short of an incredibly educational and challenging
hobby/job. I would urge anyone using Linux for the first time to not
immediately expect Linux to be viable for your needs, but, to learn from
it.
Recently, ( in the last few days ), I was able to set up a Linux
box at work on our ethernet to act as a Nameserver, Mailserver and SLIP
server. Also, I've integrated all of this alongside Novell 4.1 with TCP/IP
2.1. In doing so I was able to save Kent State Universities department of
Residence Services over $20,000 on their cost estimates for turning the
office LAN into a Class-C subnet on the Universities NEW fiber-optic back-
bone. As a student employee, the experience will be a great assest to my
resume when I graduate. My appreciation goes out to the entire Linux
community, to which I am looking forward to becoming an active participant
in.
The point of all of this is : Don't waste your time replying and/or
flaming the likes of this unappreciative, vulgar, and probably untalented
individual. LINUX is a great operating system, and will only continue to
get better.
Well that's just my 2 cents.
Thanks,
Gerald Butler
gbu...@res.kent.edu.
Timothy Murphy (t...@maths.tcd.ie) wrote:
: poul...@netcom.com (Mad Max) writes:
: >CLUE: I did get one of my CD drives to be seen by Linux, but Slackware
: >ver.3 is also fucked.
: I've been using Slackware 3.0 continually since it came out,
robertson jason vict
>Mad Max (poul...@netcom.com) wrote:
>:
>: Byron A Jeff (by...@cc.gatech.edu) wrote:
>:
>: : Max you keep whining and bitching about the CDROM drive. If you're having
>:
>: [rest of flame snipped]
>:
>: Ben Franklin said it best, fuckhead:
>:
>: "If it sounds too good to be true, it is"
>:
>: support for Linux.
>:
>: Why we dissatisfied users seem so rare is simple: I'm the only one
>: willing to speak up, becuse you fuckheads are so happy to flame. This
>: flame was written on a CRIPPLED Linux box.
>:
>
><weak grin> Sorry...I KNEW from past 2.x experience that 3.0 would be
>really fubared. =)
>BTW, Linux != Slackware...Try 2.3 or RedHat 2.0 or Debian.
>
>Or build your own.=) That is what people told me in 2.1 days...=)
>(of slackware)
There's nothing wrong with Slackware that can't be easily fixed. The original
poster (the whining guy) just doesn't know what the hell he's doing. There's
nothing wrong with that, but he should stick to Windows 3.11 (Windows 95, while
simple, would probably tax his limited abilities).
--
Buh?
PGP: finger jrob...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu
email: jrob...@uiuc.edu [MIME/PGP accepted]
Craig Bergren
get some insight into the design differences that distinguish FreeBSD
from Linux. Unfortunately this discourse has rapidly degenerated into
noise.
Before I decided to run Linux, I was also considering FreeBSD, but I
couldn't find enough information about it to have a good idea of what
I might be getting myself into. I'm still interested in some reasons
why I might want to run FreeBSD instead of Linux.
Is there any way to bring this discussion back to a comparison of the
differences between Linux and FreeBSD that might make one choose one
over the other?
I decided to run Linux for these reasons; none are very technical. It
all boils down to a support issue for me:
1) There was a book with a CD ROM in Barnes and Nobel that I could buy
on impulse. There were no such books on FreeBSD, nor CD ROMS.
2) There was tons of traffic on the Linux usenet news groups. For the
most part the discussion seemed to have a high signal to noise ratio.
This was in August before all the undergraduate riff-raff came back
to school.
3) The FreeBSD news groups appeared disearted.
4) Reading the Linux news groups I got a good idea of what hardware
was supported (before I bought my new Micron).
5) The information I could get from web pages from Caldera, Red Hat,
Info Magic,Pacific HiTech and the Linux Documentation Project gave
me a good enough feel for what Linux is and is not for me to feel
comfortable purchasing a CDROM in a bookstore.
Why am I still running Linux?
1) There was plenty of help on usenet and the web for me to know enough
to dump the SAMS CDROM and book (it was really old and not too useful
for such a thick book), and purchase one from InfoMagic (4CD set).
At the time, it was the only one I could find on-line that had
XFree86-3.1.2, which I needed to get my Diamond Stealth 64 Video
VRAM PCI card to work with X.
The RedHat distribution on the set was an added bonus that
I didn't even expect. The Slackware on the set didn't work very
well, Red Hat made re-install of Linux easy.
2) All the good help I was able to get from people in the comp.os.linux
news hierarchy. Thanks guys and gals.
CB
FRANK JUDE WOJCIK
tried installing it but couldn't get past the bootdisk. It is my belief (and
someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that FreeBSD is the whole distribution.
(as opposed to Linux, which is just the kernel).
Clint Olsen (ols...@kodiak.ee.washington.edu) wrote:
: I would like to dedicate this to "Why are we no longer running Linux?"
: 1) At the time of Linux's rise to fame, Slackware was the big
: distribution. It took us a lot of struggling to figure this out. SLS
: sucked. With FreeBSD, this is not a problem. One distribution, no
: ambiguity, no sweat.
Well, that's just an inherent difference between the two. Linux proper is
just the kernel. The way I look at it, I have more options with linux.
In my mind it's a plus to be able to upgrade any individual part of my
installation w/o affecting anything else.
: Most importantly, Slackware releases rearely synced with stable
: releases of the kernel!!! Separate distributions from the kernel
: caused us no end of grief.
I fail to understand why getting and compiling new kernel sources is a
problem. True, installing a new kernel requires a reboot, but...
: 2) At the time of Linux 1.0.9, console hangs were prevelant, causing
: grief for users. The only solution was to upgrade, but there was
: only so far we could upgrade w/o installing a totally new Slackware and
: going through the same grief (ELF).
Hm. It's my recollection that you could upgrade pretty far (kernel wise) w/o
any of the utilities breaking.
: 3) Linux NFS performance sucked. The only way to fix this was to go to
: a 1.3.X kernel (apparently), and we were not interested in screwing
: around with alpha kernels or upgrading daily.
So don't. Pick a kernel you like and go with it. There's no need to
always get the latest kernel. You can ask on newsgroups for people's
reccomendations/experiences with various kernel releases...
: 4) In general, Linux networking was unreliable with slow connections.
Well, I don't think that anyone will argue that FreeBSD's networking code is
more robust that Linux's. For now. :)
: 5) Linux does not seem to have an up-to-date kernel blurb page explaining
: enhancements or apparent TODO lists. For example, where would I look
: to see if they were fixing NFS performance? No apparent centralized WEB
: page (like www.freebsd.org). Although the HOWTOs are nice, they seem
: to be often out of date.
Try http://www.nvg.unit.no/linux/changes/.
True, no one centralized web page exists, but there are many. As a starting
point try http://sunsite.unc.edu/mdw/linux.html.
The HOWTO's have been of tremendous help to me and my friends. Does FreeBSD
have something similar? I can't think of any that are particularly out
of date.
: NFS installs with Slackware was like pulling teeth!
We seem to have entirely opposite experiences. I had major trouble trying
to install FreeBSD. I have SW 2.3 NFS exported from my machine and have done
multiple flawless installs from there...
: Happy hacking!
: -Clint
--
-----
Frank J. T. Wojcik Linux - the choice
http://www.lehigh.edu/~fjw2/fjw2.html of a GNU generation...
"Life is the crummiest book I ever read, there isn't a hook.
Just a lot of cheap shots, pictures to shock, and characters
an amateur would never dream up." - Bad Religion
Terry Lambert
] Is there any way to bring this discussion back to a comparison of the
] differences between Linux and FreeBSD that might make one choose one
] over the other?
Are you "into" kernel architecture, writing device drivers, etc.?
Are you stressing the hardware to it's boundries (ie: you are a
large ISP, WWW, or FTP site?
If the answer to both of these questions is "no", then all the
differences are effectively environmental and thus cosmetic in
nature -- and subject only to presentation of opinion.
Neither system is POSIX compliant, not having had NIST/PCTS run
by a certified testing laboratory and paid the certification fee;
even if they were, that would only apply to a particular release.
Add any "new stuff" and the certification is gone.
Neither system is certified to an orange book C or B security
level; no one has paid for the audit, and any such audit would
require picking particular hardware to run the audit on.
Linux has more commercial software.
FreeBSD can run Linux binaries.
Both can run IBCS2 binaries, but both require you to have a
licensed SCO or SVR3 system to do installs of any commercial
IBCS2 products, so it's mostly a "geek toy".
> I decided to run Linux for these reasons; none are very technical. It
> all boils down to a support issue for me:
[ ... reasons elided ... ]
It all boils down to emotional arguments, you mean. Unless you
have a considered opinion on the architectural differences, you
are really blowing smoke.
Which one is "easier to install" depends on who you have to help
you and what your computing background is.
Which one is "better supported" depends on what your buddies run
and your degree of net connectivity re: email vs. netnews.
Which one is better documented depends on whether you think a
book has to describe the commands and tools, or be a bit of
fluff with the name of the OS on the cover somewhere.
Supported hardware varies. If you buy high end hardware like
the people coding both systems, you will never have a problem.
If you buy fringe hardware, then you will. Neither has a good,
reliable, up to date "hardware compatability list" that you
can trust enough to plug a system together from it and have it
work. Suprise! Neither does SCO or UnixWare.
It's silly trying to compare covers on books and ask "which book
is best", when both books take an equal amount of shelf space and
have an equal number of pages (footprint & capabilities), both
books have the same color cover (nominally POSIX interface), etc..
If you actually *read* the books and discover one is on cooking
and one is on gardening, *then* you have a basis to make a
judgement.
And even then, it's opinion, since you may be a gardener, while
I may be a cook.
Before you ask, yes, I've seen the internals of both, and yes, I
have opinions that would be outdated a week after I posted them
because the camps would immediately work to remove any negative
comparisons to render the opinions presented invalid, or reverse
them. Then I'd get flamed for being "wrong". 8-).
If you want an honest comparison, and someone is foolish enough
to open themselves to attack a week after they post when the
comparisons are no longer valid, don't expect the comparison to
remain accurate long enough for you to install one or the other
and allow you to claim you made "the best choice".
Regards,
Terry Lambert
te...@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
Bob Horvath [C]
>I've been following this line of argument and counter-argument ( or if you
>prefer, insult and counter-insult ) and felt I absolutely had to comment.
> As a relatively new Linux user I have had my difficulties setting up
>and configuring Linux. Not only am I new to Linux, but also new to UNIX. My
>distribution of Linux came on a 4 CD-ROM set from Infomagic. Over the last
>3 1/2 months I've managed, with a little sweat and elbow grease, to install
>Linux on my home machine, get X-windows running ( on a Diamond video card )
>and use the gcc compilers for various projects for school. My experience with
>Linux has been nothing short of an incredibly educational and challenging
>hobby/job. I would urge anyone using Linux for the first time to not
>immediately expect Linux to be viable for your needs, but, to learn from
>it.
Enough said. 3 1/2 months with Linux, I don't know how much more with UNIX
if any, and look what this guy has done.
Linux is not free (I am not talking about the cost of a CD distribution
either). It costs nothing in dollars, only in time. If you invest the
time, the investment pays off.
Clint Olsen
Craig Bergren <cber...@mcs.net> wrote:
>When this thread started out, it was so promising. I thought I might
>get some insight into the design differences that distinguish FreeBSD
>from Linux. Unfortunately this discourse has rapidly degenerated into
>noise.
Yes, that is to be expected :)
>Is there any way to bring this discussion back to a comparison of the
>differences between Linux and FreeBSD that might make one choose one
>over the other?
Glad you asked!
>I decided to run Linux for these reasons; none are very technical. It
>all boils down to a support issue for me:
>
>1) There was a book with a CD ROM in Barnes and Nobel that I could buy
> on impulse. There were no such books on FreeBSD, nor CD ROMS.
When? Just curious.
>2) There was tons of traffic on the Linux usenet news groups. For the
> most part the discussion seemed to have a high signal to noise ratio.
> This was in August before all the undergraduate riff-raff came back
> to school.
I find the majority of the traffic to be very uninformative and directed
towards people who don't have that much experience with UNIX.
>3) The FreeBSD news groups appeared disearted.
Before 2.0, most FreeBSD traffic was contained within mailing lists.
This appears to have changed.
>4) Reading the Linux news groups I got a good idea of what hardware
> was supported (before I bought my new Micron).
Good point. I went out and asked amongst the mailing lists and
newsgroups to find this info out. Generally, most decent hardware is
supported by both FreeBSD and Linux. Linux may support a lot of funky
hardware, but I would probably not be interested in running an OS on it.
At some point, you have to decide whether or not you want to make an OS
run on your hardware or select hardware to run an OS :)
>Why am I still running Linux?
I would like to dedicate this to "Why are we no longer running Linux?"
1) At the time of Linux's rise to fame, Slackware was the big
distribution. It took us a lot of struggling to figure this out. SLS
sucked. With FreeBSD, this is not a problem. One distribution, no
ambiguity, no sweat.
Most importantly, Slackware releases rearely synced with stable
releases of the kernel!!! Separate distributions from the kernel
caused us no end of grief. Slackware still gets quite a bit of
criticism. Gee, is it a kernel or a distribution problem?
What would Linus know about Slackware? :) If you ask the
distribution owners, they'd say, "What kernel are you running?
Maybe you should upgrade? I'm using 1.X.X and it works fine."
2) At the time of Linux 1.0.9, console hangs were prevelant, causing
grief for users. The only solution was to upgrade, but there was
only so far we could upgrade w/o installing a totally new Slackware and
going through the same grief (ELF).
3) Linux NFS performance sucked. The only way to fix this was to go to
a 1.3.X kernel (apparently), and we were not interested in screwing
around with alpha kernels or upgrading daily. I couldn't even find
out if this was being addressed at the time (see #5).
4) In general, Linux networking was unreliable with slow connections.
See reason #3 for why we didn't want to upgrade. The kernel would
get into some funky race conditions, and the load would shoot up
beyond 30. We would either have to reboot or leave the machine alone
for a couple of hours to sort itself out.
5) Linux does not seem to have an up-to-date kernel blurb page explaining
enhancements or apparent TODO lists. For example, where would I look
to see if they were fixing NFS performance? No apparent centralized WEB
page (like www.freebsd.org). Although the HOWTOs are nice, they seem
to be often out of date.
6) Linux's chaotic development scares me. This is probably largely due
to the newsgroup exposure and all the OOPS I see posted on the odd
kernel revisions.
7) Kernel drivers frequently get to alpha stages, but seem to be poorly
supported after that. I've noticed that on a couple of occasions
that a driver gets created and the author takes a "sabbatical". With
FreeBSD, drivers that are submitted by more "seasoned" kernel hackers
continue to get support and bugfixes throughout its lifetime . I won't
point any fingers, but I have heard of some Linux hardware drivers
ported over to FreeBSD, fixed, and then ported back to FreeBSD :)
8) One of the bigger things attracting us to FreeBSD was the fact that
ftp.cdrom.com runs it. Pretty damn impressive serving 400+
simultaneous connections (and fast!). It's kind of humorous that
the Slackware repository is actually a FreeBSD box :) Now, if you
want to run a stable OS that gets plenty of hammering, why not follow
by example? :) In light of our Linux problems, FreeBSD looked like
something to give a whirl.
In short, we were not interested in daily (or weekly) kernel upgrades.
We are not in a situation where we can take down a machine for repairs.
We needed an OS that runs reliably between releases with reasonable
separation between major revisions. For us, that is FreeBSD 2.0.5.
Although I haven't installed Linux for a while, the installation was
much easier than Linux (we installed via ftp with FreeBSD w/o a hitch).
NFS installs with Slackware was like pulling teeth!
This is not to say Linux is bad. Linux is fine to use when the machine
does not need to serve mission critical apps. Linux will likely get
certain fancy features before other free OSs, and they would be interesting
to try out. This is probably why Linux is frequently used in the home by
people in single-node/single user mode. You obviously won't encounter
networking problems w/o any network! This just doesn't match our application.
Linux is likely going to mature over time and become very stable. BSD
didn't get where it is today without lots of time in hackers' hands! :)
Happy hacking!
-Clint
Julian Elischer
By loading the Linux emulation module and puting the shared libs into
/usr/compat/linux/lib (I think that's the place.. I don't have them here)
ELF binary support is not finished, so you'll have to wait a while
for that.. People have successfully run doom etc.
seems solid..
D
and running. I have both FreeBSD and Linux installation on my hard drive. In
the mean time I will use Microsoft apps. FreeBSD wont recognize my CD ROM and
Linux gives me grief over the boot directory being read only or read write. I
want to increase my marketability by knowing a flavor of UNIX, but what I
really want to know is: With enough work can you stop being dependent on
Microsoft and get comparable apps for Linux?
Jordan K. Hubbard
I have no desire to get into a Linux vs FreeBSD war (gawd haven't we had
enough), but just to clarify a few misconceptions of this poster's:
tried installing it but couldn't get past the bootdisk. It is my belief (and
someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that FreeBSD is the whole distribution.
(as opposed to Linux, which is just the kernel).
I don't think it's reasonable to call "linux" (by popular definition)
just a kernel. When people say "I'm running Linux" they're generally
not saying "I'm magically running a kernel without any user utilities
or a shell!" :-) So I think if you say "linux" to Linus Torvalds then
yes, it's just a kernel, but that's about the only circumstance in
which it would be. Otherwise it would appear that you're talking
about Slackware or Red Hat Linux when you talk about "Linux."
In my mind it's a plus to be able to upgrade any individual part of my
installation w/o affecting anything else.
Assuming that you could do this on a practical basis from day to day
then yes, it would be a plus.. :-)
: 2) At the time of Linux 1.0.9, console hangs were prevelant, causing
: grief for users. The only solution was to upgrade, but there was
: only so far we could upgrade w/o installing a totally new Slackware and
: going through the same grief (ELF).
Hm. It's my recollection that you could upgrade pretty far (kernel wise) w/o
any of the utilities breaking.
Read what he's saying again - he'd have had to go to ELF, hardly a
"without any of the utilities breaking" scenario..
: 3) Linux NFS performance sucked. The only way to fix this was to go to
: a 1.3.X kernel (apparently), and we were not interested in screwing
: around with alpha kernels or upgrading daily.
So don't. Pick a kernel you like and go with it. There's no need to
always get the latest kernel. You can ask on newsgroups for people's
reccomendations/experiences with various kernel releases...
Again, read what he's saying. He said he had performance problems
which mandated an upgrade, yet such an upgrade would have landed him
in ALPHA territory. He was in a no-win situation.
The HOWTO's have been of tremendous help to me and my friends. Does FreeBSD
have something similar? I can't think of any that are particularly out
of date.
We're trying to consolidate all of that together into a Handbook. See
http://www.freebsd.org for the latest efforts.
Jordan
--
Jordan
Timothy Murphy
Jordan K. Hubbard
http://www.freebsd.org if you're that unfamiliar with the features
provided by FreeBSD.
--
Jordan
BENJAMIN A LINDSTROM
: In article <30BD2617...@mcs.net>,
: Craig Bergren <cber...@mcs.net> wrote:
:
: I would like to dedicate this to "Why are we no longer running Linux?"
:
: Most importantly, Slackware releases rearely synced with stable
: releases of the kernel!!! Separate distributions from the kernel
: caused us no end of grief. Slackware still gets quite a bit of
: criticism. Gee, is it a kernel or a distribution problem?
: What would Linus know about Slackware? :) If you ask the
: distribution owners, they'd say, "What kernel are you running?
: Maybe you should upgrade? I'm using 1.X.X and it works fine."
:
When ever you have the Kernel hackers seperate from the distribution(s)
you will have this type of problem.
: 2) At the time of Linux 1.0.9, console hangs were prevelant, causing
: grief for users. The only solution was to upgrade, but there was
: only so far we could upgrade w/o installing a totally new Slackware and
: going through the same grief (ELF).
:
<strange look>...Umm..Why did I never run into that problem? I've installed
many slackware additions...It could be I never stayed at 1.0.x kernel.=)
1.2.x kernels have a lot of improvements with consoles..You don't need to
upgrade slackware to support 1.2.x kernel.=)
: 3) Linux NFS performance sucked. The only way to fix this was to go to
: a 1.3.X kernel (apparently), and we were not interested in screwing
: around with alpha kernels or upgrading daily. I couldn't even find
: out if this was being addressed at the time (see #5).
:
NFS sucks in general. It was known that Linux NFS has been bad for a long
time. There are people making attempts to fix this. (Example: NFS
file systems in kernel space, etc.)
: 4) In general, Linux networking was unreliable with slow connections.
: See reason #3 for why we didn't want to upgrade. The kernel would
: get into some funky race conditions, and the load would shoot up
: beyond 30. We would either have to reboot or leave the machine alone
: for a couple of hours to sort itself out.
:
Never saw that.=) Only time I saw 30+ load average is when I would write
a major tight loop when polling.=) What kernel? 1.0.X again..move to 1.2.x
: 5) Linux does not seem to have an up-to-date kernel blurb page explaining
: enhancements or apparent TODO lists. For example, where would I look
: to see if they were fixing NFS performance? No apparent centralized WEB
: page (like www.freebsd.org). Although the HOWTOs are nice, they seem
: to be often out of date.
:
When 1.4.x is released the 1.3.x permate changes are released. I have
seen a list of changes with the 1.3.x kernels. As for centralize WWW
server...Correct.. wehave www.linux.org, www.linux.uk, etc. But most
stuff endups at www.linux.org.
: 6) Linux's chaotic development scares me. This is probably largely due
: to the newsgroup exposure and all the OOPS I see posted on the odd
: kernel revisions.
:
<shrug> If you maked BSD alpha/beta kernels public you would see the same
results. Where as Linux as a community tends to helpout in debugging
the alpha/beta kernels and can move to newer beta kernels if need be.
(In my case..I'm using Appletalk stuff..So I orignally started with
1.2.x kernel + appletalk patches, but had to move to 1.3.37 (I ran this
at home and it was stable enough.) to get a better supported Appletalk
kernel protocal because it was causing minor problems on our net.
Where in the BSD world, I would either have to patch it myself, or get
my way into the "Developer's guild".=)
Yes, Linux's method of kernel development is different, but you have to
admint that 1.2.13 is rock stable...And I'm sure 2.0.lastX or 1.4.lastX
will be rock stable.
Does BSD release a major change per year for kernels and packages?
Linux kernel has a major revision change every year.
: 7) Kernel drivers frequently get to alpha stages, but seem to be poorly
: supported after that. I've noticed that on a couple of occasions
: that a driver gets created and the author takes a "sabbatical". With
: FreeBSD, drivers that are submitted by more "seasoned" kernel hackers
: continue to get support and bugfixes throughout its lifetime . I won't
: point any fingers, but I have heard of some Linux hardware drivers
: ported over to FreeBSD, fixed, and then ported back to FreeBSD :)
:
can't argue, but I don't know of any drivers besides ftape (which was
REALLY bad to start with.=) that has ever not had an other programmer
take over the work.
: 8) One of the bigger things attracting us to FreeBSD was the fact that
: ftp.cdrom.com runs it. Pretty damn impressive serving 400+
: simultaneous connections (and fast!). It's kind of humorous that
: the Slackware repository is actually a FreeBSD box :) Now, if you
: want to run a stable OS that gets plenty of hammering, why not follow
: by example? :) In light of our Linux problems, FreeBSD looked like
: something to give a whirl.
:
I'd like to try BSD some day, but I have been very happy with Linux. I'm
move to RedHat 2.1 after 'living' with slackware since I stared, and after
playing around (I'm too cheep to get the cdrom of it.=) I have it running
(not talking via CSLIP yet..but soon.=)
: In short, we were not interested in daily (or weekly) kernel upgrades.
: We are not in a situation where we can take down a machine for repairs.
Then just use the final 1.<evennumber> releases..No one is forcing you
to run beta kernals. I personally do run the lastest newest version
so I know what breaks really quickly so I can help Idenify problems
with my combination of hardware.
: We needed an OS that runs reliably between releases with reasonable
: separation between major revisions. For us, that is FreeBSD 2.0.5.
: Although I haven't installed Linux for a while, the installation was
: much easier than Linux (we installed via ftp with FreeBSD w/o a hitch).
: NFS installs with Slackware was like pulling teeth!
:
RedHat, Slackware, and Debian have all grown up alot...NFS is still pulling
teath...But it was pulling teath for our SunOS machine also.=-) Personally
if I had multiply Linux boxes I would use Samba for file transfers and
such..Since it is really nice.
: This is not to say Linux is bad. Linux is fine to use when the machine
: does not need to serve mission critical apps. Linux will likely get
: certain fancy features before other free OSs, and they would be interesting
: to try out. This is probably why Linux is frequently used in the home by
: people in single-node/single user mode. You obviously won't encounter
: networking problems w/o any network! This just doesn't match our application.
: Linux is likely going to mature over time and become very stable. BSD
: didn't get where it is today without lots of time in hackers' hands! :)
:
<shrug> Networking has always been a breeze to install on the different
networks I've been on...I have it integrated with Mac/win95 machines..
<shrug> It runs really nicely off my 386 hardware at work.
Oh well....
Ian S. Nelson
>: I would like to dedicate this to "Why are we no longer running Linux?"
>: 1) At the time of Linux's rise to fame, Slackware was the big
>: distribution. It took us a lot of struggling to figure this out. SLS
>: sucked. With FreeBSD, this is not a problem. One distribution, no
>: ambiguity, no sweat.
>Well, that's just an inherent difference between the two. Linux proper is
>just the kernel. The way I look at it, I have more options with linux.
>In my mind it's a plus to be able to upgrade any individual part of my
>installation w/o affecting anything else.
You can do that same with BSD.
>: Most importantly, Slackware releases rearely synced with stable
>: releases of the kernel!!! Separate distributions from the kernel
>: caused us no end of grief.
>I fail to understand why getting and compiling new kernel sources is a
>problem. True, installing a new kernel requires a reboot, but...
I can think of two problems. a) Rebooting is not acceptalbe in some situations
if you are running a business server (I had to deal with this issue at IBM a
couple of time.. It's amazing how many people get pissed off because the
server was down to reboot for 5 minutes) I highly doubt that Walnut Creek
reboot very often. b) You have to spend/waste the time to keep on top of
the kernel releases and issues regarding it. If you have to do work then that
can be a problem. I run linux on one of my machines and I have been fairly
happy with it, there are a few things that bug me but not too many. Now
start looking for new kernels because of those few bugs? If I haven't upgraded
in a year then they could be a lot of kernels to look through and they may not
fix anything, it's realistic to assume that they could even break something
else. This is one area AIX, BSD, HPUX, and all the other organized unixi will
always have an edge; and it's an important edge to a lot of people.
I guess a third problem with this is that recompiling the kernel isn't seen by
everybody as an okay thing to do. Commercial unixi are starting to move
towards the more dynamic methods. On an AIX box you can plug things into it
and activate them with out ever rebooting or recompiling the kernel. There is
such a low level of trust in software these days, imagine if your complier
jacked up and linked it wrong or something.
BENJAMIN A LINDSTROM
: In article <49doel$s...@jennifer.pernet.net> e...@jennifer.pernet.net (E. Eli Boaz) writes:
:
: Not necessarily easier, better. Linux is MUCH, MUCH faster than
: FreeBSD for a SINGLE user machine. FreeBSD tends to respond faster
: to things like network I/O and disk I/O faster than Linux, but
: Linux tends to respond more to 'user' visible processes...
:
: I would like to know where you find data to support such questionable
: hypotheses.
I think we tested this once on the newgroups with Byte's UNIX as a base,
and I think the results shows thoughts above...I'd be interested in waiting
until 1.4/2.0 to come out and run another test between them. I think it
would more then likely show that Linux has improved from 1.2.
And in the long run...Improving is the only thing that matters..
Keep up the work..Free/NetBSD and Linux.=)
BTW.. Linux has better UDP support.=)
John S. Dyson
Ian S. Nelson <nel...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>
>I guess a third problem with this is that recompiling the kernel isn't seen by
>everybody as an okay thing to do. Commercial unixi are starting to move
>towards the more dynamic methods. On an AIX box you can plug things into it
>and activate them with out ever rebooting or recompiling the kernel. There is
>such a low level of trust in software these days, imagine if your complier
>jacked up and linked it wrong or something.
>
One of the goals is that more normal end-users will not need to recompile. So
FreeBSD is working to keep up with that trend and make it a *serious*
technological and ease of use contender with other the os'es.
John Henders
> : 2) At the time of Linux 1.0.9, console hangs were prevelant, causing
> : grief for users. The only solution was to upgrade, but there was
> : only so far we could upgrade w/o installing a totally new Slackware and
> : going through the same grief (ELF).
> Hm. It's my recollection that you could upgrade pretty far (kernel wise) w/o
> any of the utilities breaking.
>Read what he's saying again - he'd have had to go to ELF, hardly a
>"without any of the utilities breaking" scenario..
But he's wrong. I've upgraded my kernel as far as 1.3.45 (current as of a
few days ago, and I still run an all a.out system. The only problem I've
had with any utility, including a lot of base utilities installed
originally in Dec 93, is that the top display has a few weirdnesses in
it, due to recent rearrangements in the /proc filesystem.
--
John Henders BOFH Wimsey Information Systems.
Vancouver's original internet service provider.
http://www.wimsey.com
BENJAMIN A LINDSTROM
: fj...@Lehigh.EDU (FRANK JUDE WOJCIK) writes:
:
: >: Most importantly, Slackware releases rearely synced with stable
: >: releases of the kernel!!! Separate distributions from the kernel
: >: caused us no end of grief.
: >problem. True, installing a new kernel requires a reboot, but...
:
: I can think of two problems. a) Rebooting is not acceptalbe in some situations
: if you are running a business server (I had to deal with this issue at IBM a
: couple of time.. It's amazing how many people get pissed off because the
: server was down to reboot for 5 minutes) I highly doubt that Walnut Creek
to 1.2.LastX..Most the time people upgrade kernels after Work hours (like
what I try to do) when 90% of the business fokes leave. If you have a major
mission critical system...I personally buy two machine exactly the same.
(Memory is not a big deal..just major items like SCSI cards, etc) and you
set that machine as a test system..And you can find the next Stable kernel
before rebooting.
: reboot very often. b) You have to spend/waste the time to keep on top of
: the kernel releases and issues regarding it. If you have to do work then that
: can be a problem. I run linux on one of my machines and I have been fairly
: happy with it, there are a few things that bug me but not too many. Now
: start looking for new kernels because of those few bugs? If I haven't upgraded
: in a year then they could be a lot of kernels to look through and they may not
: fix anything, it's realistic to assume that they could even break something
: else. This is one area AIX, BSD, HPUX, and all the other organized unixi will
: always have an edge; and it's an important edge to a lot of people.
:
UH? You lost me. =) If you are moving from one stable kernel to another
stable kernel nothing should be broken.=) That is why there are Beta kernels
and production kernels.=)
: I guess a third problem with this is that recompiling the kernel isn't seen by
: everybody as an okay thing to do. Commercial unixi are starting to move
: towards the more dynamic methods. On an AIX box you can plug things into it
: and activate them with out ever rebooting or recompiling the kernel. There is
: such a low level of trust in software these days, imagine if your complier
: jacked up and linked it wrong or something.
Problem with modules..(I run them at home.) Is when your still are stablizing
the internal structure for talking between modules and kernel you might need
to replace the kernel, and it's very hard to have a module that can be ran
with any kernel. They are getting better, but there are a lot of things that
are not good as modules.. TCP/IP seems something that would be better in the
kernel then as a module.
Next problem is...I need to update module XYZ...It's heavily used...So it
almost be like TAKING down the system to get all the processes to stop using
that module to replace it.
BTW...If you compiler links things wrong for the kernel.=) You better fix
the compiler because it will link other things wrongs..<grin>
FRANK JUDE WOJCIK
: In article <49ksgl$2p...@ns4-1.CC.Lehigh.EDU> fj...@Lehigh.EDU (FRANK JUDE WOJCIK) writes:
::tried installing it but couldn't get past the bootdisk. It is my belief (and
::someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that FreeBSD is the whole distribution.
::(as opposed to Linux, which is just the kernel).
: I don't think it's reasonable to call "linux" (by popular definition)
: just a kernel.
Well, I was speaking in a kind of pedantic sense. Linux proper *is* just the
kernel.
: When people say "I'm running Linux" they're generally
: not saying "I'm magically running a kernel without any user utilities
: or a shell!" :-)
True. They're usually referring to some distribution of Linux. This, however,
isn't what I was talking about.... 8-)
::In my mind it's a plus to be able to upgrade any individual part of my
::installation w/o affecting anything else.
: Assuming that you could do this on a practical basis from day to day
: then yes, it would be a plus.. :-)
Um, I don't get this. I *do* do this.
::: 2) At the time of Linux 1.0.9, console hangs were prevelant, causing
::: grief for users. The only solution was to upgrade, but there was
::: only so far we could upgrade w/o installing a totally new Slackware and
::: going through the same grief (ELF).
:: Hm. It's my recollection that you could upgrade pretty far (kernel wise) w/o
:: any of the utilities breaking.
: Read what he's saying again - he'd have had to go to ELF, hardly a
: "without any of the utilities breaking" scenario..
Well, there are(were) 4 different 2.x versions of Slackware. None of which is
ELF and none of which is stuck to 1.0.9.
::: 3) Linux NFS performance sucked. The only way to fix this was to go to
::: a 1.3.X kernel (apparently), and we were not interested in screwing
::: around with alpha kernels or upgrading daily.
::So don't. Pick a kernel you like and go with it. There's no need to
::always get the latest kernel. You can ask on newsgroups for people's
::reccomendations/experiences with various kernel releases...
:Again, read what he's saying. He said he had performance problems
:which mandated an upgrade, yet such an upgrade would have landed him
:in ALPHA territory. He was in a no-win situation.
Well, here I was responding to the "upgrading daily" part. And I don't think
that 1.3.x kernels are alpha. Beta/development sure, but not alpha.
But if he only wanted "production" code and wasn't happy with 1.2.x then
I wouldn't try to get him to run Linux.
: --
: Jordan
Nick Kralevich
Julian Elischer <jul...@mailhub.tfs.com> wrote:
>Whoops, can't let you get away with that one I'm afraid..
>The entire FreeBSD system are available on a DAILY basis
>(or should I say CONTINUAL basis) The releases are just the time
>when we make an EXTRA effort to snapsot it and we
>'freeze development' for a while to get that snapshot
>'right'.
This is funny.
I've been following a thread in comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc.
The title of the thread is "NetBSD camp reaction to OpenBSD?".
It seems that some of the NetBSD people rejected a person named Theo
De Raadt from the core development team, and that person went out and
created another distribution called OpenBSD (http://www.openbsd.org/).
So I agree with the person who called BSD a "Developer's Guild".
It just doesn't seem that open to me when the developers of an
operating system kick someone out of the development environment.
Included below are some articles that may be of interesting reading:
| From: Todd C Miller <mil...@cs.Colorado.EDU>
| Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.
| + bsd.freebsd.misc
| [1] Re: NetBSD camp reaction to OpenBSD?
| Date: Sat Nov 25 09:44:30 PST 1995
| Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
|
| Speaking simply as someone who watched all of the sillyness that
| transpired on the NetBSD mailing lists during the Theo escapade,
| I'm sorrow that the schism happened, but that's about it.
| Theo has done some amazing work and I hope that the copyright
| for OpenBSD is in the Berkeley style so that the other BSD's
| can pick up some of his stuff. I'm sure that there will be
| quite a few people upset about yaBSD (yet another BSD), but
| I don't see healthy competition being a real problem as long
| as both camps are free to incorporate the other's ideas and
| code. Not surprisingly, this is how I felt about the NetBSD/FreBSD
| split.
|
| - todd
| --
| Todd C. Miller Sysadmin--University of Colorado Todd....@cs.colorado.edu
And another follow to this thread:
| Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.
| + bsd.freebsd.misc
| From: s...@epcc.ed.ac.uk (Scott Telford)
| [1] Re: NetBSD camp reaction to OpenBSD?
| Organization: Edinburgh Parallel Computing Centre, University of Edinburgh,
| + UK.
| Date: Tue Nov 28 05:34:35 PST 1995
|
| In article <498sl3$5...@ector.cs.purdue.edu>, David Moffett
| (d...@cs.purdue.edu) wrote:
| > Would it be opening Pandoras Box for us non-list readers to get a one
| > screen summary of what caused this split? Was it a people vs people or
| > technical ideas vs technical ideas kind of problem?
| >
| > Please no flames, just a short summary.
|
| OpenBSD appears to be a result of Theo De Raadt's ejection from the
| NetBSD core team, which, in short, was a people thing, not a technical
| thing.
|
| --
| Scott Telford, Edinburgh Parallel Computing Centre, <s.te...@ed.ac.uk>
| University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Rd, Edinburgh, EH9 UK.(+44 131 650 5978)
| "Is it a virus, a drug, or a religion?" "What's difference?" (Snow Crash)
As for the "openness" of FreeBSD development, I refer you (again) to the
following threads from comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:
| Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.
| + bsd.freebsd.misc
| From: crac...@wavehh.hanse.de (Martin Cracauer)
| [1] Re: NetBSD camp reaction to OpenBSD?
| Organization: BSD User Group Hamburg
|
| "Jordan K. Hubbard" <j...@FreeBSD.org> writes:
|
| >Just looking at http://www.openbsd.org this evening, and it looks like a
| >significant NetBSD clone in many respects - at least most of the
| >platforms would appear to be NetBSD "rebadges" for the time being.
|
| [...]
|
| Well, one thing that seems really more "open" in OpenBSD is public
| readonly CVS access (as advertised, don't know if this is up for
| now).
|
| I'd really like to see this for NetBSD/FreeBSD, too. As an example, it
| would make it much easier to look at John Dyson's work on the VM
| system without having to ask someone to check out all these changes.
|
| Martin
| --
To which Jordan K. Hubbard replied:
| From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <j...@FreeBSD.org>
| Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.
| + bsd.freebsd.misc
| [1] Re: NetBSD camp reaction to OpenBSD?
| Date: Wed Nov 29 19:27:19 PST 1995
| Organization: Walnut Creek CDROM
|
| Martin Cracauer wrote:
| > ...
| > I'd really like to see this for NetBSD/FreeBSD, too. As an example, it
| > would make it much easier to look at John Dyson's work on the VM
| > system without having to ask someone to check out all these changes.
|
| Let's ask the NetBSD Project: What do you say, guys? A year or so ago,
| both groups shut down mutual read access for fears both real and
| imagined. What's our situation today? Anyone over there having
| seditious thoughts about tearing down the Berlin wall? I personally
| would not mind at all.
| --
| Jordan
So far, there has been *NO* announcement of the opening of the CVS
tree.
Summary: You have to be a member of the BSD core team to be able
to see any real changes in the source code. Membership is restricted
to a select group, and if your not in that group, tough luck. Even
if your a good programmer, but other people in the group don't
like you, you can get kicked out. Not exactly what I call "open" or
a conductive development environment.
Personally, I prefer Linux.
Of course, all of this has nothing to do with the technical merits
of the two operating systems. But then again, that's never stopped
an advocacy group before. :)
(in followups, please be sure to include CORRECT attribution lines.
I don't want to be coming back later on and trying to claim
that I did or didn't make certain statements).
Take care,
-- Nick Kralevich
nick...@cory.eecs.berkeley.edu
Arcadio Alivio Sincero
: Lau (ga...@io.org) wrote:
: : So what you're saying is that Linux shouldn't support your drive at all,
: : that way, you won't have *anything* to whine about right!
: No. If it's on the "compatibility list" it's supported, right? Well, I
: found out that when one person somewhere manages to make something work
: once, it's deemed "compatible".
Just goes to show that you can't believe everything you read.
: I BOUGHT the CDs. I did not get them free. If I were FTPing it, you would
: have a point in your ranting about my ranting. Have you ever heard of
: dissatisfied users? You should fdlame the rogue manufacturers that
: produce fucked up CDs, not the victims of their marketing.
: Fuck off.
Actually, like the other guy pointed out, you're not paying for
the software. You're paying for the packaging. Some of the prices I've
seen for some of these Linux distributions (like $50 or so) are pretty
outrageous. That might be cheap compared to commerical OSes, but
considering that you can actually get it free off the 'Net, it's a rip-off.
$20 or so is reasonable. Because if you wanna download it off
the 'Net and copy it to floppies, $25 or so is how much you'll pay for
about 100 fresh floppies (at least around here ... $30 for 100 floppies
last I checked).
I'm not really flaming you because I can sympathize with what
you're going through. I too had a hell of time setting this beast up.
But I learned quickly that Linux is very much a "do-it-yourself OS"
(which is why I have to disagree with people who say that Linux can
become mainstream ... at least in it's current state this is not
possible). But it was a great learning experience for me. It was like
learning how to use my PC all over again (almost). I remember me ranting
and bitching when I first learned DOS like 10 or so years ago. (But I
was first learning to use a PC and I was only 9 years old, so I guess
that doesn't count.)
Anyhow, it almost got to a point where I was gonna dump Linux and
stick with OS/2. But now I've gotten so far with Linux, I think I'm
gonna stick with it. I kinda like the idea now that I can pretty much
hack Linux into anything I want ... and when I reach that level of
expertise I think I will ...
One more thing, (I haven't read any of your previous posts, but
going by what that first guy (BAJ I think) said), this one guy gave me
some helpful advice when I first started with Linux concerning getting
help: don't flame Linux in a Linux group if you expect to get any help.
Makes sense, don't it? If you're feeling emotional, leave it out of the
post (start punching the walls or something ...).
Arcadio
Arcadio Alivio Sincero
: 3 1/2 months I've managed, with a little sweat and elbow grease, to install
: Linux on my home machine, get X-windows running ( on a Diamond video card )
: and use the gcc compilers for various projects for school. My experience with
: Linux has been nothing short of an incredibly educational and challenging
: hobby/job. I would urge anyone using Linux for the first time to not
: immediately expect Linux to be viable for your needs, but, to learn from
: it.
No argument here. That describes _exactly_ what my Linux
experience has been so far. With DOS, Windows, and OS/2, fiddling with
my PC started to get a little boring.
: individual. LINUX is a great operating system, and will only continue to
: get better.
Yes. I'm looking forward to what a Linux kernel v. 2.0.0 will look
like ...
Arcadio
John S. Dyson
BENJAMIN A LINDSTROM <bl...@uwrf.edu> wrote:
>:
><shrug> If you maked BSD alpha/beta kernels public you would see the same
>results. Where as Linux as a community tends to helpout in debugging
>the alpha/beta kernels and can move to newer beta kernels if need be.
>
sources are available on a *daily* basis to anyone. Is that true
about Linux??? :-) The only sources that are not available are those
that have to be written or worked on using private FreeBSD workstations,
otherwise the tree would be chaos. (Please refer to the FreeBSD documentation
for supping the -current or -stable trees.)
>
>Does BSD release a major change per year for kernels and packages?
>Linux kernel has a major revision change every year.
>
About every six months or so. Sometimes a bit longer. Definitely
faster than yearly.
Opinion:
I think that the notion that the FreeBSD core or development team is "elite"
really reflects a misunderstanding of the situation. Many of us spend
almost ALL of our time on this stuff -- sometimes to the exclusion of more
normal social activities. The core team is more of a group of caretakers
many of which have areas of signficant contribution (software, documentation,
or perhaps marketing.) For example, there is actually quite a bit of freedom
that the FreeBSD committers have to modify the kernel... No one person, for
example, "holds the kernel hostage".
Jordan K. Hubbard
> If you reread the articles I posted, you'll find that
> crac...@wavehh.hanse.de (Martin Cracauer), a member of the
> "BSD User Group Hamburg", was complaining about lack of access to the
> changes in FreeBSD. If a BSD user group member is complaining about
> lack of access, can you imagine a common joe like you or I getting
> access to it?
This is simply ridiculous.
Read Julian Elischer's posting. Do you see that *current up to the
hour* sources are available to all, via both SUP (for the network
endowed) and CTM (for the email-only)? We also make change log
information available on the mailing lists, to which anyone can
subscribe, and the *one* little thing that people are flapping about so
much here is CVS repository access, something that's not even AVAILABLE
for Linux! There's no central repository available for Slacware or Red
Hat, and most of those folks don't even USE source code control!
So forgive me if it strikes me as more than a little unfair to be
assailed as not being "open" enough because whereas Linux provides you
with a box of cake mix and a fork, we only provide the cake, the icing,
the candles but *no chocolate sprinkles*! Gawd, we should all be shot
or something! :-)
--
Jordan
Robert Sanders
> Summary: You have to be a member of the BSD core team to be able
> to see any real changes in the source code. Membership is restricted
> to a select group, and if your not in that group, tough luck. Even
> if your a good programmer, but other people in the group don't
> like you, you can get kicked out. Not exactly what I call "open" or
> a conductive development environment.
FreeBSD makes the latest sources available via SUP. No, I personally
can't check things out of the CVS tree. I don't know of any single
CVS tree that defines the Linux kernel (or userland, for that matter).
FreeBSD has a core team capable of committing changes to the source
tree. Linux has one person (Linus) capable of committing changes to
the source tree. The situation is the same for the average Joe
working on either system: you develop on your own system(s) and send
your patches to somebody with write access to the main source tree.
That's either one of the FreeBSD core team or Linus.
I'm not saying that FreeBSD is the final word in open software
development or that Linux is absolutely closed, but in the spirit of
this thread I must ask: how is Linux development *more* open?
-- Robert
Nick Kralevich
Robert Sanders <rsan...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>FreeBSD makes the latest sources available via SUP. No, I personally
>can't check things out of the CVS tree. I don't know of any single
>CVS tree that defines the Linux kernel (or userland, for that matter).
If you reread the articles I posted, you'll find that
crac...@wavehh.hanse.de (Martin Cracauer), a member of the
"BSD User Group Hamburg", was complaining about lack of access to the
changes in FreeBSD. If a BSD user group member is complaining about
lack of access, can you imagine a common joe like you or I getting
access to it?
Take care,
-- Nick
Orc
Clint Olsen <ols...@kodiak.ee.washington.edu> wrote:
>In article <30BD2617...@mcs.net>,
>Craig Bergren <cber...@mcs.net> wrote:
>Good point. I went out and asked amongst the mailing lists and
>newsgroups to find this info out. Generally, most decent hardware is
>supported by both FreeBSD and Linux. Linux may support a lot of funky
>hardware, but I would probably not be interested in running an OS on it.
>At some point, you have to decide whether or not you want to make an OS
>run on your hardware or select hardware to run an OS :)
You're part of a minority. A lot of people just want a good
operating system to play with, but already have a machine to put it
on; spending the money to upgrade the machine to a configuration
suitable to Linux or xBSD may be enough to make the user throw in
the towel and stick with Windows or OS/2, which are both capable
of running on quite a bit of the funky hardware out there.
It's good that Linux does support all this funky hardware, but
it certainly isn't because it's Linux -- it just has a larger
userbase than the xBSD systems do. As the xBSD user community
grows, that userbase will result in more funky hardware support,
which is as it should be.
>>Why am I still running Linux?
>
>I would like to dedicate this to "Why are we no longer running Linux?"
>
>1) At the time of Linux's rise to fame, Slackware was the big
> distribution. It took us a lot of struggling to figure this out. SLS
> sucked. With FreeBSD, this is not a problem. One distribution, no
> ambiguity, no sweat.
You're fortunate that your needs can be met by a standard
distribution. There are some people, myself included, who have
enough second-source hardware on their systems to make any
distribution, from the best gift-wrapped xBSD CD-rom to a tattered
old MCC 1.0+ boot+root disk, pretty much the same (after installing
250mb worth of applications, kernel hacks, and various daemons, you'll
almost forget what the original system was.)
>This is not to say Linux is bad. Linux is fine to use when the machine
>does not need to serve mission critical apps.
It depends on your definition of mission critical. I'm putting
some FreeBSD machines on my network, but the main server is going
to keep running Linux for the forseeable future. Why? Because as
long as I stick with release kernels, the differences between the
systems come down to me being more familiar with Linux and more
confident that I can correct any problems that might come up (and
after going on holiday and returning to find that the news disk had
overheated and crashed but the machine didn't then die, but kept
dealing with mail for the two weeks I was gone, I'm fairly
confident that Linux is sturdy enough for mission critical apps. I
suspect that FreeBSD would deal with this as gracefully, but I've
never had the opportunity to find out.)
____
david parsons \bi/ Plus I'm way to lazy to spend the two weeks moving
\/ ~news and qa'ing everything.
Julian Elischer
:my way into the "Developer's guild".=)
Whoops, can't let you get away with that one I'm afraid..
The entire FreeBSD system are available on a DAILY basis
(or should I say CONTINUAL basis) The releases are just the time
when we make an EXTRA effort to snapsot it and we
'freeze development' for a while to get that snapshot
'right'.
To understand how this works you need to understand how The FreeBSD
System is worked on...
Firstly the ENTIRE SYSTEM (kernel, utilities etc)
is under CVS. there is ONE CVS repository that represents "THE TRUTH"
as to what happens to be FreeBSD at any instant.
We have a tool called SUP, that will duplicate the CVS (logfile) tree
on your machine if you are Well connected TCP-wise, and another
called CTM that does the same for people only connected by email.
Both CTM and SUP only update those files in your tree that have CHANGED.
The result of this is that Here I have My own CVS tree, from which I check out
sources that are guarenteed to be up-to date. I make patches which
are relative to that, and check those patches back into the Central tree.
That's too much work for most people, who get the sources updated but
don't keep their own CVS tree on it.
Anyone can get the resulting source tree copied to their machine..
they need only ask SUP to give it to them (or subscribe to the CTM service.)
The source tree for FreeBSD that is available generally lags behind
what is the 'TRUTH' by, on average 2 hours.. Can you do THAT with Linux..?
That's EVERYTHING on my machine here is on average about 2 hours
behind freebsd.org. kernel sources, utility sources, games, docs, the lot.
if I go to /usr/src and type "make all install", It'll recompile anything
that may have been affected by any changed files, AND istall them into
the running system.. (it won't make and install a new kernel..
I have to ask for that.. (duh))
It's all guaranteed to work together, because it all comes from the
same place..
You do NOT have to be in "The Guild" (hey nice term.. like it..)
to get upto date stuff. I personally tend to follow the 'Truth'
by a couple of hours.. when I'm working on FreeBSD. :)
When I'm ready to commit my patches, I ask Sup and CVS to bring my tree RIGHT
up to date (to the second), and merge any changes that might have happenned
in the last few hours (amazing how often that happens), draw off
a large 'patch file' and send it in to the TRUTH where it's checked, and
committed to the tree.
the kernel is only one program (though the largest (hmm X?))
it's exactly the same if I'm working on 'ls'
:Yes, Linux's method of kernel development is different, but you have to
:admint that 1.2.13 is rock stable...And I'm sure 2.0.lastX or 1.4.lastX
:will be rock stable.
FreeBSD 'Releases' are pretty stable.. we don't stop the process
for releases, however, we BRANCH everything, and one BRANCH
stops development and get's fixed up for release, while the main
branch plows on.. (You have to know RCS/CVS etc. to know what I'm
saying here but hopefully you do).. The moment we Branch a release it's
effectively left behind....
:
:Does BSD release a major change per year for kernels and packages?
:Linux kernel has a major revision change every year.
Our Aim was a FULL (CDROM and all) release 3 or 4 times a year,
but practicallity looks like being every 6 months..
but between those times there are usually several 'half releases'
Not quite as much QC as a full release, but a new boot-floppy, and
stuff.. No cdrom though.(well we could but people would get upset about the
reduced QC if they had bought something, so we don't
for self preservation reasons)
Usually you grab the latest half or full release, (one every couple
of months), install that, and then use SUP or CVS to catch up
to where things are now....
+----------------------------------+ ______ _ __
| __--_|\ Julian Elischer | \ U \/ / On assignment
| / \ jul...@tfs.com +------>x USA \ in a very strange
| ( OZ ) 300 lakeside Dr. oakland CA. \___ ___ | country !
+- X_.---._/ USA+(510) 645-3137(wk) \_/ \\ ><DARWIN>
v LL LL
Michael L. VanLoon
Michael L. VanLoon (mich...@MindBender.HeadCandy.com) wrote:
: In article <49doel$s...@jennifer.pernet.net> e...@jennifer.pernet.net (E. Eli Boaz) writes:
: Not necessarily easier, better. Linux is MUCH, MUCH faster than
: FreeBSD for a SINGLE user machine. FreeBSD tends to respond faster
: to things like network I/O and disk I/O faster than Linux, but
: Linux tends to respond more to 'user' visible processes...
: I would like to know where you find data to support such questionable
: hypotheses.
I think we tested this once on the newgroups with Byte's UNIX as a base,
and I think the results shows thoughts above...I'd be interested in waiting
until 1.4/2.0 to come out and run another test between them. I think it
would more then likely show that Linux has improved from 1.2.
I'm simply challenging the assertion "Linux is _MUCH_, _MUCH_ faster
than FreeBSD". Maybe it's a little faster. You'll have to prove to
me with hard numbers before I'll believe "MUCH, MUCH". I think you're
just plain wrong.
BTW.. Linux has better UDP support.=)
That's what they tell you. :-) Just remember, ignorance is bliss...
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Michael L. VanLoon mich...@HeadCandy.com
--< Free your mind and your machine -- NetBSD free un*x >--
NetBSD working ports: 386+PC, Mac 68k, Amiga, HP300, Sun3, Sun4,
DEC PMAX (MIPS), DEC Alpha, PC532
NetBSD ports in progress: VAX, Atari 68k, others...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Peter da Silva
Nick Kralevich <nick...@parker.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
> It seems that some of the NetBSD people rejected a person named Theo
> De Raadt from the core development team, and that person went out and
> created another distribution called OpenBSD (http://www.openbsd.org/).
> So I agree with the person who called BSD a "Developer's Guild".
> It just doesn't seem that open to me when the developers of an
> operating system kick someone out of the development environment.
NetBSD != FreeBSD
> As for the "openness" of FreeBSD development, I refer you (again) to the
> following threads from comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:
[SNIP]
> Summary: You have to be a member of the BSD core team to be able
> to see any real changes in the source code.
I'm not a member of the core team. I'm sitting here looking at the latest
entry in the commit logs. And the files... what was that again?
--
Peter da Silva (NIC: PJD2) `-_-' 1601 Industrial Boulevard
Bailey Network Management 'U` Sugar Land, TX 77487-5013
+1 713 274 5180 "Har du kramat din varg idag?" USA
Bailey pays for my technical expertise. My opinions probably scare them
Julian Elischer
Nick Kralevich <nick...@parker.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>Julian Elischer <jul...@mailhub.tfs.com> wrote:
>>Whoops, can't let you get away with that one I'm afraid..
>>The entire FreeBSD system are available on a DAILY basis
>>(or should I say CONTINUAL basis) The releases are just the time
>>when we make an EXTRA effort to snapsot it and we
>>'freeze development' for a while to get that snapshot
>>'right'.
>
>This is funny.
>
>I've been following a thread in comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc.
>The title of the thread is "NetBSD camp reaction to OpenBSD?".
>It seems that some of the NetBSD people rejected a person named Theo
>De Raadt from the core development team, and that person went out and
>created another distribution called OpenBSD (http://www.openbsd.org/).
>So I agree with the person who called BSD a "Developer's Guild".
>It just doesn't seem that open to me when the developers of an
>operating system kick someone out of the development environment.
yes but that doesn't change what I was saying..
what the bulk of the guys doing NetBSD, and THeo have
is a PERSONALITY problem.. it's not that he was technically a problem,
He's good, but that they had a fight over something..
It doesn't affect whether or not you can get FreeBSD on a daily basis..
It's a total red herring to what we were talking about..
OK what would LINUX do if someone kept insisting
on doing something that all the big linux names thought was wrong..??
What if this person kept going into the central Linux repository
at sunsite.whatever and changed things, in a way that
everybody else didn't like?
how would the linux community handle this?
that's not an exact analogy, but the problem is the same..
>
>Included below are some articles that may be of interesting reading:
sure reading's ALWAYS interesting..
>
[..]
deleted one article .. where person A says it's sad..
[...]
and another
>
>As for the "openness" of FreeBSD development, I refer you (again) to the
>following threads from comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:
>
[...]
someone comments that they like the CVS tree being available..
>|
>| I'd really like to see this for NetBSD/FreeBSD, too. As an example, it
>| would make it much easier to look at John Dyson's work on the VM
>| system without having to ask someone to check out all these changes.
[...]
I would like to point out that the CVS tree IS avaliable to anyone who
asks for it.. It's not thrown out in the anon FTP area,
but you can get it by SUP by just asking.
SUP and FTP both have significant LOADS on the system so we try not to
do TOO much of this..
We are just getting around this by making regional mirrors that you can
SUP or FTP from, and hopefully with this change we'll be able
to better make the tree available..
>
Jordan replied..
>|
>| Let's ask the NetBSD Project: What do you say, guys? A year or so ago,
>| both groups shut down mutual read access for fears both real and
>| imagined. What's our situation today? Anyone over there having
>| seditious thoughts about tearing down the Berlin wall? I personally
>| would not mind at all.
>| --
>| Jordan
>
>
>So far, there has been *NO* announcement of the opening of the CVS
>tree.
you know, If NetBSD had asked for it any time in the last year,
it probably would have been given to them..
the Steam seems to have gone out of the argument..
but even at the worst time,
however they had access to an up-to date FreeBSD
source tree, and we had an up-to date NetBSD tree on Freefall too.
It's updated every night, as is theirs I believe..
Does this sound so UN-OPEN to you?
It's a hell of a lot better than you can get from linux..
so Don't throw stones, you live in a glass house..
>
>Summary: You have to be a member of the BSD core team to be able
>to see any real changes in the source code. Membership is restricted
>to a select group, and if your not in that group, tough luck. Even
>if your a good programmer, but other people in the group don't
>like you, you can get kicked out. Not exactly what I call "open" or
>a conductive development environment.
BULLSHIT!
No-one would DREAM of stopping Theo from having FULL ACCESS to both FreeBSD
and NetBSD sources..
We might stop taking his contributions but he is always welcome to integrate
his changes into a copy of our tree himself and make that available..
this is effectively what happenned.
NetBSD sources are available to Theo
Theo's sources are available to netBSD
Both are available to FreeBSD and FreeBSD is available to Both of them.
I fail to see what is CLOSED about this arangement
(except that it's a closed graph)
What if redhat or slackware reject a contribution from you?
what do you do then? c'mon.. It's IDENTICAL
HOW MANY TIMES MUST I SPELL THIS OUT?
I take sources every day and watch the changes..
I don't see how being a couple of hours behind the central sources
makes it UN-OPEN.
>
>Personally, I prefer Linux.
Hey Linux is neat but Why do you keep insisting that BSD
isn't eady to work with?
have you TRIED?
Stormy Henderson
Not necessarily easier, better. Linux is MUCH, MUCH faster than
FreeBSD for a SINGLE user machine. FreeBSD tends to respond faster
to things like network I/O and disk I/O faster than Linux, but
Linux tends to respond more to 'user' visible processes...
I would like to know where you find data to support such questionable
hypotheses.
He probably tried them both. I've used both, I find Linux much faster on my
just-me machine. I don't have to use any benchmarks, I can tell just by
doing what I usually do, program, mud, etc (was using Linux kernel 1.1.* and
FreeBSD 2.0A).
Be happy...
,-------------------------------------------------------.
| Stormy Henderson (sto...@gtlug.org) |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Stormy Mountain, a ROM 2.4 (phs.k12.ar.us 6969) |
| Marrying my Lisa on April 20th, 1996. |
`-------------------------------------------------------'
Michael L. VanLoon
If you read more carefully, you'll find he's not complaining about
availability of source changes, he's asking for specific CVS versions
to be retrievable by normal users. There's a big difference. All the
source code, and changes less than a day old are already available.
He just wants to be able to say "give me a diff between
/sys/vm/vm_kern.c version 1.15 and 1.16".
Currently, that is not possible without asking a core member to check
out the two specific back-versions and doing the diff for you.
If you sup the stuff and keep it in your own CVS tree, you can get
this functionality, because daily releases of the current source tree
*are* available. You simply currently have to do your own version
management if you want to retrieve specific back-versions of a file.
But once again, the fact is raised that at least the *BSD groups keep
the entire source tree in a well-managed CVS enlistment system. Is
there any of the native Linux system in such well-managed state?
Could you retrieve a specific kernel file from a specific date for me?
Any commercial company who developed software like that would quickly
go out of business, after their software got buggier and harder to
maintain, and users quit buying the stuff.
Robert Brockway
: >: Most importantly, Slackware releases rearely synced with stable
: >: releases of the kernel!!! Separate distributions from the kernel
: >: caused us no end of grief.
: >I fail to understand why getting and compiling new kernel sources is a
: >problem. True, installing a new kernel requires a reboot, but...
: I can think of two problems. a) Rebooting is not acceptalbe in some situations
: if you are running a business server (I had to deal with this issue at IBM a
: couple of time.. It's amazing how many people get pissed off because the
: server was down to reboot for 5 minutes) I highly doubt that Walnut Creek
: reboot very often. b) You have to spend/waste the time to keep on top of
: the kernel releases and issues regarding it. If you have to do work then that
: can be a problem. I run linux on one of my machines and I have been fairly
: happy with it, there are a few things that bug me but not too many. Now
: start looking for new kernels because of those few bugs? If I haven't upgraded
: in a year then they could be a lot of kernels to look through and they may not
I don't see why u have to look throught kernels. get the latest stable
kernel (where y is even in the x.y.z number), or the lastest development
kenrel if u need a special feature only available there (y is odd in x.y.z).
The kernel sites even have a file clearly telling u which one is the latest,
for eg: LATEST-IS-1.2.13.
: fix anything, it's realistic to assume that they could even break something
: else. This is one area AIX, BSD, HPUX, and all the other organized unixi will
: always have an edge; and it's an important edge to a lot of people.
The open developmen model allows for more alpha/beta testers, and thus
quicker development. Stick to stable kernels if that is what u need.
Anyway FreeBSD, and NetBSD have snapshots of current (alpha/beta) kernels
don't they?
: I guess a third problem with this is that recompiling the kernel isn't seen by
: everybody as an okay thing to do. Commercial unixi are starting to move
: towards the more dynamic methods. On an AIX box you can plug things into it
: and activate them with out ever rebooting or recompiling the kernel. There is
Linux has kernel loadable modules (and has had since pre 1.0). in addition
Linux can now have dynamically loaded modules thanks to kerneld.
-Robert
--Robert Brockway, email: ec53...@student.uq.edu.au
WWW: http://student.uq.edu.au/~ec531667
"Since the dodecahedron has 12 faces, it makes an ideal desk calendar."
Gary Chartrand and Ortrud R. Oellermann, Applied and Algorithmic Graph Theory.
Mats Andtbacka
>In article <49ksgl$2p...@ns4-1.CC.Lehigh.EDU> fj...@Lehigh.EDU (FRANK JUDE WOJCIK) writes:
>>: 2) At the time of Linux 1.0.9, console hangs were prevelant, causing
>>: grief for users. The only solution was to upgrade, but there was
>>: only so far we could upgrade w/o installing a totally new Slackware and
>>: going through the same grief (ELF).
>>Hm. It's my recollection that you could upgrade pretty far (kernel wise) w/o
>>any of the utilities breaking.
>Read what he's saying again - he'd have had to go to ELF, hardly a
>"without any of the utilities breaking" scenario..
True, but he also said "at the time of 1.0.9", when ELF wasn't
anywhere nearly there yet. This makes me, for one, wonder what he's
talking about.
FWIW, he could've upgraded to a.out 1.2.x without breaking very much,
if anything at all; I've seen no console hangs on that system that I
didn't ask for (by abusing svgalib programs), and those were my fault
more than the OS's.
--
" ... got to contaminate to alleviate this loneliness
i now know the depths i reach are limitless... "
-- nin
Timothy Murphy
>Please refer to the FreeBSD documentation
>for supping the -current or -stable trees.
Which FreeBSD documentation?
The last time I looked the FreeBSD documentation
was in a terrible shambles.
I wouldn't recomment FreeBSD to anyone who is not familiar with BSD Unix
unless this has been cleaned up.
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: t...@maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
John S. Dyson
Nick Kralevich <nick...@parker.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>In article <87rayn8...@interbev.mindspring.com>,
>Robert Sanders <rsan...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>FreeBSD makes the latest sources available via SUP. No, I personally
>>can't check things out of the CVS tree. I don't know of any single
>>CVS tree that defines the Linux kernel (or userland, for that matter).
>
>If you reread the articles I posted, you'll find that
>crac...@wavehh.hanse.de (Martin Cracauer), a member of the
>"BSD User Group Hamburg", was complaining about lack of access to the
>changes in FreeBSD. If a BSD user group member is complaining about
>lack of access, can you imagine a common joe like you or I getting
>access to it?
>
daily current source: ftp.freebsd.org:/pub/FreeBSD/FreeBSD-current
daily stable-2.1.X source: ftp.freebsd.org:/pub/FreeBSD/FreeBSD-stable
If you want, I can even tell you how to get sup updates automatically!!!
So many times, problems such as this are a matter of not knowing, and it
is good to understand before taking on a cause that is not existant.
The sup info is in the FreeBSD documentation.
Regarding the CVS tree, there are some issues that are difficult to
resolve, but at least FreeBSD/NetBSD has coherent source code control
management!!! Since 58 people from all over the world have CVS access,
isn't that pretty darn open??? -- how many people can make a commit to the Linux
kernel for example??? (It doesn't answer the question to say that you
can edit your own copy :-)).
Take care :-)
John S. Dyson
Nick Kralevich <nick...@parker.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>In article <49osrd$p...@times.tfs.com>,
>Julian Elischer <jul...@mailhub.tfs.com> wrote:
>>Whoops, can't let you get away with that one I'm afraid..
>>The entire FreeBSD system are available on a DAILY basis
>>(or should I say CONTINUAL basis) The releases are just the time
>>when we make an EXTRA effort to snapsot it and we
>>'freeze development' for a while to get that snapshot
>>'right'.
>
>This is funny.
>
that the Linux kernel development is NOT open, but just a tease. Not
only is Linux encumbered, but the CVS tree (if there is one), is NOT
available AFAIK. When you use Linux, you have to agree to certain
usage restrictions.
Nick, you do not seem to understand the issues, and I am sorry that you
have not been able to accept reality. Reality is, that FreeBSD development
is *extremely* open and the OS runtime is unencumbered. Begging the question
is silly -- so your above statement is vacuous.
Why don't you just try supping the daily FreeBSD-current tree or perhaps
randomly ftp down any FreeBSD source file -- you can do it, no problem. If
you choose not to -- that is your decision also, but you and anyone else have
that choice.
If the big Linux suppliers would make their daily source trees available, then
is the Linux kernel available for daily update??? Linus owns
Linux and through his generosity, you can use it -- isn't that nice of him?.
John S. Dyson
Nick Kralevich <nick...@parker.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>
>following threads from comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:
>
>tree.
>
daily up-to-date FreeBSD sources... I sure would like to see the
daily source for Linux!!!
>
>Summary: You have to be a member of the BSD core team to be able
>to see any real changes in the source code. Membership is restricted
>
Wrong wrong wrong, so wrong about FreeBSD, that again, your credibility
is in question!!! Most people that have CVS commit authority are not
on the core team. Last I counted, 58 people have full CVS commit
authority on FreeBSD (including kernel.) That is quite a bit more open
than you are representing, and approx 5X the core team size.
>
>to a select group, and if your not in that group, tough luck. Even
>if your a good programmer, but other people in the group don't
>like you, you can get kicked out. Not exactly what I call "open" or
>a conductive development environment.
^^^ Spelling error??? or is this about flow of some kind ??!?!?!?
>
People are not programmers only -- and in fact, on a job -- you can be fired
even if you are a good programmer. There was a severe personality conflict,
and since the core team of Linux is of size '1', it is not likely that
that person will be removed from the team. Theo is doing the right
thing for himself by starting OpenBSD -- I do not think that it is
necessary, but that is his choice. Also, I think that it is not good to
judge that situation from the outside -- only part if the information has
become public, and I, myself don't want to prejudge.
>
>Personally, I prefer Linux.
>
Ok -- the only thing that I can agree with you about... :-)
Personally, I prefer higher performance, thereby further distinguishing
the OS from Microsoft with its sluggish OSes and apps.
...FreeBSD...
Jordan K. Hubbard
> not known for 'buggier and harder to maintain' software. SCCS is
> an unqualified Good Thing(tm), but, regretfully, it's not necessary
Just for the record, SCCS is most definitely NOT an "unqualified Good
Thing(tm)" and, in point of fact, it sucks rocks. RCS is a far better
alternative now, and CVS even better still.
No, a good CASE tool does not guarantee code quality - that is true.
All it does for you is help you to manage *complexity*. This frequently
results in engineers producing better code, but your mileage may, of
course, vary. In the FreeBSD Project, we find CVS to be indispensible
in managing *multiple* developers converging on a single source tree.
For Linus, this probably isn't an issue nor is it for any of the other
one man band Linux operations who aren't *developing* so much as they
are *packaging* the bits. There's a big difference between the tools
required for the guy who sells hot dogs and the factory that makes them.
--
Jordan
Chuck Cranor
Nick Kralevich <nick...@parker.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>If a BSD user group member is complaining about lack of access, can you
>imagine a common joe like you or I getting access to it?
With OpenBSD one can simply set the CVSROOT enviornment variable
to "ano...@anoncvs.openbsd.org:/cvs" and get read access to the
OpenBSD cvs tree -- no special account required. [assuming you
have IP access and a recent version of cvs installed (e.g. 1.6)]
A "common joe" should be happy with that?
FreeBSD's sup and CTM service sound pretty good too (pretty quick
sup scan cycle).
cheers,
Chuck
--
Chuck Cranor, Graduate Student
Computer and Communications Research Center
Washington University, St. Louis MO USA
E-Mail: ch...@maria.wustl.edu / cra...@udel.edu
Michael L. VanLoon
In article <49k0dd$p...@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
Clint Olsen <ols...@kodiak.ee.washington.edu> wrote:
>In article <30BD2617...@mcs.net>,
>Craig Bergren <cber...@mcs.net> wrote:
>Good point. I went out and asked amongst the mailing lists and
>newsgroups to find this info out. Generally, most decent hardware is
>supported by both FreeBSD and Linux. Linux may support a lot of funky
>hardware, but I would probably not be interested in running an OS on it.
>At some point, you have to decide whether or not you want to make an OS
>run on your hardware or select hardware to run an OS :)
You're part of a minority. A lot of people just want a good
operating system to play with, but already have a machine to put it
on; spending the money to upgrade the machine to a configuration
suitable to Linux or xBSD may be enough to make the user throw in
the towel and stick with Windows or OS/2, which are both capable
of running on quite a bit of the funky hardware out there.
I have two things to say: Windows 95; Windows NT.
Sure, if you want to stay with one release of OS/2 or Windows 3.1 for
the rest of your life, you don't need to upgrade. But, even Windows
users need to upgrade if they're going to keep up with modern
developments.
Michael L. VanLoon
In article <49pb5g$d...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Nick Kralevich <nick...@parker.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
> It seems that some of the NetBSD people rejected a person named Theo
> De Raadt from the core development team, and that person went out and
> created another distribution called OpenBSD (http://www.openbsd.org/).
> So I agree with the person who called BSD a "Developer's Guild".
> It just doesn't seem that open to me when the developers of an
> operating system kick someone out of the development environment.
NetBSD != FreeBSD
Thanks for that entirely unhelpful statement, Peter. I'm not sure
what that has to do with this discussion. FreeBSD also has a core
team.
Theo was a core member of the NetBSD team. This means he was one of
four people who could make policy decisions about the future of
NetBSD, was a spokesman for NetBSD proper, and could make sweeping
changes to the entire NetBSD source tree without restraint. He was
one of four people who had complete control over NetBSD. The other
three decided that he didn't represent NetBSD in the light they wanted
it represented him and removed him from this position.
They did not remove his access to read daily source changes, since any
person in the world can do this. An adequate analogy is having a
person on the board of a corporation removed by other members of the
board. There needs to be *someone* who gives NetBSD (and FreeBSD)
direction. That is the core group. Consider it a multi-person
equivalent to Linus in the Linux world. Theo was removed from this
group. He was still able to submit any sources changes to someone
with check-in privs if he desired, but he declined to do so. How was
he kicked out of the development environment?
On the other hand, Theo was able to take the entire NetBSD source tree
and start his own BSD for two reasons. 1) The entire source tree,
with complete development source, was available to all who would want
it, including Theo. 2) The BSD copyright precludes anyone from
denying the use of these sources for any reason, as long as copyrights
are kept intact on the files. Now, how is this an exclusive
Developers Guild?
> As for the "openness" of FreeBSD development, I refer you (again) to the
> following threads from comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:
[SNIP]
> Summary: You have to be a member of the BSD core team to be able
> to see any real changes in the source code.
I'm not a member of the core team. I'm sitting here looking at the latest
entry in the commit logs. And the files... what was that again?
Exactly my point.
Mats Andtbacka
>On 2 Dec 1995 10:52:32 GMT, nick...@parker.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Nick Kralevich) said:
[...]
>FreeBSD makes the latest sources available via SUP. No, I personally
>can't check things out of the CVS tree. I don't know of any single
>CVS tree that defines the Linux kernel (or userland, for that matter).
As far as Linux is "defined" at all, it's in the kernel source trees
on ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/OS/Linux/PEOPLE/Linus/v1.$VERSION
where $VERSION is in [0-3]; 3, at the moment. New patches come out
whenever Linus releases them, which can be daily to biweekly.
That's probably as close to the development of Linux as most people
care to get; not all of the development kernels even compile, as
they're released on that site. Probably if you wanted to get much more
up-to-date you'd have to start emailing the individual developers for
whatever patches they haven't submitted to Linus yet.
And yes, the site is open (for reading, anyway) to everybody, as are
all the mirrors of it I know of; the best one is supposed to be on
nether.net I think.
Am I correct to think that the FreeBSD "equivalent", this CVS or
whatever you called it, can't be _read_ except by a small core team?
Whatever for? Keeping people from making their own changes and writing
to it I can see, but...?
>FreeBSD has a core team capable of committing changes to the source
>tree. Linux has one person (Linus) capable of committing changes to
>the source tree. The situation is the same for the average Joe
>working on either system: you develop on your own system(s) and send
>your patches to somebody with write access to the main source tree.
>That's either one of the FreeBSD core team or Linus.
Actually, if I wanted to nitpick, not _every_ Linux kernel change
should go to Linus; for example, the ext2fs is maintained by Remy
Card, so patches to it should be sent to him. But yes, you're
essentially right.
Out of interest, what happens if I develop something completely new
for FreeBSD, some driver never seen before; with Linux, I could just
proclaim myself its developer/maintainer, send it to Linus and hope
it gets into the kernel. Who approves new stuff into FreeBSD?
>I'm not saying that FreeBSD is the final word in open software
>development or that Linux is absolutely closed, but in the spirit of
>this thread I must ask: how is Linux development *more* open?
It probably isn't; in the case that Linus should lose access or maybe
just get himself a life, it's probably more closed, since he could
prove a difficult man to replace. But you'd have to be mildly daft to
consider either one "closed" when compared to most commercial
offerings.
Warner Losh
> I don't know how Linus does internal version control, but there
>are plenty of companies that don't use version control (or have got
>Company Standards(tm) like DEC's CMS, which is worthless) that are
>not known for 'buggier and harder to maintain' software. SCCS is
>an unqualified Good Thing(tm), but, regretfully, it's not necessary
Having lived in both worlds, I must disagree with this last statement.
When people are totally anal retentive about every last change they
make being put in all the right places, then this could work.
However, I've never met a group of engineers that were 100% successful
at doing this 100% of the time.
Even with source code control, however, you can have lots of things
fall through the cracks. I've had lots of problems with Sun shipping
a patch to OS x.y and then having the same bugs appear in x.y+1 and
x.y+2 because the patch was generated from somebody's home directory
and never checked back into the souce bases.... :-(.
Good source code control, when used effectively, makes it much easier
to produce quality software. Like all tools, it can be abused.
Warner
--
Warner Losh i...@village.org
The web browser is the network.
John S. Dyson
Stormy Henderson <sto...@gtlug.org> wrote:
>Michael L. VanLoon (mich...@MindBender.HeadCandy.com) writes...
>
> Not necessarily easier, better. Linux is MUCH, MUCH faster than
> FreeBSD for a SINGLE user machine. FreeBSD tends to respond faster
> to things like network I/O and disk I/O faster than Linux, but
> Linux tends to respond more to 'user' visible processes...
>
> I would like to know where you find data to support such questionable
> hypotheses.
>
>He probably tried them both. I've used both, I find Linux much faster on my
>just-me machine. I don't have to use any benchmarks, I can tell just by
>doing what I usually do, program, mud, etc (was using Linux kernel 1.1.* and
>FreeBSD 2.0A).
>
to those people using it. There were some evil bugs in that bugger, but
unfortunately we had to port to the 4.4Lite tree faster than we really
could (for legal reasons.) Whenever I compare the two OSes, I compare
2.05, 2.1, 2.2-current and Linux 1.2.8, 1.3.20-1.3.4x. FreeBSD V2.0 is
history (but there are still people buying that thing, unfortunately.)
Michael L. VanLoon
1.2.x kernel + appletalk patches, but had to move to 1.3.37 (I ran this
at home and it was stable enough.) to get a better supported Appletalk
kernel protocal because it was causing minor problems on our net.
[...]
Where in the BSD world, I would either have to patch it myself, or get
my way into the "Developer's guild".=)
It's been said many times before. You don't need to be in any secret
club to keep up with development sources. You simply run sup and it
pulls down the latest changes to the development tree less than 24
hours old. Sup again as often as needed or desired. It's simple and
elegant.
Yes, Linux's method of kernel development is different, but you have to
admint that 1.2.13 is rock stable...And I'm sure 2.0.lastX or 1.4.lastX
will be rock stable.
Does BSD release a major change per year for kernels and packages?
Linux kernel has a major revision change every year.
NetBSD does it roughly once a year. FreeBSD does it about twice a
year from my unofficial observations.
I'd like to try BSD some day, but I have been very happy with Linux. I'm
move to RedHat 2.1 after 'living' with slackware since I stared, and after
Which is not to say you wouldn't also be "very happy" with one of the
free *BSDs. But, hey, go with whatever floats your boat.
Then just use the final 1.<evennumber> releases..No one is forcing you
to run beta kernals. I personally do run the lastest newest version
I think the point was that for many people (the original poster,
specifically), they don't have this option. It's either use buggy
alpha kernels or live without key features they need.
BENJAMIN A LINDSTROM
: In article <49o2n2$t...@daffy.anetsrvcs.uwrf.edu>,
: BENJAMIN A LINDSTROM <bl...@uwrf.edu> wrote:
: :
: :Where in the BSD world, I would either have to patch it myself, or get
: :my way into the "Developer's guild".=)
[Note: Now..THIS is what I wanted to know =)..Deleted 'Guild Operations of
BSD.=)]
BTW...No as far as I know we don't have a nice complex system..Linus controls
what goes into the kernel and what does not. I think there was talk on
what Linus did for kernel modifications..but that was 1/2 a year ago and
since Kernels are not my favorate place to 'play' in..I leave it to the
more intelligent hackers in that field.
: :Yes, Linux's method of kernel development is different, but you have to
: :admint that 1.2.13 is rock stable...And I'm sure 2.0.lastX or 1.4.lastX
: :will be rock stable.
:
: FreeBSD 'Releases' are pretty stable.. we don't stop the process
: for releases, however, we BRANCH everything, and one BRANCH
: stops development and get's fixed up for release, while the main
: branch plows on.. (You have to know RCS/CVS etc. to know what I'm
: saying here but hopefully you do).. The moment we Branch a release it's
: effectively left behind....
:
Ya...1.0/1.1 tried that...But we had more headaches then it was worth for
Linus from the sounds of it..And the Linux community cried out for a
TOTAL 'freeze' so that we can put 100% effort into making sure all
production kernels were stable as posiable.
: :
: :Does BSD release a major change per year for kernels and packages?
: :Linux kernel has a major revision change every year.
:
: Our Aim was a FULL (CDROM and all) release 3 or 4 times a year,
: but practicallity looks like being every 6 months..
: but between those times there are usually several 'half releases'
: Not quite as much QC as a full release, but a new boot-floppy, and
: stuff.. No cdrom though.(well we could but people would get upset about the
: reduced QC if they had bought something, so we don't
: for self preservation reasons)
:
I think RedHat is going towards this, but they are doing a package-by-package
upgrade. I just installed 2.1 of redhat and threw 3 patches on it. And
it's just great. =)
Soo..As I said...the way Linux and *BSD operate differently. <shrug>
I doubt Linux will ever totally move to the FreeBSD method of kernel
hacking unless Linus decides to move that way (or there is a major
uprising.=)
Julian Elischer
>:
>: BTW.. Linux has better UDP support.=)
>:
>: That's what they tell you. :-) Just remember, ignorance is bliss...
>
>been sent out.=) Last I heard the *BSD systems still don't have that
>fixed.=)
This comment shows a severe misunderstanding of the concept behind UDP.
Verify from where?
what failures do you know about under Linux that the standard BSD
UDP code doesn't let you know about?
(I mean REALLY, if you know of such a thing, let meknow because
if it does happen, I'll look at fixing it, but
I'm extremely puzzled by what you seem to think you are describing..
BENJAMIN A LINDSTROM
Amancio Hasty, Jr.
>If you reread the articles I posted, you'll find that
>crac...@wavehh.hanse.de (Martin Cracauer), a member of the
>"BSD User Group Hamburg", was complaining about lack of access to the
>lack of access, can you imagine a common joe like you or I getting
>access to it?
>
It must be awfully difficult to type:
sup
A real technical tour de force is to ftp to ftp.freebsd.org and
download the sources . For instance to get the latest kernel source
ftp ftp.freebsd.org
cd /pub/FreeBSD/<release which you want>
get sys.tar.gz
--
Amancio Hasty
Hasty Software Consulting Services
Tel: 415-495-3046
Fax: 415-495-3046
Cellular: 415-309-8434
e-mail: ha...@star-gate.com Powered by FreeBSD