[q] Why (Free & Net)BSD use different binaries?
Pitt Cheang
386bsd newsgroups and having some opinion compare between the two different
multiprocessing OS, makes me want to try how 386bsd taste. I believe people
from here would suggest either FreeBSD or NetBSD, however I have a question
thought. Why would there exist two versions of XFree86 for FreeBSD and
NetBSD ? Motif ? If both are diversed from 386bsd, I couldn't think of
any ideas what is the difference would make seperate binaries, are they
different in binary code or just filesystem structure? Are the different
in kernel code ? or are they just different in distribution method?
Right now have just downloaded FreeBSD, (it takes me two days to get
them all), should I try NetBSD also?
For linux, different distributions still base on the same kernel code,
are FreeBSD and NetBSD a totally different story? I'm asking this
because there is NetBSD supporting other platform, but never heard of
FreeBSD on other kind of machine using different CPU, will the amiga,
macintosh, sun etc.. port of NetBSD work on FreeBSD ??
Thanks for you time typing in your informations.
Marc WANDSCHNEIDER
Pitt Cheang <che...@marlin.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
>I have been using Linux for a while and very happy with it, browsing through
>386bsd newsgroups and having some opinion compare between the two different
>multiprocessing OS, makes me want to try how 386bsd taste. I believe people
>from here would suggest either FreeBSD or NetBSD, however I have a question
>thought. Why would there exist two versions of XFree86 for FreeBSD and
>NetBSD ? Motif ? If both are diversed from 386bsd, I couldn't think of
>any ideas what is the difference would make seperate binaries, are they
>different in binary code or just filesystem structure? Are the different
>in kernel code ? or are they just different in distribution method?
>Right now have just downloaded FreeBSD, (it takes me two days to get
>them all), should I try NetBSD also?
sigh.
in the beginning, there was 386bsd. Bill Jolitz, a weird guy
to say the least, ported the BSD 4.3 Net/2 code to intel i386
chip. the port kinda worked and kinda did most unix things
that people want it to do, except it was extremely unstable,
buggy, and to some people, poorly written. however, it was
free, and there was an excellent series of articles in dr.dobbs
journal startin in jan 91 i believe that described the porting
process.
a bunch of people who were working on 386bsd started up what
became the 'patchkit' for 386bsd. every once in a while,
a whole collection of patches and bug fixes would be submitted
that people could add to their source tree to make it run
better.
all the while, bill jolitz was promising the imminent release
of 386bsd version 0.2 [up until then, there had been 0.0 and
0.1 only]. this version of 386bsd was promised to:
1. fix everything broken in 0.1
2. contain a real sysv streams implementation
3. solve world hunger.
4. contain vast tracts of Jesus Monroy Jr's [ye groupe foole]
code. [hahahhahahhaha]
now, some people who did a lot of work on 386bsd came along,
and decided that
1. 0.2 was never going to come out
2. 386bsd kinda sucked.
3. too much of bsd's platform independance had been
removed.
thus, they started NetBSD 0.8, with the intent of removing
the 386 from 386bsd. ports to the amiga, mac, and sparc
quickly followed, all the while work on the 386 continued.
the code tree was massively reorg'd, and work to make it easier to
port followed. 0.9 soon after came out [i386].
now, there wer e a bunch of people who were still holding out on 0.2,
but slowly started to realize that it had about as great a chance
as showing up sometime soon as bob dole did of convincing the world
that he really does believe in gay rights.
these people were tempted to join up with the netbsd camp, and
start the mother of all free operating systems. [most being
largely of the opinion that linux was pooopoo for what they
wanted].
however, oweing to -phenomenal- tact, diplomacy, and general
conversation skills above and beyond that of a dandelion [barely],
what ended up ensuing was a series of donnybrooks that would do Orca
[oops Oprah] proud.
thus, the netbsd people decided to do what they were doing, and the
old 386bsd people decide to continue working on the 386bsd
code base, but instead rename it to freebsd, since 386bsd was all but
dead.
freebsd 1.0 [after about 50 beta, alpha, gnu, pie, epsilon, and
gamma releases], finally came out, and proved to be a stable upgrade to
386bsd 0.1. the goal of freebsd was not concentrate on getting the
multi-platform stuff working as much as getting the i386 stuff
working[well].
NetBSD 0.9 came up with a dfferent executable format that was
more similar to BSDI's QMAGIC, than 386bsd's OMAGIC [god, i hope
i got the letters right ;-)], while FreeBSD continued to use
the same format as 386bsd, since it worked just fine.
thus, 386bsd and freebsd 1.0 binaries would run under netbsd 0.9,
as would many [all?] bsdi bsd/386 1.0 binaries. however,
netbsd and bsdi binaries would not run under freebsd 1.0. i believe
that freebsd can now run the qmagic binaries from bsdi and netbsd,
although i will not accept to being quoted on that one.
both netbsd 0.9 and freebsd 1.0 are pretty old in that the code base
both os's were based on has changed much since, in compeltely
different directions [ie, they were once pretty similar, but
this similarity grows less on a regular basis]. to get the
most up to date code trees, you want to look at the netbsd-current
and freebsd-current trees. these both have shared libraires,
fixes this and that, etc..... freebsd has a newer serial
and western digital disk driver, while netbsd continues to be plagued
by a broken serial driver and a buggy wd driver. the netbsd/amiga
sparc, and mac trees continue to evolve at a pleasant rate.
both now require different xfree86/motif/moo trees, since
they differ a lot oat the system level. most freebsd ported
apps compile sans trouble under netbsd, and vice versa [ie,
in user land, the differences aren't quite as severe...]
thus, to sum it up:
386bsd is the common ancestor. netbsd and freebsd are diverging
code trees that both do pretty much the same thing. [run
unix :-)]. both will likely upgrade to BSD 4.4-lite at the easrliest
opportunity.
which one should you use for you intel computer?
Not 386bsd 0.1. anything else is pure religion.
if you've downloaded one, you might as well stick with it.
toodlepip!
marc 'em.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Wandschneider Seattle, WA
Barney the Dinosaur sings! You faint... Barney sings! Barney sings! --More--
You Die... --More--
Chris G. Demetriou
>in the beginning, there was 386bsd. Bill Jolitz, a weird guy
>to say the least, ported the BSD 4.3 Net/2 code to intel i386
>chip.
False. He ported 4.3BSD-Reno to the i386. Net/2 was the first
released 'product' of that porting work.
>thus, to sum it up:
>
>386bsd is the common ancestor. netbsd and freebsd are diverging
>code trees that both do pretty much the same thing. [run
>unix :-)]. both will likely upgrade to BSD 4.4-lite at the easrliest
>opportunity.
actually, Net/2 is the common ancestor.
what the net saw as '386BSD' was derived from that. FreeBSD is more-or-less
directly derived from 386BSD. NetBSD is better described as being Net/2
derived, because all of the post-Net/2 '386BSD' code has been removed from
it, give or take.
chris
--
chris g. demetriou c...@cs.berkeley.edu
smarter than your average clam.
John Dyson
> and freebsd-current trees. these both have shared libraires,
> fixes this and that, etc..... freebsd has a newer serial
> and western digital disk driver, while netbsd continues to be plagued
> by a broken serial driver and a buggy wd driver. the netbsd/amiga
system. (I know yet-to-be-proven.) But tests and experience so far
looks really good.
John Dyson
dy...@implode.root.com
Pitt Cheang
I really have to thank all who had pointed me the path to go and told me
such a wonderful (touching) history about *BSD for personal computer.
However, due to the contradition in the opinions that I had received, it
would be wise for me to keep them for my own judgement, publiclize them
would only cause spark (if not flame), too dangerours.
My final decision is to go for all free OS I could get, meanwhile, wait
for the soon to be release newer FreeBSD and NetBSD, don forget the soon
to be release Linux 1.0. I am planning to get all the best and worse,
since they are all designed to address different needs. Too bad I only
have two hard drivers, DOS was accidently erased last week (could be
intentionly, must be my daemon inside). How would people here suggest
putting 3 OS on two 200M HD ??
Thanks again for you time.
frank segner
here they go...
st...@cs.mcgill.ca (Marc WANDSCHNEIDER) writes:
: In article <CL7tv...@news.cis.umn.edu>,
--
--
fr...@martha.utk.edu | The only Word is Silence.
fr...@ifan.knox.tn.us | (aleister crowley, the book of lies, 5)
frank segner
oops,
i'm terribly sorry about repeating marcs article; it was just a mistake !!!
i made this mistake. namely i interchanged the (f)orward and the (f)ollowup
function... once again: sorry !
please don't flame me (i shall not answer...)
Jordan K. Hubbard
[ A nice article but lacking a little accuracy in places ]
these people were tempted to join up with the netbsd camp, and
start the mother of all free operating systems. [most being
largely of the opinion that linux was pooopoo for what they
wanted].
This is inaccurate. Around the time that the 386BSD patchkit
coordinators were getting sick of the patchkit, NetBSD was just itself
starting out and it was by no means certain that it was going to be
anything but a group of people talking (as we ourselves were little
more than doing). We didn't elect not to join NetBSD due to any lack
of tact or diplomacy, we did our own thing because it seemed the thing
to do at the time.
thus, the netbsd people decided to do what they were doing, and the
old 386bsd people decide to continue working on the 386bsd
code base, but instead rename it to freebsd, since 386bsd was all but
dead.
Wrong. We renamed it to FreeBSD since Bill Jolitz _insisted_ that we not
do another release under the name "386bsd"!
386bsd is the common ancestor. netbsd and freebsd are diverging
code trees that both do pretty much the same thing. [run
You forget that BOTH FreeBSD and NetBSD have now moved away from
386BSD's ZMAGIC format (no, you didn't get the letters right! :-).
NetBSD is running their own version of ZMAGIC, FreeBSD is running with
basically BSDI's QMAGIC.
Jordan
--
Jordan K. Hubbard FreeBSD core team Electric Bivalves Anonymous
On the net, no one can hear you scream.
Jordan K. Hubbard
at the article I posted to comp.os.386bsd.development.
Eloy Domingos
>You forget that BOTH FreeBSD and NetBSD have now moved away from
>386BSD's ZMAGIC format (no, you didn't get the letters right! :-).
>NetBSD is running their own version of ZMAGIC, FreeBSD is running with
>basically BSDI's QMAGIC.
I found this out last night: I just got a binary distribution (1.0) of
FreeBSD and wanted to upgrade using the source of FreeBSD-current. It
was not as easy as I expected to: I started with 'make bootstrapld'
but the new 'as' came in place, in a format not recognized by the old
kernel.
So I restored the old as from tape. First made a new kernel. However,
the 'old' compiler doesn't define __FreeBSD__. I did it again and put
this define manually in the makefile. Then the linking failed (-Z flag
not supported). So I made the new 'ld' command first (still using the
old as).
Then when the kernel is linked, I get some undefined symbols (amongst which
is 'mountroot'). With a grep through all of /usr/src I find out that
I need a new version of sbin/config.
After I did this everything worked, I could build and boot the new kernel
and then to 'make bootstrapld' etc.
It turns out to be quite complicated (understandable) to upgrade
because of the changed binary format.
It would be nice if of FreeBSD-current not only a sourcetree would be exported
but also a binary distribution since this upgrade is not easy, but the
improvements (shared libraries) are very worthwhile.
Jordan K. Hubbard
I found this out last night: I just got a binary distribution (1.0) of
FreeBSD and wanted to upgrade using the source of FreeBSD-current. It
was not as easy as I expected to: I started with 'make bootstrapld'
but the new 'as' came in place, in a format not recognized by the old
kernel.
Pity you didn't contact us first - we have a "checklist" that going
down in the proper order will allow you to upgrade rather painlessly
from 1.0 to -current! Perhaps it's time to post it, though the 1.1
BETA is so close now (it's a bit late, actually, having been scheduled
for last week) that I'd tend to recommend becoming a BETA site over
going "current" (contact me with details of your machine configuration
and your general willingness to spam yourself if you'd like to be a
1.1 BETA site!)
It would be nice if of FreeBSD-current not only a sourcetree would be
exported but also a binary distribution since this upgrade is not easy,
but the improvements (shared libraries) are very worthwhile.
Well, the unfortunate thing about binary releases is that they're a
pain to put together, so we tend to only do so once every 3 months or
so when we roll a "release". When 1.1 is released, it will indeed be
a full source and binary distribution, as you'd expect.
Geoff Rehmet
>j...@whisker.hubbard.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard) writes:
>It turns out to be quite complicated (understandable) to upgrade
>because of the changed binary format.
;-) I even had problems recompiling -current after I had been away for 2
months - shows how quickly things move .....
>It would be nice if of FreeBSD-current not only a sourcetree would be exported
>but also a binary distribution since this upgrade is not easy, but the
>improvements (shared libraries) are very worthwhile.
Unfortunately this isn't all that feasible, since -current changes on a
continuous basis - freefall is updated once a day - so it would be a
full-time job for someone to provide a binary distrib. Besides -current
should not be regarded as released software.
Don't worry - I think that everyone who has fiddled with -current has
landed up with burnt fingers at some time or another ;-)
Geoff.
--
Geoff Rehmet, Computer Science Department, | ____ _ o /\
Rhodes University, South Africa |___ _-\_<, /\/\/\
email : cs...@cs.ru.ac.za | (*)/'(*) /\/\/\/\/\
: ge...@neptune.ru.ac.za (private) |
Bennett Todd
Pitt Cheang <che...@eel.micro.umn.edu> wrote:
>Too bad I only have two hard drivers, DOS was accidently erased last
>week (could be intentionly, must be my daemon inside). How would people
>here suggest putting 3 OS on two 200M HD ??
Well, I dunno about the BSDs, butt LILO, the Linux Loader, is quite happy
having multiple bootable OSes on a disk. I'd probably set up my first hard
disk as three primary partitions for the three bootable OSes, and an extended
partition containing more partitions to let you flexibly reallocate space
from one OS to another. I'd wait on the second disk until I decided what
OSes I really wanted to work with.
I just set up a friend's old notebook (386SX-16 w/ 4M RAM, 120M HD) with
MS-DOS 6+Windows 3.1 and MCC-Interim Linux. Works like a champ.
-Bennett
b...@sbi.com
Charles Hannum
In article <JKH.94Fe...@whisker.hubbard.ie>
j...@whisker.hubbard.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard) writes:
NetBSD is running their own version of ZMAGIC, FreeBSD is running
with basically BSDI's QMAGIC.
This is a bit misleading. NetBSD's ZMAGIC is identical to BSDI's
QMAGIC, except that the magic number is in the more standard `ZMAGIC +
machine id' format, in network byte order, so that it's recognizable
by kernels and file(1)s on different architectures. Currently neither
FreeBSD nor BSDI have to worry about this.
NetBSD can also run QMAGIC, old-style (4.3BSD and 386BSD) ZMAGIC, and
even NMAGIC and OMAGIC executables.
--
- Charles Hannum
NetBSD group
Working ports: i386, hp300, amiga, sparc, mac68k, pc532.
In progress: pmax, sun3.