Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

FreeBSD vs.Linux

73 views
Skip to first unread message

No one

unread,
Mar 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/11/98
to

Which one is better? FreeBSD, or Linux?
Now, obviously, being a newgroup about FreeBSD, most of you will say
that FreeBSD is better....
But why? Give some reasons.....Someone keeps telling me that FreeBSD is
the k-mart version of UNIX.


Mike

unread,
Mar 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/11/98
to

Not this again.

Randall D DuCharme

unread,
Mar 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/11/98
to

The only real way to settle this question is:

Try them both and decide for yourself!

--
Randall D DuCharme
Systems Engineer Novell, Microsoft, and UNIX Networking Support
Computer Specialists BSDI Internet Success Partners
414-253-9998 414-253-9919 (fax) BSD/OS Authorized Resellers

David Kaczynski

unread,
Mar 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/12/98
to

On Wed, 11 Mar 1998 17:50:31 -0700, Mike <mu...@ida.net> wrote:

=No one wrote:
=>
=> Which one is better? FreeBSD, or Linux?
=> Now, obviously, being a newgroup about FreeBSD, most of you will
say
=> that FreeBSD is better....
=> But why? Give some reasons.....Someone keeps telling me that
FreeBSD is
=> the k-mart version of UNIX.
=
=Not this again.

What do you mean, "again"? Has this subject been brought up before?

:^P

Frank Pawlak

unread,
Mar 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/12/98
to

In article <3507103C...@i.dont.like.spam>,

No one <em...@I.dont.like.spam> writes:
> Which one is better? FreeBSD, or Linux?
> Now, obviously, being a newgroup about FreeBSD, most of you will say
> that FreeBSD is better....

> But why? Give some reasons.....Someone keeps telling me that FreeBSD is
> the k-mart version of UNIX.
>
What walks like a trol, looks like a trol, and quacks like atrol?


Merlin

unread,
Mar 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/12/98
to

No one <em...@I.dont.like.spam> wrote:
: Which one is better? FreeBSD, or Linux?

: Now, obviously, being a newgroup about FreeBSD, most of you will say
: that FreeBSD is better....
: But why? Give some reasons.....Someone keeps telling me that FreeBSD is
: the k-mart version of UNIX.

Not able to form you own opinions?

-ck

Peter Adams

unread,
Mar 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/12/98
to

In article <6e85qk$iea$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Merlin
<ckn...@shell3.ba.best.com> writes

If the original poster is an absolute beginner, like me, it seems a fair
enough question. All I have managed so far, is to install FreeBSD and
learn a few basic commands. At this stage, the only thing I can say with
certainty, is that it is new and unfamiliar territory - daunting in its
complexity. Even my Unix books are confusing - never mind the perplexing
man pages.

The only thing that sustains me is a desire to eschew Bill Gates and all
his works and make my computer a Microsoft Free Zone.

So yes, I would also like to know from you experienced people whether I
am backing the right horse, or should consider Linux.
--
Peter Adams
Lincolnshire, England

Richard J. Pontefract

unread,
Mar 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/12/98
to

Peter Adams wrote:

> If the original poster is an absolute beginner, like me, it seems a fair
> enough question. All I have managed so far, is to install FreeBSD and
> learn a few basic commands. At this stage, the only thing I can say with
> certainty, is that it is new and unfamiliar territory - daunting in its
> complexity. Even my Unix books are confusing - never mind the perplexing
> man pages.

Neither FreeBSD or Linux are going to be Utopia at this point. When
you get a little further down the line you maybe will appreciate the
differences.

> The only thing that sustains me is a desire to eschew Bill Gates and all
> his works and make my computer a Microsoft Free Zone.

Is this a good reason? I use FreeBSD because I am more productive in
that environment than the Microsoft one. I also much prefer the Un*x
philosophy - it works best for what I do. I don't use it because I
dislike Bill Gates and Microsoft.



> So yes, I would also like to know from you experienced people whether I
> am backing the right horse, or should consider Linux.

Consider it. If you don't, you'll never know. Experience both, learn
both, then decide which is right for you. No-one knows except you what
you like, dislike or expect from your computing environment.

But whatever you do, enjoy it.

Rick

Jamie Bowden

unread,
Mar 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/12/98
to

On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, Peter Adams wrote:

> If the original poster is an absolute beginner, like me, it seems a fair
> enough question. All I have managed so far, is to install FreeBSD and
> learn a few basic commands. At this stage, the only thing I can say with
> certainty, is that it is new and unfamiliar territory - daunting in its
> complexity. Even my Unix books are confusing - never mind the perplexing
> man pages.
>

> The only thing that sustains me is a desire to eschew Bill Gates and all
> his works and make my computer a Microsoft Free Zone.
>

> So yes, I would also like to know from you experienced people whether I
> am backing the right horse, or should consider Linux.

Of course you should. I prefer FreeBSD personally, but that doesn't make
it right for everyone. Check out all the free x86 unices, and go with
what you are most comfortable with. If you have the bucks, check out the
not so free ones as well. The worst that happens is you learn about
multiple platforms and burn some time.

--
Jamie Bowden
Systems Administrator, iTRiBE.net

If we've got to fight over grep, sign me up. But boggle can go.
-Ted Faber (on Hasbro's request for removal of /usr/games/boggle)


Robert D. Keys

unread,
Mar 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/12/98
to

No one <em...@I.dont.like.spam> wrote:
> Which one is better? FreeBSD, or Linux?
> Now, obviously, being a newgroup about FreeBSD, most of you will say
> that FreeBSD is better....
> But why? Give some reasons.....Someone keeps telling me that FreeBSD is
> the k-mart version of UNIX.

This kind of thing is often asked, and sometimes gets bad karma.
We probably need a generic unix faq that has valid and reasonable
comparisons of all the different freebies in a level-headed and
sane way.

I will play a bit of the devil's advocate and belch up my IMHO.

I run about 7 odd versions of FreeBSD and Linux on various toy boxes
at home, and only FreeBSD at work. Why... because I can't easily
break the FreeBSD boxes or overload them or cause them to burp.
Every version of Linux I have tried since 0.96 days has worked,
and is fine for a single user box or one that I don't strain too hard.
But, my experiences have been that I can crash a Linux box somewhat
unexpectedly, and at odd times. That may be OK on the home boxes
where I am playing. That is NOT OK on the work boxes in the office,
where I have research data and where it counts for real.

The one thing that sells me on FreeBSD is the install. Linux has
a lot to learn yet, on installs, but it is getting there.

The other thing that sells me on FreeBSD are the autobuilding ports.
Sources are fetched from anywhere in the world and built fresh.
It works essentially every time, and makes me feel better about
having the sources around in the machine's archive directories.
Linux has a lot to learn yet on that sort of feature, but it is
getting there. Canned packages are OK on both systems but I like
the old comfy slippers by the fire feeling I get from having the
sources and port them directly.

Linux has a few more bells and whistles, but you pay for that with
excessive diversity and problems resolving odd inconsistencies,
seemingly because of vendor oriented individualism. That is good
for diversity, but bad for a consistent development system. That
diversity can be fun to play with late at night. I learn a lot
about the karma and whys and wherefores of *nices by playing with
them and tearing them meeces to peeces late at night.

FreeBSD is the everyman's unix for x86ish things. Linux is the
flashy buzzword unix for hackers, or all the latest features and
apps from here and there. Linux gets more press which is interesting
and indicates we need to do more *BSD pr's'manship. FreeBSD has
more consistency in the way it is put together. It is a bit like
apples and oranges again.

Both Linux and FreeBSD are becoming very similar to the average user.
In reality that is good for all the freebie unices here and there.
The differences are mostly cosmetic on the surface. Down deep, the
differences are considerable. Yet, in principle, I can take essentially
anything from either box and go back and forth with it and not usually
have problems, if I start at the source level. Adminning either is
not all that much different. As a play hacker type, I like the
Slackware version of Linux best, but newbies rave about Debian or Red
Hat. To me, they feel more constraining in the way they install and are
put together. Where I want a tiny system, I still prefer the old MCC 1.0+
system (almost vaporware but it installs easily in a toy 386 box with
4 megs ram and maybe 60 megs of HD, and works well for me every time).
Modern FreeBSD and Linux both require a biggie box to be comfy anymore.
In that respect they are very similar. Plan on 16 megs ram minimally,
and 2 gigs HD for a single user workstation, and at least double that
for a working multiuser box with room to play. More than that is gravy
on either system.

I would pose the issue this way...... if you want a stable and consistent
box, my experiences would suggest FreeBSD. If you want to hack a box or
use it only as a single user sort of workstation, then BOTH are good.
Me, I am used to the consistency of FreeBSD, and the peace of mind that
comes from not having to fuss with it as much as with a Linux box.

I am waiting for the next big issue of Linux and for 3.0FreeBSD, and
then will do some more serious comparisons on my home boxes. For now,
I hedge my bet with FreeBSD where it counts and Linux or FreeBSD or
NetBSD or Minix or Coherent or AIX or (lots of oldies but goodies)
at home where I can play and a crash or two are expected now and then.

Your mileage may vary......

RDK


Zenin

unread,
Mar 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/12/98
to

Richard J. Pontefract <r...@kietra.u-net.com> wrote:
: I don't use it because I dislike Bill Gates and Microsoft.
>snip<

True, but it's never a bad side effect. :P

--
-Zenin
ze...@best.com

Merlin

unread,
Mar 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/12/98
to

Peter Adams <Pe...@brig.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: In article <6e85qk$iea$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Merlin
: <ckn...@shell3.ba.best.com> writes

: >No one <em...@I.dont.like.spam> wrote:
: >: Which one is better? FreeBSD, or Linux?
: >: Now, obviously, being a newgroup about FreeBSD, most of you will say
: >: that FreeBSD is better....
: >: But why? Give some reasons.....Someone keeps telling me that FreeBSD is
: >: the k-mart version of UNIX.
: >
: >Not able to form you own opinions?
: >
: >-ck

: If the original poster is an absolute beginner, like me, it seems a fair
: enough question.

Absolute beginners do not munge their headers so that an intelligent conversation
via email is no longer possible. For obvious reasons I am treating the
original post as a troll.

Your post, on the other hand, is intelligent and well written.

: All I have managed so far, is to install FreeBSD and


: learn a few basic commands. At this stage, the only thing I can say with
: certainty, is that it is new and unfamiliar territory - daunting in its
: complexity. Even my Unix books are confusing - never mind the perplexing
: man pages.

But that is not just FreeBSD. That is X-nix in general: Solaris, Linux,
UnixWare, SCO, etc. It is rough enough when the commands are cryptic, but
without an understanding of the conceptual differences between unix and other
operating systems, it can be downright impossible.

Still, this is a factor both FreeBSD and Linux suffer. Neither one is better
at being less unix-like. Wouldn't be much point to that, would there? :)


: The only thing that sustains me is a desire to eschew Bill Gates and all


: his works and make my computer a Microsoft Free Zone.

Whatever floats your boat. I, personally, am a Computer Whore. I will
work on ANYTHING as long as you can afford my rates. I think that some
of Microsoft's products are quite useful, but that doesn't make me a
religious freak in either direction. I have Win95, Win98, WinNT, FreeBSD,
SunOS, Linux and MacOS boxes in my home. Yet you will never get me to
say wich one is BETTER because they all have their purpose.


: So yes, I would also like to know from you experienced people whether I


: am backing the right horse, or should consider Linux.


This isn't a race. FreeBSD and Linux are free Operating Systems. Neither
one can truely win. If the Linux and FreeBSD development community took
a cruise on the Titanic, the OS would not die, would not become unusable.

To answer your question: Since you wonder if you should try Linux, then
by all means do so! How else will YOU know. There is no 'right' answer,
there is only what makes you happy. If happy is running your http server
then great. If happy is a neat GUI, cool! Your call. Go buy yourself a
cheap one gigger, pull out your FreeBSD drive for a week, and give Linux
a try.


Have fun!

-ck

Robert D. Keys

unread,
Mar 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/12/98
to

Peter Adams <Pe...@brig.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <6e85qk$iea$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Merlin
> <ckn...@shell3.ba.best.com> writes
> >No one <em...@I.dont.like.spam> wrote:
> >: Which one is better? FreeBSD, or Linux?
> >: Now, obviously, being a newgroup about FreeBSD, most of you will say
> >: that FreeBSD is better....
> >: But why? Give some reasons.....Someone keeps telling me that FreeBSD is
> >: the k-mart version of UNIX.

> If the original poster is an absolute beginner, like me, it seems a fair
> enough question. All I have managed so far, is to install FreeBSD and


> learn a few basic commands. At this stage, the only thing I can say with
> certainty, is that it is new and unfamiliar territory - daunting in its
> complexity. Even my Unix books are confusing - never mind the perplexing
> man pages.

You raise a very good question that is not adequately covered in the
generic unices newsfeeds and really needs to be seriously thought out
and answered in a comparative FAQ somewhere. That will be good for
all the generic freebie unices.

To beginners, it is all like closing our eyes and hoping for the best.
That is one of the unfortunate things about learning unix, unless you
take a class in it somewhere.

> The only thing that sustains me is a desire to eschew Bill Gates and all
> his works and make my computer a Microsoft Free Zone.

We all have that kindred spirit to share with you.

I sense that somewhere we all need to put the religeous slants aside
and really think out how to approach some kind of generic ``welcome
to bonehead unix 100A'' type of freebie internet book that is basic
enough for all to get them bootstrapped into some semblance of user
mode. That first boot and install and login is the hardest though,
and was for all of us. You should find that in a few weeks, it all
begins to become second nature, and builds from there.

> So yes, I would also like to know from you experienced people whether I
> am backing the right horse, or should consider Linux.

Actually, I will play the devil's advocate here again, and suggest
that if you have a CD box of some kind, you get a set of each and
run them up, play for a day or so, nuke the box and run up the other
and play for a day or so, and then sit back and use which feels most
comfy to you. Take what everyone says with two grains of salt, until
you have had some comparison, yourself.

I do this all the time with every new incantation of *nix that I can
get for free or get thrown at me rather than the dumpster, and it
is one of the best ways to learn. I run AIX, FreeBSD, Linux, Minix,
Coherent, and Dos (with a set of unix tools that make it play like
unix). Out of all of those, I find AIX the most stable, but too
expensive, unless you luck into one somewhere. FreeBSD I would rate
second because of ease of install, and the consistency of the system
and sources across revisions. Linux is fun because it is always
changing, so there is always something new to try or play with.
That comes at a price of a higher degree of crashing than FreeBSD,
so I put FreeBSD on boxes that count, and play with Linux. Minix
is a good toy, but not yet to a serious stage for a good workstation.
I sense it will be in a year or two. Coherent is interesting, but it is
vaporware, since the company is long belly-up. It has very good generic
unix manuals, and lots of good explanations if you ever find a manual
loose. I keep dos (5.0) around for compatiblity with my lab dataloggers.
It is a good way to clone unix images and with a good set of tar/gzip/etc,
and troff and TeX and vi, it feels close enough to unix be usable.

If you already have FreeBSD up, I think you are well on your way,
and with lots of referring to the manpages (and printing out a few
choice ones for reference) and the handbook, and maybe finding some
generic unix books like the O'Reilly sort of things or even the old
K&Pish or AT&T things, you will learn faster than you think. You will
find that most of what you do as a user is done in around a dozen
odd commands. As a sysadmin, you probably need a repertoire of maybe
30-50 commands, and you can run a good machine. The rest is only used
occasionally in reality, and can be looked up in the manpages.

> Peter Adams
> Lincolnshire, England

Good Luck, Peter......

RDK


Jordan K. Hubbard

unread,
Mar 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/12/98
to

No one wrote:
>
> Which one is better? FreeBSD, or Linux?
> Now, obviously, being a newgroup about FreeBSD, most of you will say
> that FreeBSD is better....
> But why? Give some reasons.....Someone keeps telling me that FreeBSD is
> the k-mart version of UNIX.

A word of advice: If you ever decide to seriously look for opinions on
anything, be it anything from a new car or a new operating system, lose
the flame-bait at the end since it essentially invalidates the question
by making everyone respond just to the last bit at the end (e.g. "Of
course it's not a k-mart version of UNIX! What idiot propagandist
filled your head full of that kind of disinformation?").

Oh yeah, the answer: "Of course FreeBSD is better..."* :-)

* Shorthand for "I haven't got the time to enumerate all the reasons
since there are already 10 million unanswered emails in my inbox and if
I want to wear my fingers off in typing, I'll wear them off more
productively in the pursuit of clearing that inbox." :-)

--
- Jordan Hubbard
FreeBSD core team / Walnut Creek CDROM.

scud

unread,
Mar 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/12/98
to Robert D. Keys

first of all i am linux user. if i understand it right difference between
freebsd and linux is that linux is systemV and freebsd is bsd unix. Linux
have many more users and big companies have begin releasing some appz for
linux (like corel), also O'Reilly have released many books on linux (i
haven't seen yet any on freebsd) while freebsd is kind a more stable than
linux but i have used linux now in 9 months and never expirienced system
crash so i think that linux is litlle ahead of freebsd even if freebsd
is not bad choice ....

/ scud


Merlin

unread,
Mar 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/12/98
to

scud <sc...@dataphone.se> wrote:

: first of all i am linux user. if i understand it right difference between


Another point regarding FreeBSD: Its users tend to me more literate.

-ck

Lowell Gilbert

unread,
Mar 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/12/98
to

fpa...@execpc.com (Frank Pawlak) writes:


>No one <em...@I.dont.like.spam> writes:
> > Which one is better? FreeBSD, or Linux?

> What walks like a trol, looks like a trol, and quacks like atrol?

I'd go so far as to say that these days (with both Linux and FreeBSD
having improved so much in the last year or so), my favorite thing
about FreeBSD is that it doesn't have adherents who go out and troll
other newsgroups...
--
Lowell Gilbert low...@world.std.com
"The first cup of coffee recapitulates phylogeny." -- Ted Sturgeon, allegedly


Robert D. Keys

unread,
Mar 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/12/98
to

Jordan K. Hubbard <j...@FreeBSD.org> wrote:

> No one wrote:
> >
> > Which one is better? FreeBSD, or Linux?
> > Now, obviously, being a newgroup about FreeBSD, most of you will say
> > that FreeBSD is better....
> > But why? Give some reasons.....Someone keeps telling me that FreeBSD is
> > the k-mart version of UNIX.

> A word of advice: If you ever decide to seriously look for opinions on
> anything, be it anything from a new car or a new operating system, lose
> the flame-bait at the end since it essentially invalidates the question
> by making everyone respond just to the last bit at the end (e.g. "Of
> course it's not a k-mart version of UNIX! What idiot propagandist
> filled your head full of that kind of disinformation?").

Hey Jordan.... mail jhk < tallcoolbrew.16oz......

It was not a troll, I don't think, or at least I have gotten some
sidemail that did not seem to be trolling. There are a lot of
interested folks out there that only have Linux exposure in no
big way, and might be interested in FreeBSD. I sense a lot of
them ask the trollingsounding which is better thing mainly because
they don't know any different.

The k-mart thing does bring up an interesting ploy....

.... why not market a FreeBSD CD in a chain like k-mart for
the exposure?

That might give us a one-upsmanship on Linux.....(:+}}...... or
at least raise the FreeBSD awareness amongst the garden shoppers.
Something like a small idiots guide or a printout of the handbook
on inexpensive paper bindings and then a cd of 2.2.5 or something.
That kind of bottom-end exposure would be good, if done well.
Whether or not it is practical or would open the wrong floodgates,
I dunno. But, it did seem like an interesting potential outlet.
Maybe that kind of marketing mass would make us competitive with
the horde.

> Oh yeah, the answer: "Of course FreeBSD is better..."* :-)

We know that, or we would not be here. I do still have a couple of
toy boxes at home that I do run up anyandall flavors on for comparison
because even I sometimes wonder what is better or different (and the
reality is that the worlds are growing closer day by day --- and that
is good for freebie unices in general).

I, for one, would like to see some kind of honest comparisons soundly
and not to religiously done, posted in the comp.unix.questions feed
that would help folks make some choices. All they seem to hear is
Linux first and somewhere in the bilges *BSD surfaces. We need to
do FreeBSD better than that.

> * Shorthand for "I haven't got the time to enumerate all the reasons
> since there are already 10 million unanswered emails in my inbox and if
> I want to wear my fingers off in typing, I'll wear them off more
> productively in the pursuit of clearing that inbox." :-)

I extend my kudos to your efforts and comments over the years.
They have helped me many times.

All said and done, though, we need more visibility as the flock
runs out of the windoz barn and out into the light. All they see
now is a big Linux banner. Somewhere we need to run up a FreeBSD
banner. Rah Rah Rah!

> - Jordan Hubbard
> FreeBSD core team / Walnut Creek CDROM.

Regards..... RDK


Alexander Viro

unread,
Mar 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/12/98
to

Albert! Who LARTed you this time? Why did I miss it? Please, be a good
boy, shut up. At least here.
Al
PS: Explanation for FreeBSD folks (especially for newbies): Albert is our
local kook (our == Linux folks). Usually when somebody LARTs this moron
hard enough he disappears for a while from c.o.l.* and goes to troll other
groups. But he returns to us. Always. And always it happens _too_ soon.
He's responsible for long and nasty Linux vs. FreeBSD flamewar in
December-January (along with several other, er, gentlemen). Please, for
your and our sanity - don't take this idiot seriously.

Tony Porczyk

unread,
Mar 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/12/98
to

No one <em...@I.dont.like.spam> writes:

Actually, your email looks like a spammers' address or perhaps a
troller's address, but I will take you seriously this time.

>Which one is better? FreeBSD, or Linux?

They're both excellent systems. I use FreeBSD at work because of
consistency in releases and tech support.

>Now, obviously, being a newgroup about FreeBSD, most of you will say
>that FreeBSD is better....

Not really. I do use Linux Redhat at home. It is an excellent package.
You cannot go wrong with it.

>But why? Give some reasons.....Someone keeps telling me that FreeBSD is
>the k-mart version of UNIX.

I have no idea. Perhaps your friend doesn't have a clue? I have
used in my business life Solaris, SunOS (the BSD stuff), SCO, HPUX,
Linux, and FreeBSD. Of the last two, I would prefer to use FreeBSD
in the business environment. However, depending on your needs,
Linux could be just as fine. In fact, since you didn't say what
it was you wanted to do, perhaps Win95 would be best for you?

t.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Porczyk * to...@infobound.com * San Jose, California
GIT/ED d++(!d) s++:++ a? C++++ USB++++$ P+ E- W(--) N++ !k w--- M- V?
PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP-- t+@ 5++ X-- R* b- D---- e* V-- h* r+++(*)+++(*)>?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Tony Porczyk

unread,
Mar 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/12/98
to

scud <sc...@dataphone.se> writes:

> first of all i am linux user. if i understand it right difference
> between freebsd and linux is that linux is systemV and freebsd is
> bsd unix. Linux have many more users and big companies have begin
> releasing some appz for linux (like corel), also O'Reilly have
> released many books on linux (i haven't seen yet any on freebsd)

Actually there is a multi-volume set on BSD 4.4.

> while freebsd is kind a more stable than linux but i have used
> linux now in 9 months and never expirienced system crash so i think
> that linux is litlle ahead of freebsd even if freebsd is not bad
> choice ....

Hear, hear.... Both are great systems.

So, the answer is, try them both, and pick one depending on your needs.
Unless all you want to do is word processing, either of them will be a
MUCH better choice than any of the MickySoft operating systems.

dannyman

unread,
Mar 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/13/98
to

Peter Adams <Pe...@brig.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> The only thing that sustains me is a desire to eschew Bill Gates and all
> his works and make my computer a Microsoft Free Zone.

Amen. Though I kinda know what I'm doing now. :)

> So yes, I would also like to know from you experienced people whether I
> am backing the right horse, or should consider Linux.

"Right" horse? imho, FreeBSD is a lot easier for a newbie to administer, but
doesn't deliver all the latest features as quick. I'd say Linux is for folks
in between hard-core administrator types and newbies. I'd prolly be
comfortable with Linux, but given the simplicity of adminning FreeBSD for what
I demand - a working, low-maintainence Unix system - FreeBSD gives me
everything I need.

--
//Dan -=- This message brought to you by djho...@uiuc.edu -=-
\\/yori -=- Information - http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/djhoward/ -=-
aiokomete -=- Our Honored Symbol deserves an Honorable Retirement

dannyman

unread,
Mar 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/13/98
to

Merlin <ckn...@shell3.ba.best.com> wrote:
> scud <sc...@dataphone.se> wrote:

> : first of all i am linux user. if i understand it right difference between


> : freebsd and linux is that linux is systemV and freebsd is bsd unix. Linux
> : have many more users and big companies have begin releasing some appz for
> : linux (like corel), also O'Reilly have released many books on linux (i

> : haven't seen yet any on freebsd) while freebsd is kind a more stable than


> : linux but i have used linux now in 9 months and never expirienced system
> : crash so i think that linux is litlle ahead of freebsd even if freebsd
> : is not bad choice ....

> Another point regarding FreeBSD: Its users tend to me more literate.
^^

YM "FreeBSD has some arrogant American users." HTH

Give the Swede a break. It's clear what he had to say. I think your attitude
is very destructive. :(

Merlin

unread,
Mar 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/13/98
to

dannyman <dann...@arh0300.urh.uiuc.edu> wrote:

: Merlin <ckn...@shell3.ba.best.com> wrote:
: > scud <sc...@dataphone.se> wrote:

: > : first of all i am linux user. if i understand it right difference between
: > : freebsd and linux is that linux is systemV and freebsd is bsd unix. Linux
: > : have many more users and big companies have begin releasing some appz for
: > : linux (like corel), also O'Reilly have released many books on linux (i
: > : haven't seen yet any on freebsd) while freebsd is kind a more stable than
: > : linux but i have used linux now in 9 months and never expirienced system
: > : crash so i think that linux is litlle ahead of freebsd even if freebsd
: > : is not bad choice ....

: > Another point regarding FreeBSD: Its users tend to me more literate.
: ^^

: YM "FreeBSD has some arrogant American users." HTH

: Give the Swede a break. It's clear what he had to say. I think your attitude
: is very destructive. :(


I said 'more literate', I did not say 'better typists'. :)

As far as 'clear what he had to say'... There is at least one printed book
on FreeBSD, he must not have looked at http://www.freebsd.org/ in his search.

http://www.freebsd.org/handbook/handbook303.html#651

As far as my attitude... I think it's pretty damn good for a posting made
in a thread that started with a troll. What's your excuse?

-ck

Giao Nguyen

unread,
Mar 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/13/98
to

Albert D. Cahalan <acah...@saturn.cs.uml.edu> wrote:

> That would depend on many things: IDE or SCSI, SMP or not?
> Dejanews is running on SMP Linux. They used to run BSD, but it
> crashed too much.

This is a really dumb point. Who runs Linux or FreeBSD or WinNT doesn't
matter. Everyone picks an OS for different reasons. If there was a
clearly defined winner in the OS wars, we wouldn't be sitting around
with a variety of OSes. This is akin to the "What's the best Linux
distribution?" question that is often asked.

> You get original unmodified source with both Debian and Red Hat.
> There is a build process that applies patches, just like with BSD.
> You won't get patch failures ever.

I haven't used Linux in a long time. Someone refresh my memory. Is
there complete source tree for the entire OS? When I say "OS" I
don't mean just the kernel.

> > Adminning either is not all that much different. As a play hacker
> > type, I like the Slackware version of Linux best,

> Slackware is too much like BSD.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing. RedHat is too much like System
V. I can't tell if I like it (SysV) or hate it (SysV) yet. I've
used BSD long enough for it to be a habit. You don't hate your habits.
You just live with it. I hope for SysV to be a habit too. I become
more marketable that way.

> I can do light kernel and app development (with X) in 600 MB.

What percentage of Linux users do kernel and app development?

<rant>
I've often wondered why people get into arguments about OS'es. I
suppose it makes you feel better that you're not the only one using
brand X. As for me, I use whatever the admins install and I use and
cope happily.
</rant>

la...@ws6502.gud.siemens.co.at

unread,
Mar 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/13/98
to

vi...@math.psu.edu (Alexander Viro) writes:

Is he a real person at all, or a new version of "Jesus Munroy, Jr." perl
script which[1] did the *BSD folks a great disservice in the olden days of
1993?

/Marino

[1] who, actually. J. M. Jr. was/is a real person TTBOMK.

--
As far as the differences between BSD and Systems V, that's
simple. System V sucks and BSD doesn't. :) -- Curt Welch
UNIX _is_ user friendly. It's just selective about who its
friends are. -- Marco Molteni

Jordan K. Hubbard

unread,
Mar 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/13/98
to

Albert D. Cahalan wrote:

> > This kind of thing is often asked, and sometimes gets bad karma.
> > We probably need a generic unix faq that has valid and reasonable
> > comparisons of all the different freebies in a level-headed and
> > sane way.
>

> Sure, I'll write it.

Uh, Albert, he said *valid and reasonable* comparisons. Having you
write such a FAQ would be like having David Duke write an endorsement
for the United Negro College Fund.

--

Tim Smith

unread,
Mar 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/13/98
to

Merlin <ckn...@shell3.ba.best.com> wrote:
>scud <sc...@dataphone.se> wrote:
...

>Another point regarding FreeBSD: Its users tend to me more literate.

How's your Swedish, asshole?

Peter Adams

unread,
Mar 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/13/98
to

In article <6e9uko$32k$4...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, dannyman <dannyman@arh0300
.urh.uiuc.edu> writes

>Peter Adams <Pe...@brig.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The only thing that sustains me is a desire to eschew Bill Gates and all
>> his works and make my computer a Microsoft Free Zone.
>
>Amen. Though I kinda know what I'm doing now. :)

Thank you for your helpful reply.

I'm not really a dedicated Microsoft basher, but I am fed up with being
forced to allocate resources to features I will never use. Internet
Explorer 4 was the straw that broke the camel's back. The main
attraction of Unix is that I hope, eventually, to be able to tailor the
operating system to my own requirements.

> I'd prolly be
>comfortable with Linux, but given the simplicity of adminning FreeBSD for what
>I demand - a working, low-maintainence Unix system - FreeBSD gives me
>everything I need.
>

Being a retired soldier, I use my computer only for private, e-mail and
hobby purposes, and my main reason for wanting to depart from Microsoft
is to drop out of the bigger, better, faster rat race.

Your assessment encourages me to believe that, after a lot of work,
FreeBSD will achieve this for me.

Peter

la...@ws6502.gud.siemens.co.at

unread,
Mar 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/13/98
to

Peter Adams <Pe...@brig.demon.co.uk> writes:

>
> Being a retired soldier, I use my computer only for private, e-mail and
> hobby purposes, and my main reason for wanting to depart from Microsoft
> is to drop out of the bigger, better, faster rat race.
>
> Your assessment encourages me to believe that, after a lot of work,
> FreeBSD will achieve this for me.
>

Yes, it will, I can vouch for that. Netscape is still a pig, though :)
but I can execute my work happily on a 486/33 with 16 MB of RAM, ISA
only without problem. With Netscape, the slowest link is still the
33.6k modem which remains constant regardless of the CPU speed. It
will not even require a lot of work to set it up--for me it takes less
time than setting up an equivalent Windows machine but I'm an old unix
head and these things are like a second nature to me.

I am certain that Linux could fulfill the same task, but at the time that
I switched FreeBSD seemed to deal better with an overloaded machine (and
any machine loaded with task set requiring five to six fold the available
RAM is overloaded even though the CPU load may lead you to believe other-
wise). Furthermore, the FreeBSD online documentation was more thorough
and more consistent--I don't care for books much: you cannot grep dead
trees :)

I've been using FreeBSD as my OS of choice ever since and have had no
reason to contemplate a switch to Linux again.

/Marino

Bill Gunshannon

unread,
Mar 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/13/98
to

In article <6e94vo$s9q$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Merlin <ckn...@shell3.ba.best.com> writes:
|>
|> But that is not just FreeBSD. That is X-nix in general: Solaris, Linux,
|> UnixWare, SCO, etc. It is rough enough when the commands are cryptic, but
|> without an understanding of the conceptual differences between unix and other
|> operating systems, it can be downright impossible.
|>

Why does everyone always claim the UNIX commands are cryptic and every
other OS is crystal clear??

VMS: SET DEFAULT device-name[directory]
Set default what?? Printer?? Terminal type?? If one had never
worked with VMS, how would one know that "DEFAULT" refered to a
directory??

VMS: ASSIGN/USER A.OUT SYS$OUTPUT
Yeah, that's real clear and intuitively obvious. Much easier
to understand than "> a.out"

And I won't even get into IBM's OSes.

But UNIX, now that's real cryptic.

pwd - Print Working Directory
cwd - Change Working Directory
dc - Desk Calculator
cc - C Compiler
pc - Pascal Compiler
fc - Fortran Compiler
mkdir - MaKe DIRectory
rmdir - ReMove DIRectory
ln - LiNk
rm - ReMove

Any jargon is going to seem confusing to the un-initiated, but UNIX's
curt commands are not any more cryptic or confusing than the commands
used in any other OS. And going back to my "UNIX for VMS Users" book
from which the few VMS examples above came (I am not a VMS user!) what
is most noticable is all the things that can be done on any common UNIX
system for which there is no VMS equivalent.

UNIX is no more cryptic or difficult to learn than any other OS. And
at it's basic level it puts far more power in the hands of the user than
the majority of the others. And because of how well it implements the
"Software Tools" (anybody here even remember the book??) approach, it is
extremely easy implement new and more powerful functions.

Oh, one more thing to think about. How many times have people gone to
the trouble of porting the UNIX environment to foreign OSes?? Eunice
for VMS. PRIMIX for Primos. Software Tools (from Ga. Tech I think) for
UNIVAC Exec8. Or MKS for that matter. Ever see anyone port VMS or MVS
or CTS work alike systems to UNIX?? I didn't think so.

Just some food for thought.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bi...@cs.uofs.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>

John Ruschmeyer

unread,
Mar 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/13/98
to

scud wrote:
> first of all i am linux user. if i understand it right difference between
> freebsd and linux is that linux is systemV and freebsd is bsd unix. Linux
> have many more users and big companies have begin releasing some appz for
> linux (like corel), also O'Reilly have released many books on linux (i
> haven't seen yet any on freebsd) while freebsd is kind a more stable than
> linux but i have used linux now in 9 months and never expirienced system
> crash so i think that linux is litlle ahead of freebsd even if freebsd
> is not bad choice ....

First, a minor nit, Linux is not SystemV in that it is not derived from
AT&T/UnixLabs/SCO software. It does, however, have "feel" more like
System V than anything else.

As for me, I run a mix of OS's: Win95 and FreeBSD on a 486/66, NetBSD on
an old Sparc 2, MacOS, etc. I've also run Linux at various times. So,
what are my thoughts?

I think a lot of the choice of a free Unix depends on what hardware you
have, what you want do to with it, and what compromises you are willing
to make.

Take the first question, if we limit ourselves to x86 hardware, that
still leaves a lot of ground to cover. Ask yourself, do you have (or
want to run) some new hot gadget (LS120 floppy, Parallel Port Zip)?
If so, your choice of driver may well be limited for a time. In that
regard, it may be necessary to just grab an OS which supports what
you have, unless you want to wait or take on the job of writing a
driver yourself.

In terms of obsucre driver support, I tend to want to give the nod
to Linux. Certainly, the Linux community seems to want to support
just about anything that ever plugged into an ISA bus. (I don't
recall FreeBSD supporting use of an XT hard drive controller.)

In writing the above, I'm reminded of my early impressions of the
two communities. The FreeBSD camp seemed the sort to have had some
kind of Berkeley Unix background and usually ran the OS on somewhat
"high end" systems (for their time). The Linux camp, on the other
hand, seemed to be more the type to cobble a box together out of
whatever they had laying around in the parts bin. Both camps have
long since matured and their respective OS's have reached "prime
time", but I think the early flavor is still there.

As for the other reasons for choosing a Unix, there is the
question of what do you want to do? For most basic tasks, there
is no real difference. The issue comes up when you start to
encounter specific tools which may only exist on one platform.
There you start to look at the compromises: things like emulated
environments, etc. Only you can decide how important this is to
you.

One final comment... much of the thread has been devoted to running
"Microsoft-free" systems. For many of us, that is not an option
or, at least, a desirable choice. We still want or need to
run apps like Microsoft Word and Powerpoint. For people like me,
the question becomes one of which Unix can better support
applications written for the evil empire's OS.

To be honest, though I run FreeBSD, my gut feeling is that the
real answer is either SCO or Linux. I've run SCO ODT and was
impressed with the DOS/Windows integration. I've run Wine under
FreeBSD and (unless things have improved in -CURRENT) was left
with the feeling that it does not come into its own unless you
run Linux. Ditto for Wabi which, I gather, won't run under
FreeBSD's Linux emulation.

Just my $0.02.

<<<John>>>

P.S. In case anyone is wondering, I run FreeBSD for two reasons:
1) A good friend (pec...@monmouth.com) who is a big supporter
and 2) Because the Linux distreib I was last trying to install
(Caldera OpenLinux) did not like my CD-ROM (Mitsumi LU005 on
a Sound Galaxy NXPro sound card).

Peter Johansson

unread,
Mar 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/13/98
to

No one <em...@I.dont.like.spam> wrote:

> Which one is better? FreeBSD, or Linux?

That's a lot like saying which is better, Win95 or In NT. You will
get as many opinions as a*******.

> Now, obviously, being a newgroup about FreeBSD, most of you will say
> that FreeBSD is better....

I prefer FreeBSD over Linux because FreeBSD is more stable in a
production environment. Linux has support for a broader section of
hardware and better support for games. I suppose if I wanted to play
games, I'd be better of with Linux.

The only cost to try them both out is your time, so why don't you do
that and make your own decision?

> But why? Give some reasons.....Someone keeps telling me that FreeBSD is
> the k-mart version of UNIX.

Personally, I think of it more as the New York Public Library version
of Unix. (Well, at least it's a _better_ analogy.)


Peter Johansson
pe...@widgetworks.com

Robert D. Keys

unread,
Mar 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/13/98
to

Jordan K. Hubbard <j...@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> > > (...and RDK once said.....)

Well, I would not like to rustle too many feathers, but, since I like
to play with all the toy unices and see what makes them tick, I can
appreciate others wanting to have some sort of level-headed and sane
comparison. At present there really is nothing to go on other than
word of mouth or buzz in the press or the guy across the dorm hall
runs it, etc. I realize that that comparison will change over time
as each version matures. But, I do know, when I was first playing
I would download one, try it for a while, then another, and the like.
Now, I find keeping an HD loaded for whatever flavor I want to play
with and then a quick wrench twist and toss in a new flavored drive
works for me in five minutes or so. It would have been good to have
had some sane faq comparing them all. Instead, I had to read all the
docs and installs and readmes for each flavor and then try to make some
kind of resonable selection of one. The point is that a newbie comes
up, probably not too savvy on *nix in general, but his interest is
perked, and he wants to try something. The buzz and press flaps Linux.
That would tend to give him a one-sided view, unless he has something
else to compare or go by. The main unix faq just lists things and
then basically sidesteps the issue. The whole unix group needs to
have some sort of good (take 10 pages a discuss each then take several
pages of tables and point out strengths and weaknesses of each and
realistic hardware requirements for various kinds of use, then maybe
give them some kind of ``best used for'' X Y or Z rating). I would
like to see something like that done for all the generic freebie
and low cost solutions. That would take a grant from someone probably
(maybe one of the public or private funding foundations) but might be
interesting to do. Then a good bonehead intro unix 100A internet
book of some sort, to give all a running start..... That would drum
up good karma from those wanting to leave the other windoz world,
but really not knowing where to go or what to turn to, in a rational
way.

Ahh, I am dreaming.....

RDK


Robert D. Keys

unread,
Mar 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/13/98
to

Albert D. Cahalan <acah...@saturn.cs.uml.edu> wrote:
> "Robert D. Keys" <rdk...@seedlab1.cropsci.ncsu.edu> writes:
> > No one <em...@I.dont.like.spam> wrote:
> >> Which one is better? FreeBSD, or Linux?
> >> Now, obviously, being a newgroup about FreeBSD, most of you will say
> >> that FreeBSD is better....
> >> But why? Give some reasons.....Someone keeps telling me that FreeBSD is
> >> the k-mart version of UNIX.
> >
> > This kind of thing is often asked, and sometimes gets bad karma.
> > We probably need a generic unix faq that has valid and reasonable
> > comparisons of all the different freebies in a level-headed and
> > sane way.

> Sure, I'll write it.

If you can, in a sane and level-headed way. Do. If not, dont.

> > Every version of Linux I have tried since 0.96 days has worked,
> > and is fine for a single user box or one that I don't strain too hard.
> > But, my experiences have been that I can crash a Linux box somewhat
> > unexpectedly, and at odd times. That may be OK on the home boxes
> > where I am playing. That is NOT OK on the work boxes in the office,
> > where I have research data and where it counts for real.

> That would depend on many things: IDE or SCSI, SMP or not?


> Dejanews is running on SMP Linux. They used to run BSD, but it
> crashed too much.

I would like to know particulars. Be specific.

I tend to run very plain boxes (486/16m/ide/2gig/S3) on my main machines.
I do that for a reason, it is cheap and easy to fix, and parts abound.
Any flavor of whichever os runs fairly well.

The specific reason that I finally went to FreeBSD was becuse I could
not get the internet flow to work as well on Linux 2.0.29 (if I remember
the version right). Every time I have run up FreeBSD, the ethernet
works flawlessly.

I tend not to load up my boxes as would a big ISP, so I could not comment
there, but still, would be interested in particulars. That would be
important to consider in choosing something like a departmental server.

> > The one thing that sells me on FreeBSD is the install. Linux has
> > a lot to learn yet, on installs, but it is getting there.

> You use an obsolete Slackware system for some odd reason.
> (perhaps because Walnut Creek is pushing it?)

The latest one from sunsite. Granted that is not the most current,
but it is not that old. I also just ran off the latest debian and
will compare that over the next few days. I have heard too many
gotchas on RedHat for now. Many seem to be returning to the 4 level
series.

> > Canned packages are OK on both systems but I like the old
> > comfy slippers by the fire feeling I get from having the
> > sources and port them directly.

> You get original unmodified source with both Debian and Red Hat.


> There is a build process that applies patches, just like with BSD.
> You won't get patch failures ever.

> > Adminning either is not all that much different. As a play hacker


> > type, I like the Slackware version of Linux best,

> Slackware is too much like BSD.

> > but newbies rave about Debian or Red Hat. To me, they feel more


> > constraining in the way they install and are put together.

> Always remember: you can delete the GUI if it doesn't help you.
> Of course, you might prefer point-and-click if you break your
> left hand.

Not too likely. I run unix commandline rather than point and click,
unless I must. It works better that way on lowend boxes. Also, by
the time you clickalloverhereandtheretogetsomethingdone, a simple
command line pipe and you ARE done.

> > Modern FreeBSD and Linux both require a biggie box to be comfy anymore.
> > In that respect they are very similar. Plan on 16 megs ram minimally,
> > and 2 gigs HD for a single user workstation,

> 2 gigabytes!!! You'd need that for serious OS development maybe,
> with complete source an object files for almost everything.


> I can do light kernel and app development (with X) in 600 MB.

Not really. Sure, one of my writing boxes at home runs 3.0 snaps
in a 232 meg ide drive on a mono monitor with 8 megs of ram. That
is fine for TeX and troffing, but is a bit constrained for anything
else. The work boxes are mainly lab/office funnels for writing,
data processing, and networking. On those, I find a 1 gig drive
fills up too quick on a single user workstation and the big research
box fills up too quick with less than 2 gigs (it runs 5 now).
That is not doing any os development, but I do run a lot of ports
and a lot of data through. A 2 gig drive is just about the minimal
for a serious workstation in my hands. In 5 years 20 gigs will
probably feel too small.

RDK

Merlin

unread,
Mar 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/13/98
to

Tim Smith <t...@halcyon.com> wrote:

: Merlin <ckn...@shell3.ba.best.com> wrote:
: >scud <sc...@dataphone.se> wrote:
: ...
: >Another point regarding FreeBSD: Its users tend to be more literate.

: How's your Swedish, asshole?

Bork bork bork!

Smeghead.

-ck

Alexander Viro

unread,
Mar 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/13/98
to

In article <iy7afav...@ws6502.gud.siemens.co.at>,
marino....@siemens.at <la...@ws6502.gud.siemens.co.at> wrote:
[snip]

>Is he a real person at all, or a new version of "Jesus Munroy, Jr." perl
>script which[1] did the *BSD folks a great disservice in the olden days of
>1993?
>
>/Marino
>
>[1] who, actually. J. M. Jr. was/is a real person TTBOMK.

Hmm... Nice idea, but IMHO it's unlikely. Too complicated. It's
not yet another Th*l*n[-1][0]. He trolls by hands[2].
Cheers,
Al
[-1] As in t*rk*y[1]
[0] If you don't know who is it - consider yourself lucky.
[1] knock, knock, knock...
[2] Or whatever part of his body he prefers to use.

Rahul Dhesi

unread,
Mar 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/13/98
to

I just finished installing Redhat Linux 5.0 on an Intel architecture
machine. A while ago I installed FreeBSD 2.2.5 on an equivalent
machine. The FreeBSD installation went smoothly, and almost all my
questions were answered in the online documentation.

The Linux installation did not go smoothly, and I had to search quite
hard, and spend quite a bit of time on trial-and-error, to complete the
install. Part of the problem lies in the Redhat installation
procedures. At a couple of different places the Redhat installation
software put me in an infinte loop and I had to reboot the machine to
break the loop. One example:

When I specified the size of the swap partition, I got the error
message saying it could not be greater than 128 megabytes. So I
specified it as 128 M and got the same error message again. I had to
make it 127 M. The installation program changed it to 133 M
(requested = 127 but allocated = 133 M), and gave me another error
message and asked me to edit the partition. But the screen it gave me
for editing the partition only allowed me to edit the name of the
partition, and not the size. I had to go back through the screens
until I reached the point where I had specified the 127 M size. I
tried a slightly smaller size, but Redhat insisted on changing that to
133 M allocated, and then complained again about the swap partition
being to big. As I recall, I found no way out of this but to
reboot and start over.

Some Redhat features do not seem to be documented. There is what
appears to be a nice system in place for bringing devices and services
up and down, via little files in a /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts
directory. But there are no manuals. After spending a while reading a
lot of scripts and trying to figure out the logic I found it easier to
add my setup lines (to bring up an Ethernet interface) into
/etc/rc.local rather than waste more time reverse engineering the
system. I think Redhat's intention is that users rely on their custom
setup program which requires X-Windows to run. If you are not running
X-Windows you are essentially SOL.

Building a custom kernel was a bit tricky. There is a 'make boot' which
will make a new kernel, but no 'make install'. There is no standard
automatic procedure supplied to save the old kernel and install a new
one. I had to read through quite a bit of documentation to figure out
how to install a new kernel. This involved also reading about two other
programs (mkinitrd and lilo) and figuring out the syntax of lilo's
config file. I also had to figure out by trial and error that the RAM
filesystem must be compiled into the kernel, and not demand-loaded,
because the boot process requires it to be already present. This was
not clear from the manuals.

And oh, even though I paid $49.95 for the Redhat box, it was missing the
boot and supplemental floppies -- and sa...@redhat.com confirmed that
that's how it's shipped, if you buy the box distributed by McMillan
Publishing. (Thus the contents of the box do not match the instructions
in the enclosed manual, and that's apparently deliberate.) The manual
asked me to look at http://www.redhat.com/errata/ for any updated disk
images, but I found none there. I bought the $49.95 box because I was
hoping it would offer me a streamlined procedure and let me install the
OS quickly. Instead I ended up on a wild goose chase of missing
floppies, flaky install programs, and nonexistent documentation. In
retrospect, I would probably have done better to have just ftp'd files
across the Internet for free.

Now that Linux is up, it works fine. :-)
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@spams.r.us.com>

Chris

unread,
Mar 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/13/98
to

Rahul Dhesi <c.c....@21.usenet.us.com> spewed
[redhat linux woes]

I actually found the FreeBSD install/kernel configuration to be far
more confusing than the most linux setups. I did a FreeBSD net install,
and half of the time I tried to install ( it took 4 times for it to work
solidly ), I would set my netcard to the right port and IRQ, but it would
time out, and not be able to get packages. Also, if you sepecified the
visual kernel configuration tool at boot, it would also hang. At first
I thought it was just my machine, but I have confirmed it on two others
as well. I do like the BSD ports system and the CVS utilities to get
the latest source ( I think that it is just infinitely cool ).

I found the BSD kernel config to be a bit confusing the first time due to
the layout of the config file, and having to constantly refer to the
handbook or LINT to find out what I needed to do. A real plus on the
linux side is make menuconfig or make xconfig for the kernel options
file. It also has integrated help.

I don't think Redhat's target audience is the FBSD group. From what
I can tell here, people are technically skilled, and willing to
look things up. Redhat's target audience is sysadmins with lots
of linux machines to run ( and keep synced up with rpm's ), users
who want just an X interface, or people that want to say they have linux
just to say they have it. FWIW, slackware and debian have console based
install programs.

Also, to address the original post, I have used Linux for multiple years,
and have recently switched over to FreeBSD. I found that linux got
boring after a while because it ran too well ( after I got it configured
the way I liked ). Switching to FreeBSD allows me to learn a whole
new idea set and have fun finding out what the differences are.

Even though the original post may have been a troll, I think it was
a valid question. I've always viewed BSD as more like "Unix for Real Men,"
rather than k-mart. It always seemed more austere and foreboding than
linux. Dunno, I guess I am just strange. That, and the little
demon guy is just really cool!
Chris

--
The most certain way of insuring victory is to march briskly and in good
order against the enemy, always endeavouring to gain ground.
Frederick the Great

Leslie Mikesell

unread,
Mar 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/13/98
to

In article <6ece63$oc2$1...@samba.rahul.net>,
Rahul Dhesi <c.c....@21.usenet.us.com> wrote:

>Some Redhat features do not seem to be documented. There is what
>appears to be a nice system in place for bringing devices and services
>up and down, via little files in a /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts
>directory. But there are no manuals. After spending a while reading a
>lot of scripts and trying to figure out the logic I found it easier to
>add my setup lines (to bring up an Ethernet interface) into
>/etc/rc.local rather than waste more time reverse engineering the
>system. I think Redhat's intention is that users rely on their custom
>setup program which requires X-Windows to run. If you are not running
>X-Windows you are essentially SOL.

Of course if you have *any* machine with X working you can run
'control-panel' from there to configure the network and it is
easy enough that you don't need a manual. But, I agree that
the scripts should be documented - they are usable from the command
line but you don't want to type the whole thing every time.

>Building a custom kernel was a bit tricky. There is a 'make boot' which
>will make a new kernel, but no 'make install'. There is no standard
>automatic procedure supplied to save the old kernel and install a new
>one. I had to read through quite a bit of documentation to figure out
>how to install a new kernel. This involved also reading about two other
>programs (mkinitrd and lilo) and figuring out the syntax of lilo's
>config file. I also had to figure out by trial and error that the RAM
>filesystem must be compiled into the kernel, and not demand-loaded,
>because the boot process requires it to be already present. This was
>not clear from the manuals.

If you have X up, 'make xconfig' is very nice. 'Make menuconfig' is
a close second if you don't. I think they are both much easier than
what you have to do to customize freebsd. As for lilo and installing
the new kernel, I normally compile a non-modular kernal and thus don't
need the initrd to boot. I just rename the lilo section for redhat's
installed kernal in /boot and add a new section above for my new
one (making it the default) with the normal /vmlinuz location (normal
for everyone but redhat). Then 'make zlilo' will do the install and
if you do something silly like omitting your disk driver or filesystem
you can still boot the old one from the lilo prompt.

Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com

James Raynard

unread,
Mar 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/14/98
to

marino....@siemens.at wrote:

>vi...@math.psu.edu (Alexander Viro) writes:
>
>> PS: Explanation for FreeBSD folks (especially for newbies): Albert is our
>> local kook (our == Linux folks).

I don't know if it's just my warped sense of humour, but I always find
his posts hilariously funny. I can imagine Linux people tearing their
hair out, though - they really don't deserve the bad image he gives them.

>Is he a real person at all, or a new version of "Jesus Munroy, Jr." perl
>script which[1] did the *BSD folks a great disservice in the olden days of
>1993?

My theory is that someone's Emacs crashed on a very early version of Linux
while reading alt.flame and the resulting unholy combination of Elisp and
Minix code somehow managed to bootstrap itself and take on an independent
existence.

James :-)

Giao Nguyen

unread,
Mar 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/14/98
to

Chris <ch...@angband.org> wrote:

> I found the BSD kernel config to be a bit confusing the first time due to
> the layout of the config file, and having to constantly refer to the
> handbook or LINT to find out what I needed to do. A real plus on the
> linux side is make menuconfig or make xconfig for the kernel options
> file. It also has integrated help.

This is not a big problem. If someone write such a utility for FreeBSD
it would not be too hard of a problem. The tradeoff here is that BSD
based systems can pass around a config file that makes sure a set of
kernels end up the same. This is great for a lab environment.

I think I just signed myself up for the config utility ....

Giao

Gardner Buchanan

unread,
Mar 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/14/98
to

In article <6ebd35$aus$1...@info.cs.uofs.edu>,
bi...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:

> Oh, one more thing to think about. How many times have people gone to
> the trouble of porting the UNIX environment to foreign OSes?? Eunice
> for VMS. PRIMIX for Primos. Software Tools (from Ga. Tech I think) for
> UNIVAC Exec8. Or MKS for that matter. Ever see anyone port VMS or MVS
> or CTS work alike systems to UNIX?? I didn't think so.
>

There was a VMS-alike for some other boxes in the early eighties.
There have also been EDT-alikes for UNIX systems. Seems to me there
is still DEC FORTRAN-alike available for UNIX and other boxes.
`Course you can do CICS on AIX too, not that any of this proves
anything.

VMS and UNIX are clearly different. In that one or the other is
better for this or that has hardly anything to do with the shell
commands I think.

============================================================
Gardner Buchanan <gbuc...@rogers.wave.ca>
Ottawa, ON FreeBSD: Where you want to go. Today.

Stephen E. Halpin

unread,
Mar 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/14/98
to

On 13 Mar 1998 13:41:57 GMT, bi...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
<<lots of stuff deleted>>

>Oh, one more thing to think about. How many times have people gone to
>the trouble of porting the UNIX environment to foreign OSes?? Eunice
>for VMS. PRIMIX for Primos. Software Tools (from Ga. Tech I think) for
>UNIVAC Exec8. Or MKS for that matter. Ever see anyone port VMS or MVS
>or CTS work alike systems to UNIX?? I didn't think so.

WRT to VMS, it might have something to do with the fact that its easy
to implement one of 100 broken synchronous APIs on a robust
asynchronous API than it is to implement a robust asynchronous API
on 100 broken synchronous APIs. What do you mean you cant poll
on a semaphore and a stream in System VR4? Or that you cant poll
on a stream and a terminal in System VR3? Or that you cant poll
at all on System VR2 or earlier? Even basic system calls such as
"read" and "write" do not behave consistently from one *NIX to the
next, and in a distributed environment you cant even rely on something
as simple as file locks with NFS. Move up into the mainframe world
and start asking about scheduling, checkpointing, security, resource
management, etc... Its a lot to emulate for no real gain.

UNIX has a broader set of utilities for the average hacker, but the
average bank implementing a distributed VMScluster to do accounting
on a 365x24 basis is not going to build that infrastructure on awk and
sed, nor are they going to purchase an emulation environment to layer
their VMS software on. Look up the ladder at IBM which is doing the
better part of $80B/yr, a significant portion of which is in mainframe
technologies for markets which need the kinds of features that *NIX
on the whole just doesnt provide.

>Just some food for thought.
>
>bill
>
>--
>Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
>bi...@cs.uofs.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
>University of Scranton |
>Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>

-Steve

Rahul Dhesi

unread,
Mar 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/14/98
to

In <6ed5t2$5n0$1...@Venus.mcs.net> l...@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) writes:

>Of course if you have *any* machine with X working you can run
>'control-panel' from there to configure the network and it is
>easy enough that you don't need a manual. But, I agree that
>the scripts should be documented - they are usable from the command
>line but you don't want to type the whole thing every time.

In my specific situation this was not an easy option, even if I had
wanted to use it. Recall that I was trying to figure out where to add
the lines to bring a network interface up. So using a remote display
via Ethernet was not likely to work. :-) It would have taken too long
to locally install X-windows.

>If you have X up, 'make xconfig' is very nice. 'Make menuconfig' is
>a close second if you don't. I think they are both much easier than
>what you have to do to customize freebsd.

The first time, maybe. But when you are going through multiple
iterations trying to find a combination of options that will let the
boot complete, it helps a lot to be able to use RCS to keep track of
what you just changed. So long as I'm doing that, I might as well get
familiar with how to edit the files directly.

In my case, there were two problems that it took me several hours to
solve, and nothing I found in the documentation on the Internet was
helpful.

1. I was trying to demand-load the ramdisk filesystem, but it was
required by the boot disk to be built into the kernel.

2. I had not only compiled the scsi driver into the kernel, but I was
also specifiying 'initrd=/boot/initrd-2.0.31.img' in lilo.conf, and thus
causing the scsi driver to be to be dynamically loaded too. Apparently
I ended up with two instances of the driver, and the final result was a
kernel panic. (This is probably a bug -- a loadable driver ought to be
able to figure out that it's already compiled in.)

I finally figured out the problems by an exhaustive and exhausting
search.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@spams.r.us.com>

Dana Booth

unread,
Mar 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/14/98