Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!
sgiblab!wetware!spunky.RedBrick.COM!psinntp!psinntp!adcmail!brantk
From: bra...@atlas.com (Brant Katkansky)
Subject: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Message-ID: <1994Mar18.084355.19503@atlas.com>
Organization: Atlas Telecom Inc.
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 08:43:55 GMT
Lines: 60
I have been running Linux (Slackware 1.1.1) on my 486 at home for several months,
and although most of my experiences have been positive, I felt that Linux was
lacking in some areas, so I decides to look at FreeBSD.
So, I ftp'd FreeBSD-1.0 (binary and source) off freebsd.cdrom.com and installed it.
I found it to be very easy to install, despite my limited UNIX experience. I did
have to juggle a few of my Linux filesystems around to make room, but once
that was accomplished, I had few problems.
I am using a AHA-1542B controller, with existing partitions, so I had top specify
the disk geometry rather than using the defaults. No problem, except that the
first time I installed, I couldn't create the /usr filesystem. As it turns
out, I had entered the wrong cylinder count for my first drive (I had included
an extra cylinder). So, I reinstalled. Since I had the binary distribution
on a DOS filesystem, this was fast and painless. Twenty minutes later I had
a working FreeBSD system happily co-existing with Linux and DOS.
My initial impressions of how FreeBSD compares to the Slackware 1.1.1 release
of Linux are as follows:
* Linux includes more frills, FreeBSD doesn't include any support for news,
or a decent mail reader. Also some of the GNU utilities that I prefer (such
as less) aren't included. This isn't a huge problem, just download the source
and compile it.
* I like the FreeBSD source distribution better. Although the source for
all the Linux utilities are available, hunting them down can be a problem.
* Speaking of sources, I had trouble compiling some things under Linux, compiling
them under BSD seems to be simpler. I'm no C guru, and I think that compiling
for a "standard" BSD UNIX is easier than Linux. Just MHO, of course.
* FreeBSD has a more polished look and feel. Linux definately looks and feels
like a beta product. FreeBSD seems to have consistancy where Linux does not.
The only real problem I have right now with FreeBSD is it doesn't seem to
recognize my tape drive (Archive VP-150e with SC-402 controller). I have
customized the kernel to match the configuration of the controller (IO 0x100h,
IRQ 9, DRQ 3). The kernel initializes the drive on bootup, but reports
that the wt0 device is not found. Hmmm. It works under Linux, so I suspect
that I just haven't configured the kernel right in some way. In contrast,
all of the other devices in my system (ethernet card, sound card, SCSI, etc.)
were easy to configure for, and are recognized by the kernel.
One other thing that I can't seem to figure out is if there is in-kernel
support for a Microsoft bus mouse. Didn't see anything in the docs.
I'm going to work at getting my FreeBSD setup up to production level, adding
X, news, elm, and some custom stuff. If I can get it working, I'll
probably stick with it.
--
bra...@atlas.com | "Electricity is made up of very small particles called
Atlas Telecom | electrons, which you cannot see unless you have been
Portland, OR | drinking."
--- This message printed with 100% recycled electrons ---
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!
decwrl!pa.dec.com!usenet.pa.dec.com!jkh
From: j...@morse.ilo.dec.com (Jordan Hubbard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Date: 18 Mar 1994 15:25:29 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Galway Ireland
Lines: 40
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <JKH.94Mar18152529@morse.ilo.dec.com>
References: <1994Mar18.084355.19503@atlas.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: morse.ilo.dec.com
In-reply-to: brantk@atlas.com's message of Fri, 18 Mar 1994 08:43:55 GMT
* Linux includes more frills, FreeBSD doesn't include any support for news,
or a decent mail reader. Also some of the GNU utilities that I prefer (such
as less) aren't included. This isn't a huge problem, just download the
source and compile it.
While you're correct that SlackWare does contain more interesting
goodies "out of the box" (I have a copy myself!), we do try to provide
such things in the form of "ports", which you can get in the ports
collection on freefall.cdrom.com (~ftp/pub/FreeBSD/ports). We also
provide binary releases of things in "package" format
(~ftp/pub/FreeBSD/packages). For 1.1, this has also be substantially
enhanced and organized, and you can get a good preview of this by
looking in ~ftp/pub/FreeBSD/FreeBSD-current/ports (you can also grab
all or some of it by asking for `<dir>.tar.Z' and the ftpd will
automatically tar, compress and send it to you as one file).
The only real problem I have right now with FreeBSD is it doesn't seem to
recognize my tape drive (Archive VP-150e with SC-402 controller). I have
customized the kernel to match the configuration of the controller (IO 0x100h,
I don't actually think we support this controller.. :-( If you can
give more detail on the SC-402, it's possible that someone can hack a
driver up by looking at the Linux sources. One advantage to Linux is
that they _are_ faster than writing drivers for less main-stream
devices than we are; they have the numbers! :-(
One other thing that I can't seem to figure out is if there is in-kernel
support for a Microsoft bus mouse. Didn't see anything in the docs.
There is support - take a look at the mse entry in the /sys/i386/conf/LINT
file.
I'm going to work at getting my FreeBSD setup up to production level, adding
X, news, elm, and some custom stuff. If I can get it working, I'll
probably stick with it.
All of those are already ported and available in the ports collection
(some in ready-to-run package form).
Jordan
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!EU.net!
news.eunet.fi!nullnet!tower!elandal
From: elan...@tower.nullnet.fi (Ismo Peltonen)
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Message-ID: <CMzw69.92K@tower.nullnet.fi>
Reply-To: Ismo.Pelto...@tower.NullNet.FI
Organization: Chambers of the Archmage, using ISOLatin1
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 03:25:21 GMT
References: <1994Mar18.084355.19503@atlas.com>
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Followup-To: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Lines: 38
In article <1994Mar18.084355.19...@atlas.com>
Brant Katkansky (bra...@atlas.com) wrote:
> I have been running Linux (Slackware 1.1.1) on my 486 at home for
> several months, and although most of my experiences have been positive,
> I felt that Linux was lacking in some areas, so I decides to look at
> FreeBSD.
[...]
> * FreeBSD has a more polished look and feel. Linux definately looks and
> feels like a beta product. FreeBSD seems to have consistancy where
> Linux does not.
What do people mean with this (`looks and feels like a beta/not finished')?
What in Linux makes that unfinished look'n'feel?
(The thing I most would like to see now is different keymaps/fonts on
different multiscreens, but I can well live without. If nothing comes
out, I'll probably hack something that satisfies me.)
I have yet to try new things with linux (I have hard time trying to keep
up with updates - last time I got route-binary I noticed I'd better
update my libs, which lead to downloading about 7 megs, some installing,
some compiling, and cursing for not to having yet changed my system to
conform to FSSTND), but whatever I've compiled has been fairly easy. Of
course having had Xenix before might have some influence in that
(anything on Xenix was a major headache).
> bra...@atlas.com | "Electricity is made up of very small particles called
> Atlas Telecom | electrons, which you cannot see unless you have been
> Portland, OR | drinking."
--
Elandal (aka Ismo Peltonen) ## snail Hanuripolku 5B15
Home (UUCP) Ismo.Pelto...@tower.nullnet.fi ## mail 00420 Helsinki
Univ (inet) Ismo.Pelto...@Helsinki.FI ## Finland
Errare humanum est.. ## phone +358-0-537515
öäåÖÄÅ <- Is Your link 8bit clean?
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!yale!gumby!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!
sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!
eunet.no!EU.net!Germany.EU.net!netmbx.de!zrz.TU-Berlin.DE!cs.tu-berlin.de!
zib-berlin.de!irz401!uriah!not-for-mail
From: j...@uriah.sax.de (J Wunsch)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Date: 22 Mar 1994 12:41:45 +0100
Organization: Private U**X site; member IN e.V.
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <2mmlhpINNc3s@bonnie.sax.de>
References: <1994Mar18.084355.19503@atlas.com> <CMzw69.92K@tower.nullnet.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bonnie.sax.de
elan...@tower.nullnet.fi (Ismo Peltonen) writes:
> Brant Katkansky (bra...@atlas.com) wrote:
>> * FreeBSD has a more polished look and feel. Linux definately looks and
>> feels like a beta product. FreeBSD seems to have consistancy where
>> Linux does not.
Q:
>What do people mean with this (`looks and feels like a beta/not finished')?
>What in Linux makes that unfinished look'n'feel?
...
A:
> (I have hard time trying to keep
>up with updates - last time I got route-binary I noticed I'd better
>update my libs, which lead to downloading about 7 megs, some installing,
>some compiling, and cursing for not to having yet changed my system to
>conform to FSSTND)...
What you're describing there *is* the ``beta look'n feel''. Inacceptable
for a release. Not that FreeBSD doesn't need beta's or development -
but people getting a release are not suspected to run into those upgrade-
by-the-patch-of-the-day troubles.
With {Free,Net}BSD, you can easily live with one distribution on a fairly
stable basis. Unless you really need the new features of an upcoming
release, you might stay with your old one until the new stuff is out
of beta. (Though i'm running a FreeBSD-almost-current at home for
development purposes, i'm just sitting on a box that ran the 1.0-GAMMA(!)
version for quarter of a year, it was quite stable with average uptimes
of 14 days or more.)
--
cheers, J"org work: joerg_wun...@tcd-dresden.de
private: joerg_wun...@uriah.sax.de
Steinbach's Guideline for Systems Programming:
Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle.
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!
csn!boulder.parcplace.com!imp
From: i...@boulder.parcplace.com (Warner Losh)
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Message-ID: <Cn1KJ1.9pr@boulder.parcplace.com>
Sender: n...@boulder.parcplace.com
Organization: ParcPlace Boulder
References: <1994Mar18.084355.19503@atlas.com> <CMzw69.92K@tower.nullnet.fi>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 01:09:01 GMT
Lines: 51
In article <CMzw69....@tower.nullnet.fi> Ismo.Pelto...@tower.NullNet.FI writes:
>> * FreeBSD has a more polished look and feel. Linux definately looks and
>> feels like a beta product. FreeBSD seems to have consistancy where
>> Linux does not.
>
>What do people mean with this (`looks and feels like a beta/not finished')?
>What in Linux makes that unfinished look'n'feel?
From my point of view it is the building of a system. On FreeBSD, all
I type is "make world," then go out for the night. When I come back,
all my user level utilities have been build and installed (in addition
to libraries, include files, etc). For Linux I must have missed
something because I've never seen a source distribution I could do
this with (feel free to prove me wrong). This is due, I think, to the
fact that there is exactly one core distribution and an central group
running the show that is responsible (as a group) for the entire
system.
Also, the many different distributions on Linux is confusing and adds
to the perception that it isn't quite there yet in terms of the
integration part of the project. FreeBSD has one place to get the
sources for the entire system, while I have to grab sources from
hither and yon for Linux. I can't grab n tar balls of source from
somewhere and expect one make command to compile and install the
system.
Finally, I can get the latest sources to FreeBSD every night and
rebuild w/minimal effort, since there is one place for the sources for
the entire system. I just sup new sources, and type make and I'm off.
I usually get and install new sources about once a week, however,
because a build does take quite a while.
I've also seen various nits wrt files and file placement on Linux that
may have gone away.
Don't get me wrong. The binary distributions of Linux are nice, but
sometimes you just wanna have the warm fuzzies that you only get with
a fully integrated build enviornment.
To be sure, this is a minor point. It was the first thing I noticed
about FreeBSD when I started using it.
Warner
P.S. the usual disclaimer about FreeBSD v NetBSD: They are likely the
same, but I haven't used NetBSD and I indent it no slight by my
comments.
--
Warner Losh i...@boulder.parcplace.COM ParcPlace Boulder
"... but I can't promote you to "Prima Donna" unless you demonstrate a few
more serious personality disorders"
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!nntpserver.pppl.gov!princeton!att-in!
csn!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!
EU.net!news.eunet.fi!nullnet!tower!elandal
From: elan...@tower.nullnet.fi (Ismo Peltonen)
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Message-ID: <Cn3uq0.M15@tower.nullnet.fi>
Reply-To: Ismo.Pelto...@tower.NullNet.FI
Organization: Chambers of the Archmage, using ISOLatin1
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 06:44:23 GMT
References: <1994Mar18.084355.19503@atlas.com> <CMzw69.92K@tower.nullnet.fi>
<2mmlhpINNc3s@bonnie.sax.de>
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Followup-To: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Lines: 69
In article <2mmlhpINN...@bonnie.sax.de>
J Wunsch (j...@uriah.sax.de) wrote:
> elan...@tower.nullnet.fi (Ismo Peltonen) writes:
> Q:
> >What do people mean with this (`looks and feels like a beta/not finished')?
> >What in Linux makes that unfinished look'n'feel?
> A:
> > (I have hard time trying to keep
> >up with updates - last time I got route-binary I noticed I'd better
> >update my libs, which lead to downloading about 7 megs, some installing,
> >some compiling, and cursing for not to having yet changed my system to
> >conform to FSSTND)...
> What you're describing there *is* the ``beta look'n feel''. Inacceptable
> for a release. Not that FreeBSD doesn't need beta's or development -
> but people getting a release are not suspected to run into those upgrade-
> by-the-patch-of-the-day troubles.
Of course I wouldn't need to upgrade everything every day. I just happen
to want to keep my kernel within at most two patch levels of the
latest.. And, if I grabbed only sources (no binary distributions), I
wouldn't need to upgrade everything as often.
Often when I grab some source package, I just make config (or sh
configure, or whatever), make, and make install. That's it. But, when
I grab an odd binary (eg. when testing slip, a friend uploaded new route
binary) I may have to upgrade something I wouldn't otherwise need to do.
> With {Free,Net}BSD, you can easily live with one distribution on a fairly
> stable basis. Unless you really need the new features of an upcoming
> release, you might stay with your old one until the new stuff is out
> of beta. (Though i'm running a FreeBSD-almost-current at home for
> development purposes, i'm just sitting on a box that ran the 1.0-GAMMA(!)
> version for quarter of a year, it was quite stable with average uptimes
> of 14 days or more.)
I know. I get longest uptimes when I'm not at home.. When I'm at home, I
decide to check what's new, and then just _have to_ grab everything new
and build the latest, greatest things to see if I can crash it now :-)
Eg. I could let this system run as it is. I don't think there is
anything that really needs much work. Still, I'm about to shutdown and
reboot with /vmlinuz.test, which is the latest, greatest kernel.
Oh yes, what's that ``one source distribution, juts make world and all
utilities You've ever wanted are built and installed'' thing? I know
I've eliminated things from the distribution I grabbed, added new, and
so on.. I don't want to have everything, and I know I want to have some
things that should never belong to normal distributions.. So, I rather
grab packages I want, compile them, install them, and am happy.
I know I _could_ write a Makefile to /usr/src that built and installed
everything, but I don't want to. I want to do it to each package at a
time, hack and slash here and there, and never install everything in one
session. And most packages can be forgotten, removed, gzipped, or
otherwise handled after they are installed once.
> cheers, J"org work: joerg_wun...@tcd-dresden.de
> private: joerg_wun...@uriah.sax.de
> Steinbach's Guideline for Systems Programming:
> Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle.
--
Elandal (aka Ismo Peltonen) ## snail Hanuripolku 5B15
Home (UUCP) Ismo.Pelto...@tower.nullnet.fi ## mail 00420 Helsinki
Univ (inet) Ismo.Pelto...@Helsinki.FI ## Finland
Errare humanum est.. ## phone +358-0-537515
öäåÖÄÅ <- Is Your link 8bit clean?
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!msuinfo!agate!
howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!
news.iastate.edu!ponderous.cc.iastate.edu!michaelv
From: micha...@iastate.edu (Michael L. VanLoon)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Date: 24 Mar 94 04:51:10 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <michaelv.764484670@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu>
References: <1994Mar18.084355.19503@atlas.com> <CMzw69.92K@tower.nullnet.fi>
<2mmlhpINNc3s@bonnie.sax.de> <Cn3uq0.M15@tower.nullnet.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ponderous.cc.iastate.edu
In <Cn3uq0....@tower.nullnet.fi> elan...@tower.nullnet.fi (Ismo Peltonen) writes:
>In article <2mmlhpINN...@bonnie.sax.de>
> J Wunsch (j...@uriah.sax.de) wrote:
>> elan...@tower.nullnet.fi (Ismo Peltonen) writes:
>> Q:
>> >What do people mean with this (`looks and feels like a beta/not finished')?
>> >What in Linux makes that unfinished look'n'feel?
>> A:
>> > (I have hard time trying to keep
>> >up with updates - last time I got route-binary I noticed I'd better
>> >update my libs, which lead to downloading about 7 megs, some installing,
>> >some compiling, and cursing for not to having yet changed my system to
>> >conform to FSSTND)...
>> What you're describing there *is* the ``beta look'n feel''. Inacceptable
>> for a release. Not that FreeBSD doesn't need beta's or development -
>> but people getting a release are not suspected to run into those upgrade-
>> by-the-patch-of-the-day troubles.
>Oh yes, what's that ``one source distribution, juts make world and all
>utilities You've ever wanted are built and installed'' thing? I know
>I've eliminated things from the distribution I grabbed, added new, and
>so on.. I don't want to have everything, and I know I want to have some
>things that should never belong to normal distributions.. So, I rather
>grab packages I want, compile them, install them, and am happy.
You can do this under {Net,Free}BSD just as easily.
>I know I _could_ write a Makefile to /usr/src that built and installed
>everything, but I don't want to. I want to do it to each package at a
>time, hack and slash here and there, and never install everything in one
>session. And most packages can be forgotten, removed, gzipped, or
>otherwise handled after they are installed once.
The point is, you *can't* just type "make; make install" in /usr/src
and come back the next day and have *everything* completely rebuilt
and installed. I *can*. And I can be sure it was done correctly and
completely.
Sure, I can cd into /usr/src/usr.sbin/traceroute and type "make; make
install" there, and a few minutes later I have a new traceroute and
nothing more. The point is, I have a choice.
This is just one of the things he was referring to. NetBSD just
"feels" to me like a genuine commercial "Unix" product. It is very
well layed out with much careful thought and foresight. My friends
linux boxes, while fine, reliable systems, simply didn't feel that way
to me. They felt to me like something you'd expect to get for free.
Please don't take this as a slam, I'm just trying to give you an idea
of my impressions.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Michael L. VanLoon Iowa State University Computation Center
micha...@iastate.edu Project Vincent Systems Staff
Free your mind and your machine -- NetBSD free Un*x for PC/Mac/Amiga/etc.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Path: gmd.de!dearn!barilvm!vms.huji.ac.il!shum.cc.huji.ac.il!
nntpserver.huji.ac.il!hjstein
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Message-ID: <HJSTEIN.94Mar24111940@sunset.huji.ac.il>
From: hjst...@sunset.huji.ac.il (Harvey J. Stein)
Date: 24 Mar 94 11:19:40
References: <1994Mar18.084355.19503@atlas.com> <CMzw69.92K@tower.nullnet.fi>
<Cn1KJ1.9pr@boulder.parcplace.com>
Organization: Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
NNTP-Posting-Host: sunset.ma.huji.ac.il
In-reply-to: imp@boulder.parcplace.com's message of Tue, 22 Mar 1994 01:09:01 GMT
Lines: 41
In article <Cn1KJ1....@boulder.parcplace.com>
i...@boulder.parcplace.com (Warner Losh) writes:
In article <CMzw69....@tower.nullnet.fi>
Ismo.Pelto...@tower.NullNet.FI writes:
>> * FreeBSD has a more polished look and feel. Linux definately looks and
>> feels like a beta product. FreeBSD seems to have consistancy where
>> Linux does not.
>
>What do people mean with this (`looks and feels like a beta/not finished')?
>What in Linux makes that unfinished look'n'feel?
From my point of view it is the building of a system. On FreeBSD, all
I type is "make world," then go out for the night. When I come back,
all my user level utilities have been build and installed (in addition
to libraries, include files, etc). For Linux I must have missed
something because I've never seen a source distribution I could do
this with (feel free to prove me wrong). This is due, I think, to the
fact that there is exactly one core distribution and an central group
running the show that is responsible (as a group) for the entire
system.
I believe that the TAMU distribution allows this.
Also, the many different distributions on Linux is confusing and adds
to the perception that it isn't quite there yet in terms of the
integration part of the project. FreeBSD has one place to get the
sources for the entire system, while I have to grab sources from
hither and yon for Linux. I can't grab n tar balls of source from
somewhere and expect one make command to compile and install the
system.
Maybe when Linux development becomes as slow as FreeBSD development,
with as few people working on it, then Linux will only be on one
server too.
--
Harvey J. Stein
Department of Mathematics
Hebrew University
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!news.world.net!guardian.up.edu!sequent!
uunet!news1.digex.net!news.iac.net!news.iac.net!not-for-mail
From: skyh...@iac.net (Chris Thompson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Followup-To: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Date: 29 Mar 1994 09:51:12 -0500
Organization: Internet Access Cincinnati 513-887-8877
Lines: 130
Message-ID: <2n9f90$9em@great-miami.iac.net>
References: <1994Mar18.084355.19503@atlas.com> <CMzw69.92K@tower.nullnet.fi>
<2mmlhpINNc3s@bonnie.sax.de> <Cn3uq0.M15@tower.nullnet.fi>
<michaelv.764484670@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: great-miami.iac.net
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
: >> >What do people mean with this (`looks and feels like a beta/not finished')?
: >> >What in Linux makes that unfinished look'n'feel?
: >> A:
: >> > (I have hard time trying to keep
: >> >up with updates - last time I got route-binary I noticed I'd better
: >> >update my libs, which lead to downloading about 7 megs, some installing,
: >> >some compiling, and cursing for not to having yet changed my system to
: >> >conform to FSSTND)...
Why 7 megs? there ARE binary versions of libc in the image-4.5.21.tar.gz
file. that's how I upgraded. I didnt put that in a FSSTND system and it
worked like a charm. (well except for the fact that I unlinke the old
libc and suddenly had NO libc and had to reboot from floppy to fix :) but
that was my fault) If not lic, what libs are youu speaking of?
: >> What you're describing there *is* the ``beta look'n feel''. Inacceptable
: >> for a release. Not that FreeBSD doesn't need beta's or development -
: >> but people getting a release are not suspected to run into those upgrade-
: >> by-the-patch-of-the-day troubles.
Linux, especially the v1.0 kernel, is a NEW piece of software that
doesnt have the several YEARS that BSD has. I upgrade my box to the
newest patchlevel (it's now at 1.0.5) whenever possible because...
A) My machine is NOT mission critical. I dont have and entire
development squad hanging on it as their only machine. Nor am I
running it to control life support for the space shuttle. I run it to
learn Unix and because it's a hell of alot of fun! There are machines
right now with 70+ day uptimes running 0.99pl14 without problem. Need
I point out that, by definition, that's a BETA version.
B) Linux is only improved by user interaction. If I dont run it
and give feedback on bugs, then I am not doing my part to help the
development. I can program in C, but not OS kernels. This is my
contribution, I TEST!
: >Oh yes, what's that ``one source distribution, juts make world and all
: >utilities You've ever wanted are built and installed'' thing? I know
: >I've eliminated things from the distribution I grabbed, added new, and
: >so on.. I don't want to have everything, and I know I want to have some
: >things that should never belong to normal distributions.. So, I rather
: >grab packages I want, compile them, install them, and am happy.
: You can do this under {Net,Free}BSD just as easily.
What, then, is the point? Never in the year and a half of running Linux
(since 0.99pl6) have I ever needed to make the WHOLE system again. I've
recompiled the kernel maybbe 100 times, but that once you have the
config to the way you want it (SCSI/NO SCSI, etc) it's
'make dep;make' if I need a new route binary, I get the new route
source and make it. It's not exactly brain surgery.
: >I know I _could_ write a Makefile to /usr/src that built and installed
: >everything, but I don't want to. I want to do it to each package at a
: >time, hack and slash here and there, and never install everything in one
: >session. And most packages can be forgotten, removed, gzipped, or
: >otherwise handled after they are installed once.
: The point is, you *can't* just type "make; make install" in /usr/src
: and come back the next day and have *everything* completely rebuilt
: and installed. I *can*. And I can be sure it was done correctly and
: completely.
: Sure, I can cd into /usr/src/usr.sbin/traceroute and type "make; make
: install" there, and a few minutes later I have a new traceroute and
: nothing more. The point is, I have a choice.
That's true. you have a choice. My car has a 36000 mile warranty. I
have a choice between just driving like everyone else, or I can drive
36000 miles nonstop until I get to the end.
I cant comprehend a situation where I would want to recompile EVERY
binary on my system. Please, tell me, unless I have upgraded the source
to every single program, what is the point of recompiling inetd if the
source hasnt changed? Even a lib upgrade isnt a good enough reason. I
have yet to see UPWARD compatibilty problem with libc.
Give me an hour and I'll write a make file that spools through the
/usr/src/[bin,sbin,usr.bin,usr.sbin,etc] directories and does a touch -R
* ; make install. The reason nobody has, IS BECAUSE NOBODY CARES!
: This is just one of the things he was referring to. NetBSD just
: "feels" to me like a genuine commercial "Unix" product. It is very
: well layed out with much careful thought and foresight. My friends
: linux boxes, while fine, reliable systems, simply didn't feel that way
: to me. They felt to me like something you'd expect to get for free.
: Please don't take this as a slam, I'm just trying to give you an idea
: of my impressions.
Please dont take this post as a flame, it wasnt meant that way at all,
like you I was just trying to state MY opinions. I guess FEEL is a
relative term. Let me give you an example.
A friend wanted Linux from me, but I was working 70hrs a week at that
time and couldnt get it to him. (He had no internet at that time and a
the only local board with linux has MCC 0.99.10+ :^| ) so he went out and
bought unixware. I believe that fits in your definition of 'a genuine
commercial "Unix" product.' After spending weeks trying to get it to work
(and being quoted $200 for an X driver for an ET4000 at 1024x768) he
chucked it all. I had a new job (read: I had time!) by then and last
weekend I took slackware 1.1.2 (2 days before 1.2.0 :^| ) to his house.
He told me that he couldnt believe how EASY the slack setup was and that
he was glad he had gotten rid of Unixware. slack setup is VERY easy and
straight forward. If I need to upgrade, say, the net binaries because I
want to run the news net3 instead of net2 (hush hush top secret, you
didnt hear it from me, but Linux with IPX! Coming soon) I will download
the slack n series again and re install.
Are there things in Linux that need to be changed? yes, FSSTND doesnt
thrill me. /usr/X11/lib/X11 is the stupides thing I've ever seen. And I
would like a SCO like sysadmsh. (actually, I'm thinking of writing one)
But tell me this about NetFreeBSD (Things I REALLY dont know)
Is there MS-DOG Emulation? ( until I see quicken for Linux, I need DOS apps)
Will WABI/WINE work there? (I'd love to see Word for Windows under X)
is there iBCS2 support? (In ALPHA for Linux, run SCO binaries)
Linux > BSD .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Thompson | Linux/fvwm/Emacs/ztalk ARE GOD! Ban MS-DOG/WinBlows
skyh...@iac.net | Ztalk 0.2a reception ready on skynet.iac.net
skynet.iac.net | (when my CSLIP is connected that is :) )
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!
pipex!zaphod.crihan.fr!jussieu.fr!univ-lyon1.fr!ensta!itesec!frmug.fr.net!
gwynedd.frmug.fr.net!fcb
From: f...@gwynedd.frmug.fr.net (Francois Berjon)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Followup-To: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Date: 30 Mar 1994 18:07:52 GMT
Organization: The Gwynedd System
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <2ncf66$35c@gwynedd.frmug.fr.net>
References: <CMzw69.92K@tower.nullnet.fi> <Cn1KJ1.9pr@boulder.parcplace.com>
<HJSTEIN.94Mar24111940@sunset.huji.ac.il> <1994Mar28.123516.20304@uk.ac.swan.pyr>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gwynedd.frmug.fr.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Alan Cox wrote:
> Out of curiosity I got the README entries for all the packages on my machine
> and the size of source + build space. To make world my entire system I'd
> need 4.6Gb of disk space, or 3.1Gb assuming I did a make clean on each
> package after building. Whoopee... There are good reasons for binary
> releases at time.
Odd, considering that last time I rebuilt the world on my FreeBSD machine,
it was done within roughly 50MB of disk space... (add 70MB for the full
source code).
Your figures seem really _way_ off the mark (or the *BSD teams have added
gigabytes of source code since the last release...)
--
Francois Berjon Francois.Ber...@gwynedd.frmug.fr.net
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!
jaring.my!oasys!othman
From: oth...@oasys.pc.my (Othman Ahmad)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Message-ID: <R8m2Jc1w165w@oasys.pc.my>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 94 08:39:02 +800
References: <2n9f90$9em@great-miami.iac.net>
Organization: Telekom Malaysia, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia
Lines: 28
skyh...@iac.net (Chris Thompson) writes:
>
> Is there MS-DOG Emulation? ( until I see quicken for Linux, I need DOS apps)
> Will WABI/WINE work there? (I'd love to see Word for Windows under X)
> is there iBCS2 support? (In ALPHA for Linux, run SCO binaries)
>
How good are all these? I tried the MSDOS emulation before but it was so full
of bugs and limited that I'd rather reboot.
Linux is full of these experimental features and they keep on piling them
quickly without much thought. Soo Linux will be overwhelmed. It now has many
versions of file systems but still none with the capablility of FFS because
Linus hate it.
The last time I studied Linux networking code, it was adapted Net/2
code with hacks to make it work for Linux. Otherwise how could they get those
networking utilities up so quickly.
> Linux > BSD .
Don't be fooled by features that you do not need. Keep it slim and bug free.
Linux is ONLY for X86, whereas BSD is for ALL. If you want a toy to play with,
go for Linux, but if you want to go on to greater things, try BSD.
SABAH is HEAVEN. Beautiful islands, mountains and jungles are next to 5 star
hotels. There are no natural and very few man-made disasters,
BUT for how long will it last?
Disclaimer: I only speak for myself
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!
pipex!uknet!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiitac
From: iii...@uk.ac.swan.pyr (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Message-ID: <1994Mar31.132906.8868@uk.ac.swan.pyr>
Organization: Swansea University College
References: <2n9f90$9em@great-miami.iac.net> <R8m2Jc1w165w@oasys.pc.my>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 13:29:06 GMT
Lines: 59
In article <R8m2Jc1w1...@oasys.pc.my> oth...@oasys.pc.my (Othman Ahmad) writes:
>How good are all these? I tried the MSDOS emulation before but it was so full
>of bugs and limited that I'd rather reboot.
I play wolfenstein in it quite regularly, use it to access a novell network
and with the exception of 386 protected mode DOS stuff its good. I've never
for example got netware clients to run inside of the interactive syste,.
>
>Linux is full of these experimental features and they keep on piling them
>quickly without much thought. Soo Linux will be overwhelmed. It now has many
>versions of file systems but still none with the capablility of FFS because
>Linus hate it.
Linux has had no new features added for well over a month to help refine a
stable 1.0 release. The new stuff will start to go into 1.1, and we will
all be running our disks twice as fast and running SCO binaries if we wish.
Despite that at least one machine here will stay running known stable releases.
Linux doesn't support FFS because nobody felt like wading through pages of
turgid BSD specific code that might in fact belong to USL anyway (and one
or two files it turned out did and will need rewriting for BSD4.4 lite.). I'd
be interested when/if someone does a BSD FFS for Linux to benchmark it against
ext2. At the moment with the two machines here with fast scsi disks and adaptec
cards Linux + clustering ext2fs is faster than BSD FFS is faster than Linux
without clustering. Some of this will be very application dependant.
There is an old saying that Usenet works best when people who don't know what
they are talking about shut up.... You obviously know so little about Linux
that you are contributing nothing of use.
> The last time I studied Linux networking code, it was adapted Net/2
>code with hacks to make it work for Linux. Otherwise how could they get those
>networking utilities up so quickly.
Fascinating. The Linux network code was written from scratch by a large group
of people. It has no Net/2 code in it at all. A lot of the utilities are
BSD based for two reasons
1) While often not too portable (BSD rather than Posix tty etc) most of the
BSD networking tools are quite good and worth the porting effort
2) Several of them are not even described properly by RFC's because the
older BSD hackers (pre 386BSD) never bothered documenting things - even
the lpr protocol was documented afterwards by someone else.
What will also be interesting is seeing how well BSD networking and Linux
networking adapt to IPng.
>
>Don't be fooled by features that you do not need. Keep it slim and bug free.
Thats good advice. Linux is moving towards loadable modules. BSD has gone
from a fat splodge of code to quite clean refined code.
>
>Linux is ONLY for X86, whereas BSD is for ALL. If you want a toy to play with,
>go for Linux, but if you want to go on to greater things, try BSD.
Linux is X86 and 68K under development. When the 68K port is finished we will
have the portability. This is following the path Unix (thus BSD) took very
closely. V7 was not portable until people started doing ports to System3 and
friends (There is a good CACM paper on this).
Alan
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!
pipex!uknet!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiitac
From: iii...@uk.ac.swan.pyr (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Message-ID: <1994Mar31.133050.9051@uk.ac.swan.pyr>
Organization: Swansea University College
References: <HJSTEIN.94Mar24111940@sunset.huji.ac.il>
<1994Mar28.123516.20304@uk.ac.swan.pyr> <2ncf66$35c@gwynedd.frmug.fr.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 13:30:50 GMT
Lines: 18
In article <2ncf66$...@gwynedd.frmug.fr.net> f...@gwynedd.frmug.fr.net
(Francois Berjon) writes:
>Alan Cox wrote:
>> Out of curiosity I got the README entries for all the packages on my machine
>> and the size of source + build space. To make world my entire system I'd
>> need 4.6Gb of disk space, or 3.1Gb assuming I did a make clean on each
>> package after building. Whoopee... There are good reasons for binary
>> releases at time.
>
>Odd, considering that last time I rebuilt the world on my FreeBSD machine,
>it was done within roughly 50MB of disk space... (add 70MB for the full
>source code).
You misunderstand. Thats what it would take to build Linux _ all the tools
and packages I have from scratch (ie gcc,g++,gdb,X386,Khoros,Magic,gpc(alpha),
numerous kits of our own, xntp, [and so on]).
Alan
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!subnet.sub.net!flatlin!flyer.GUN.de!unidui!
rrz.uni-koeln.de!news.dfn.de!news.belwue.de!zib-berlin.de!netmbx.de!
Germany.EU.net!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!prism!prism!not-for-mail
From: gt81...@prism.gatech.edu (Robert Sanders)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Date: 31 Mar 1994 09:21:14 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <2nem8q$ddj@acme.gatech.edu>
References: <2n9f90$9em@great-miami.iac.net> <R8m2Jc1w165w@oasys.pc.my>
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gatech.edu
oth...@oasys.pc.my (Othman Ahmad) writes:
>Linux is full of these experimental features and they keep on piling them
>quickly without much thought. Soo Linux will be overwhelmed. It now has many
Imminent death of Linux predicted.
>versions of file systems but still none with the capablility of FFS because
>Linus hate it.
Exactly what capabilities are you talking about?
> The last time I studied Linux networking code, it was adapted Net/2
>code with hacks to make it work for Linux. Otherwise how could they get those
>networking utilities up so quickly.
Interesting. None of the kernel code is BSD (BNR/2) derived, except for a few of
the constants. Some of the net utilities are BSD derived. From what I've seen,
there are changes to make them work for Linux, but not every deviation from the
one true BSD way is a hack.
>Don't be fooled by features that you do not need. Keep it slim and bug free.
Oh, *BSD are bug free? And SLIM? Care to back up your assertion with some
proof?
>Linux is ONLY for X86, whereas BSD is for ALL. If you want a toy to play with,
>go for Linux, but if you want to go on to greater things, try BSD.
Actually, the Linux port to the AMiga (and theoretically to other 68k
machines) is progressing at a fast clip. Although I admit NetBSD (but neither
of the other free *BSD) supports many platforms with varying degrees of
completeness, it certainly doesn't run on "ALL."
--
_g, '96 --->>>>>>>>>> gt81...@prism.gatech.edu <<<<<<<<<--- CompSci ,g_
W@@@W__ |-\ ^ | disclaimer: <---> "Bow before ZOD!" __W@@@W
W@@@@**~~~' ro|-<ert s/_\ nders | who am I??? ^ from Superman '~~~**@@@@W
`*MV' hi,ocie! |-/ad! / \ss!! | ooga ooga!! | II (cool)! `VW*'
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!hookup!
news.sprintlink.net!news.clark.net!rob-n
From: ro...@clark.net (Rob Newberry)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Followup-To: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Date: 31 Mar 1994 15:02:49 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <2neomp$k5t@clarknet.clark.net>
References: <CMzw69.92K@tower.nullnet.fi> <Cn1KJ1.9pr@boulder.parcplace.com>
<HJSTEIN.94Mar24111940@sunset.huji.ac.il> <Cn6txK.IDp@boulder.parcplace.com>
<2n1l3n$821@clarknet.clark.net> <2n26uu$ae6@fw.novatel.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: clark.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Herb Peyerl (hpeyerl@sidney) wrote:
: Perhaps that can be rephrased to say "I have a long way to go before
: I'm ready for *BSD". :-)
: *BSD is an operating system. kermit is an application. XFree86 is also
: an application as is TeX and many other things. Should every conceivable
: application be shipped with the operating system?
: As far as 'tip' goes; typing "man tip" points you in the right direction
: for setting up the "remote" and "phones" files.
: What if I don't *want* my users to have POP accounts?
...among other garbage.
At any rate, your post didn't tell me anything I didn't know, nor
anything I didn't figure out BEFORE I ever tried to install *BSD.
My entire post claimed ONLY that I felt much more comfortable with
a installation package like Slackware than I did with the *BSD
install.
As I am STILL having problems with Linux' networking code, I'm
STILL hoping someone will put together such a beast. But until
there is a way to painlessly install *BSD AND lots of utilities
I need, it's not for me.
Thanks for the lecture, but next time, at least say something
that hasn't been said.
Rob
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!subnet.sub.net!flatlin!flyer.GUN.de!unidui!
rrz.uni-koeln.de!news.dfn.de!news.belwue.de!zib-berlin.de!zrz.TU-Berlin.DE!
netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!uunet!epiwrl.entropic.com!usenet
From: k...@wrl.epi.com (Ken Hornstein)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Date: 31 Mar 1994 12:15:36 -0500
Organization: Entropic Research Laboratory, Washington DC
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <2nf0fo$76u@sbus.entropic.com>
References: <CMzw69.92K@tower.nullnet.fi> <2n1l3n$821@clarknet.clark.net>
<2n26uu$ae6@fw.novatel.ca> <2neomp$k5t@clarknet.clark.net>
Reply-To: k...@wrl.epi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: sbus.entropic.com
In article <2neomp$...@clarknet.clark.net>,
Rob Newberry <ro...@clark.net> wrote:
>At any rate, your post didn't tell me anything I didn't know, nor
>anything I didn't figure out BEFORE I ever tried to install *BSD.
>My entire post claimed ONLY that I felt much more comfortable with
>a installation package like Slackware than I did with the *BSD
>install.
>
>As I am STILL having problems with Linux' networking code, I'm
>STILL hoping someone will put together such a beast. But until
>there is a way to painlessly install *BSD AND lots of utilities
>I need, it's not for me.
I guess the concept of "no pain, no gain" is foreign to you?
I've noticed that everything in life has positive and negative aspects. Linux
has a much nicer install procedure and supports a wide variety of interface
cards; BSD has better networking (so I've heard). You can see that each of
the different groups has focused their energies in different spots. Many
people don't have any problems installing *BSD on their systems; it looks like
the problem is with you.
To be honest, it's hard for me to have any sympathy for you; here you have
two FREE operating systems to choose from, with FULL source, and when something
doesn't work all you can do is whine about it. Why don't you try fixing some
of these problems yourself? What, you don't know how? Then learn. If you
want your hand held, then get a commercial operating system.
--Ken
Path: gmd.de!urmel.informatik.rwth-aachen.de!newsserver.rrzn.uni-hannover.de!
ina.zfn.uni-bremen.de!marvin.pc-labor.uni-bremen.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!
rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!
swrinde!sgiblab!idiom.berkeley.ca.us!apollo.west.oic.com!apollo.west.oic.com!
not-for-mail
From: dil...@apollo.west.oic.com (Matthew Dillon)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Date: 1 Apr 1994 09:47:15 -0800
Organization: Obvious Implementations Corp
Lines: 62
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <2nhmn3$sjs@apollo.west.oic.com>
References: <2n9f90$9em@great-miami.iac.net> <R8m2Jc1w165w@oasys.pc.my>
<2nem8q$ddj@acme.gatech.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: apollo.west.oic.com
In article <2nem8q$...@acme.gatech.edu> gt81...@prism.gatech.edu
(Robert Sanders) writes:
:oth...@oasys.pc.my (Othman Ahmad) writes:
:
:>Linux is full of these experimental features and they keep on piling them
:>quickly without much thought. Soo Linux will be overwhelmed. It now has many
:
:Imminent death of Linux predicted.
:
:>versions of file systems but still none with the capablility of FFS because
:>Linus hate it.
Personally, having worked on BSD systems for years, I prefer Linux.
BSD has always felt, well, stuffy. From a comparative standpoint,
at least for PC-based UNIXs, Linux is the most compatible and one is
likely to see drivers for new cards developed on it before anything
else. Also from a comparative standpoint, BSD-specific code tends to
be rather archaic... a lot of it is still K&R C (rather than ANSI C),
and a lot of it tends to makes BSD-specific assumptions for system
calls that are incompatible with ANSI C.
No, thank you.
From a stability standpoint, the only reboots I do nowadays occur when
I install a new kernel.
Considering that Linux was alive and well long before it could have
been said to be reasonably complete, now that it IS reasonably complete
it is highly unlikely that it will undergo an imminent demise.
That said, there ARE a few exceptions when it comes to BSD code... I'm
running sendmail 8.6.8 and it compiled without a hitch under Linux.
The primary difference between BSD and Linux, apart from Linux's
SYSVish syscall and tty interface, is in the support programs. BSD
has a very predictable set of programs, whereas Linux has a melange.
For example, there are at least four different getty programs for
Linux, two major system layout configurations (SysVish or BSDish),
two or three different password-related utility sets (though that's
finally been normalized with the incorporation of shadow passwords
in the official shared C lib), etc.
There are also a whole lot of kernel enhancement patches, which I believe
was a sticking point for many arguing for BSD. It really isn't... most
people do NOT bother with the enhancement patches until after they have
been officially incorporated into the kernel by Linus, at which point
they become the standard. On the otherhand, if you need a particular
feature instantly, there is a path you can follow to get it. This
path does not exist under a BSD system.
You have to be a bit more knowledgeable to setup a Linux system than a BSD
system. I believe the result is well worth it.
-Matt
--
Matthew Dillon dil...@apollo.west.oic.com
1005 Apollo Way
Incline Village, NV. 89451 ham: KC6LVW (no mail drop)
USA Sandel-Avery Engineering (702)831-8000
[always include a portion of the original email in any response!]
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!EU.net!ieunet!
news.ieunet.ie!jkh
From: j...@whisker.hubbard.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Date: 02 Apr 1994 11:03:30 GMT
Organization: Jordan Hubbard
Lines: 25
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <JKH.94Apr2120330@whisker.hubbard.ie>
References: <2n9f90$9em@great-miami.iac.net> <R8m2Jc1w165w@oasys.pc.my>
<2nem8q$ddj@acme.gatech.edu> <2nhmn3$sjs@apollo.west.oic.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: whisker.hubbard.ie
In-reply-to: dillon@apollo.west.oic.com's message of 1 Apr 1994 09:47:15 -0800
In article <2nhmn3$...@apollo.west.oic.com> dil...@apollo.west.oic.com
(Matthew Dillon) writes:
Personally, having worked on BSD systems for years, I prefer Linux.
BSD has always felt, well, stuffy. From a comparative standpoint,
at least for PC-based UNIXs, Linux is the most compatible and one is
likely to see drivers for new cards developed on it before anything
else. Also from a comparative standpoint, BSD-specific code tends to
be rather archaic... a lot of it is still K&R C (rather than ANSI C),
and a lot of it tends to makes BSD-specific assumptions for system
calls that are incompatible with ANSI C.
While I highly respect some of the work you have done on the Amiga
front, this statement leads me to believe that you've never really
looked at the code you're criticising. Do you really think we'd
settle for non-ANSI compliant code? Much of both the FreeBSD and
NetBSD teams' effort has been in adding extensive prototyping, and we
run the entire codebase through `gcc -Wall' periodically. The
mainline efforts in *BSD are anything but archaic, and this strikes me
as simply more of the same unthinking bigotry that people in both
camps periodically exhibit. It's both innaccurate and unnecessary.
Jordan
--
Jordan K. Hubbard FreeBSD core team Electric Bivalves Anonymous
On the net, no one can hear you scream.
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!news.uni-ulm.de!news.belwue.de!
news.dfn.de!darwin.sura.net!ra!tantalus.nrl.navy.mil!eric
From: e...@tantalus.nrl.navy.mil (Eric Youngdale)
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Message-ID: <Cnn83o.Ays@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
Sender: use...@ra.nrl.navy.mil
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory
References: <371_9404020115@logo.ka.sub.org>
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 1994 17:47:48 GMT
Lines: 40
In article <HJSTEIN.94Mar24111...@sunset.huji.ac.il> hjst...@sunset.huji.ac.il
(Harvey J. Stein) writes:
> From my point of view it is the building of a system. On FreeBSD, all
> I type is "make world," then go out for the night. When I come back,
> all my user level utilities have been build and installed (in addition
> to libraries, include files, etc). For Linux I must have missed
> something because I've never seen a source distribution I could do
> this with (feel free to prove me wrong). This is due, I think, to the
> fact that there is exactly one core distribution and an central group
> running the show that is responsible (as a group) for the entire
> system.
I have seen this thread go on and on, and the big question that I could
never figure out is why anyone would want to recompile their entire system from
scratch.
The one thing that I came up with was that with *BSD until quite
recently there were no shared libraries, so any change to libc required that
you completely rebuild the system if you want to have the change propogated to
all of your binaries. Also, I suspect that the people on the BSD core team and
the people following the Free-current source tree (i.e. using the shared
libraries) would want to do a complete rebuild time a problem related to the
new shared libraries was found.
It was quite similar just over a year ago when the first DLL linux
shared libraries were being developed. You would want to recompile everything
so that you could test the system and see if you could find any bugs. Now that
the linux linker is stable, there is simply no need for massive recompilations
of the entire system.
I am not arguing that there is anything wrong with a unified source
tree - it does have some advantages and it is a worthwhile goal, but personally
I thiuk that the advantages are not as big as some of the BSD people would lead
you to believe.
-Eric
--
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep. But I have promises to keep,
And lines to code before I sleep, And lines to code before I sleep."
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.belwue.de!
news.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!zib-berlin.de!netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!
howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!sgiblab!idiom.berkeley.ca.us!
apollo.west.oic.com!apollo.west.oic.com!not-for-mail
From: dil...@apollo.west.oic.com (Matthew Dillon)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Date: 2 Apr 1994 09:57:33 -0800
Organization: Obvious Implementations Corp
Lines: 38
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <2nkbmd$nqr@apollo.west.oic.com>
References: <2n9f90$9em@great-miami.iac.net> <2nem8q$ddj@acme.gatech.edu>
<2nhmn3$sjs@apollo.west.oic.com> <JKH.94Apr2120330@whisker.hubbard.ie>
NNTP-Posting-Host: apollo-idiom-slip.west.oic.com
In article <JKH.94Apr2120...@whisker.hubbard.ie> j...@whisker.hubbard.ie
(Jordan K. Hubbard) writes:
>In article <2nhmn3$...@apollo.west.oic.com> dil...@apollo.west.oic.com
(Matthew Dillon) writes:
>
> Personally, having worked on BSD systems for years, I prefer Linux.
> BSD has always felt, well, stuffy. From a comparative standpoint,
>...
>
>While I highly respect some of the work you have done on the Amiga
>front, this statement leads me to believe that you've never really
>looked at the code you're criticising. Do you really think we'd
>settle for non-ANSI compliant code? Much of both the FreeBSD and
>NetBSD teams' effort has been in adding extensive prototyping, and we
>run the entire codebase through `gcc -Wall' periodically. The
>mainline efforts in *BSD are anything but archaic, and this strikes me
>as simply more of the same unthinking bigotry that people in both
>camps periodically exhibit. It's both innaccurate and unnecessary.
>
> Jordan
>--
>Jordan K. Hubbard FreeBSD core team Electric Bivalves Anonymous
>On the net, no one can hear you scream.
Well, I wasn't refering to FreeBSD, but rather the Berkeley BSD release
and the Berkeley source tree (which I have extensive experience with).
You are correct in saying that I have not looked at the FreeBSD release,
and I *did* assume it was a straight port of BSD for which I apologize.
-Matt
--
Matthew Dillon dil...@apollo.west.oic.com
1005 Apollo Way
Incline Village, NV. 89451 ham: KC6LVW (no mail drop)
USA Sandel-Avery Engineering (702)831-8000
[always include a portion of the original email in any response!]
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!dsinc!spool.mu.edu!
howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!news.funet.fi!hydra.Helsinki.FI!klaava!
not-for-mail
From: torva...@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Date: 3 Apr 1994 13:48:11 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <2nm6tb$m6u@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
References: <CMzw69.92K@tower.nullnet.fi> <2n26uu$ae6@fw.novatel.ca>
<2neomp$k5t@clarknet.clark.net> <2nf0fo$76u@sbus.entropic.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: klaava.helsinki.fi
In article <2nf0fo$...@sbus.entropic.com>,
Ken Hornstein <k...@wrl.epi.com> wrote:
>
>I guess the concept of "no pain, no gain" is foreign to you?
Sorry. I dislike these flame wars intensely, and I just happen to find
the above "concept" one of the more disgusting ones ("Hey, I'm *macho*,
I use an operating system that is PAINFUL because that way I gain
much").
Next I guess you'll tell me "you get what you pay for". I haven't been
this close to flaming someone in a *long* time,
Linus
PS. I tested out Slackware a few weeks ago, and my reaction was "hey,
this install looks like a DOS program". I'm not ashamed to admit that I
was immensely pleased.
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!yale!gumby!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!
gatech!swrinde!news.uh.edu!not-for-mail
From: cosc1...@menudo.uh.edu (cosc19v2)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Date: 3 Apr 1994 07:55:00 -0500
Organization: University of Houston
Lines: 137
Message-ID: <2nmeb4$ro@menudo.uh.edu>
References: <CMzw69.92K@tower.nullnet.fi> <2neomp$k5t@clarknet.clark.net>
<2nf0fo$76u@sbus.entropic.com> <2nm6tb$m6u@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
NNTP-Posting-Host: menudo.uh.edu
In article <2nm6tb$...@klaava.Helsinki.FI>,
Linus Torvalds <torva...@klaava.Helsinki.FI> wrote:
>In article <2nf0fo$...@sbus.entropic.com>,
>Ken Hornstein <k...@wrl.epi.com> wrote:
>>
>>I guess the concept of "no pain, no gain" is foreign to you?
>
Unfortunately, in case *BSD, "Lots of pain, no gain" to most people.
>Sorry. I dislike these flame wars intensely, and I just happen to find
>the above "concept" one of the more disgusting ones ("Hey, I'm *macho*,
>I use an operating system that is PAINFUL because that way I gain
>much").
I strongly agree with Linus. It is like a car mechanic saying the same
thing : "No pain, no gain" with a problem car, implying that the driver
should know how to rebuild the engine, how to fix when oil leaks, etc...
In fact, if the instructions are given correctly, I can do it, but
in case of *BSD, most the instructions are either outdated, incorrect, or
not clear.
>Next I guess you'll tell me "you get what you pay for". I haven't been
>this close to flaming someone in a *long* time,
>
> Linus
Don't worry. For some people, "No flame, no gain". :)
>PS. I tested out Slackware a few weeks ago, and my reaction was "hey,
>this install looks like a DOS program". I'm not ashamed to admit that I
>was immensely pleased.
In fact, I installed it a week ago freshly, and it went very
smooth. I think that the total installation procedure was much more
simpler than SUN workstation's case.
But when I hooked it up with network, I felt that the network performance
was not really satisfactory. I felt it quite sluggish than even SUN3s.
(Linus, do you possibley know why ?).
Here is my experience in installing NetBSD. I somewhat succeeded, so
if people are interested in, they may continue to read.
I think that installing DOS/UNIX in one disk is quite typical, and
if you read the volumenous 386BSD FAQ or succinct NetBSD Install guide,
nothing is clear about it.
First I followed the NetBSD Install guide : It doesn't work. So, I tried
installing in whole disk. In case it works. But I really needed DOS
partition, I don't have enough money just like standard *BSD users, and
I feel that 540M is enough for my use (for DOS and NetBSD together).
So I read 386BSD FAQ, and there is a very interesting (quite amusing,
and looks like a joke to Linux users. Every Linux users should see
386BSD FAQ 2.5.3 - how to install multiple OS in one drive).
How good if that hassle would just work. If you followed the instruction
correctly, it doesn't work either.
After wasting lots of time in figuring out using trial-and-error method,
I finally found a way how to install DOS/*BSD in one IDE drive :
--------------
0) Preparation :
You must have the following available :
pfdisk (from linux dosutils in tsx-11).
fdisk from DOS 5 or higher.
Bootable DOS.
NetBSD Kernel disk, file1 disk, file2 disk.
You must back up any important data in your HD.
1) Since NetBSD wants you to start NetBSD partition to start from
cylinder boundary ( Be careful ! The installation instruction tells
you to prepare calculator and use math for cylinder/head/sector stuff,
but it will eventually wipe out DOS partition),
use pfdisk to partition the disk in cylider number AND to edit the
partition id (you can give a5 to NetBSD in later step).
2) If this is not your first try and you were screwed up previous time,
you will need this step. For safety, you can just include this step.
a) Use fdisk, and see the partition table.
b) Write the partition sizes in Megabytes on a scatch pad
as seen in the table.
c) Do 'fdisk /mbr' to remove NetBSD boot which possibly exists.
d) Use fdisk and remove all partitions. And reboot.
e) Use fdisk to repartition the disk (now you need the scratch pad
in b)). Use the partition size in Megabytes in b) to partition
the disk. Reboot.
f) Use pfdisk and see partition table.
For your safty, check whether it started from the cylinder boundary
(as same as the numbers shown in 1)).
Write all the informations
- starting sector, partition size in sector, ...etc.
on your scratch pad.
g) Give partition id 165 (a5 in hex) to NetBSD using the pfdisk. Reboot.
h) format c:/s/u (if you wish).
3) Use kernel diskette.
Reboot the machine.
... the step is same until you copy the kernel in floppy to HD.....
Insert file system 1 diskette.
Use the informations you got from 2-f) to prepare HD.
Rboot with kernel diskette.
>Copy
>wd0a
4) Now, if you follow the instruction in NetBSD installation guide,
it won't work.
First boot with the kernel diskette.
when the propmt waits on :-, quickly (within 5 sec) type
wd(0,a)/netbsd, which means you are booting from the copied kernel
in HD (the root partition).
It will ask you to insert the file system 2 diskette.
And just follow the simple instructions.
5) When you next boot, do the same thing :
type wd(0,a)/netbsd.
If you want single user mode, type 'wd(0,a)/netbsd -s' while the
prompt is waitin on :- (for a few seconds).
6) Now you may continue to install using 'extract' command.
7) You may wish to hack around the boot sector using os-bxxx, but
in my case, I was afraid of losing what I have done, so I decided to
make boot diskette for myself.
8) However, in next step - to update the old 0.9 version to Current,
The FAQ's procedure (3.1.8) led me to "Bus error. core dump". :(
It seems to me that I should give up.
Too bad that I realized too late that I shouldn't start *BSD stuff at all
:(
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!yale!gumby!wupost!
howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!EU.net!ieunet!news.ieunet.ie!jkh
From: j...@whisker.hubbard.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Date: 03 Apr 1994 17:44:42 GMT
Organization: Jordan Hubbard
Lines: 49
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <JKH.94Apr3184442@whisker.hubbard.ie>
References: <CMzw69.92K@tower.nullnet.fi> <2neomp$k5t@clarknet.clark.net>
<2nf0fo$76u@sbus.entropic.com> <2nm6tb$m6u@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
<2nmeb4$ro@menudo.uh.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: whisker.hubbard.ie
In-reply-to: cosc19v2@menudo.uh.edu's message of 3 Apr 1994 07:55:00 -0500
In article <2nmeb4...@menudo.uh.edu> cosc1...@menudo.uh.edu (cosc19v2) writes:
In fact, if the instructions are given correctly, I can do it, but
in case of *BSD, most the instructions are either outdated, incorrect, or
not clear.
Oh dear. I think it's time for me to get into some serious capital
letter usage here!
I find it somewhat annoying that you say `*BSD' here and then proceed
to later admit that you've only tried NetBSD. Not to flame NetBSD at
all, but each group is different and has different strengths and
weaknesses. Please do not tar us all with the same brush!
That aside, and speaking more generally, many of the instructions
WON'T GET ANY BETTER IF PEOPLE DON'T HELP US TO IMPROVE THEM! It
never ceases to amaze me how many people seem to regard 100%
perfection in something they have not paid one penny for as a
god-given right, and for every one person that sends in constructive
criticisms that we can _WORK WITH_, ten more simply whine at us for
not doing a `better job', never even stopping to consider how they
might contribute to the effort themselves!
It also seems to me that Linux is blessed with the twin advantages of
both a very large user base (several times larger than FreeBSD's) and
one that is willing to PITCH IN AND HELP OUT. In the FreeBSD group,
at least, we are a VERY SMALL group of SERIOUSLY OVERWORKED
individuals who are now giving up what amounts to pretty much *ALL* of
their free time to bring the general public these releases! I ask
you, would you yourself feel perhaps just a little bit bitter about
the amount of flaming and destructive comparison that goes on here if
you were in my shoes?
Even in the worst situation, where one has tried hard to install some
version of *BSD and had no luck, what do you think that the best thing
to then do is? Jump on the net and say "xxxBSD is a heap of flaming
horse exhaust!" or drop one of our frequently published mailing lists
a line saying "I've had this bad problem trying to install, can anyone
help me? Is there anything I can do to help make it work?" I think
the answer's pretty clear. We're not commercial software
organizations here, and we can't do it without public help and
support. If we get fed up and go away, where will that have gotten
everyone?
Jordan
--
Jordan K. Hubbard FreeBSD core team Raving lunatic
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!alf.uib.no!129.177.30.3!magnus
From: mag...@haukugle.ii.uib.no (Magnus Y Alvestad)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Date: 3 Apr 1994 17:49:57 GMT
Organization: Department of Informatics
Lines: 8
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <MAGNUS.94Apr3194958@haukugle.ii.uib.no>
References: <CMzw69.92K@tower.nullnet.fi> <2neomp$k5t@clarknet.clark.net>
<2nf0fo$76u@sbus.entropic.com> <2nm6tb$m6u@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
<2nmeb4$ro@menudo.uh.edu> <JKH.94Apr3184442@whisker.hubbard.ie>
Reply-To: mag...@ii.uib.no
NNTP-Posting-Host: haukugle.ii.uib.no
In-reply-to: jkh@whisker.hubbard.ie's message of 03 Apr 1994 17:44:42 GMT
>>>>> "J" == Jordan K Hubbard <j...@whisker.hubbard.ie> writes:
J> without public help and support. If we get fed up and go away,
J> where will that have gotten everyone?
Well, everyone will be using Linux.
-Magnus
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
EU.net!ieunet!news.ieunet.ie!jkh
From: j...@whisker.hubbard.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Date: 04 Apr 1994 01:50:00 GMT
Organization: Jordan Hubbard
Lines: 32
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <JKH.94Apr4025000@whisker.hubbard.ie>
References: <CMzw69.92K@tower.nullnet.fi> <2neomp$k5t@clarknet.clark.net>
<2nf0fo$76u@sbus.entropic.com> <2nm6tb$m6u@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
<2nmeb4$ro@menudo.uh.edu> <JKH.94Apr3184442@whisker.hubbard.ie>
<MAGNUS.94Apr3194958@haukugle.ii.uib.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: whisker.hubbard.ie
In-reply-to: magnus@haukugle.ii.uib.no's message of 3 Apr 1994 17:49:57 GMT
In article <MAGNUS.94Apr3194...@haukugle.ii.uib.no> mag...@haukugle.ii.uib.no
(Magnus Y Alvestad) writes:
J> without public help and support. If we get fed up and go away,
J> where will that have gotten everyone?
Well, everyone will be using Linux.
This one goes on my refrigerator along with the wonderful `People
Unclear On The Concept' Herman cartoons! :-) They _won't_ be using
Linux if exactly the same things hold true for Linus Torvalds and his
band of merry volunteers! We're all human, and if ANY group of free
software volunteers starts getting that Seriously Unappreciated
feeling, or are left to carry all the work without some `new blood'
coming in to periodically take pieces of the load off their shoulders,
the project eventually falls apart. "Oh no!" you say "that could
never happen to Linux! There are too many of us!" Balls. Keeping
any project like this afloat, and with consistent quality (time and
technology don't stand still, no matter how dedicated and skilled your
team of ENIAC engineers might have been!) takes work, and it takes a
large number of people willing to stay actively involved. It's easy
to pledge allegiance for a week, or a month, but try it for a couple
of YEARS and then you'll start to get the picture of what's required
to take these things to the near-commercial quality level that people
are beginning to essentially demand. Otherwise, the next Big Thing
comes along and everybody jumps ship. I remember when the be-all and
end-all of operating systems was CP/M (and that was commercial, with a
lot of support and money behind it). I don't know too many people who
still run it today.
Jordan
--
Jordan K. Hubbard FreeBSD core team Raving lunatic
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!msuinfo!agate!
howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!alf.uib.no!129.177.30.3!
magnus
From: mag...@haukugle.ii.uib.no (Magnus Y Alvestad)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc,alt.magnus.and.ketil
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Date: 4 Apr 1994 18:16:34 GMT
Organization: Department of Informatics
Lines: 19
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <MAGNUS.94Apr4201634@haukugle.ii.uib.no>
References: <CMzw69.92K@tower.nullnet.fi> <2neomp$k5t@clarknet.clark.net>
<2nf0fo$76u@sbus.entropic.com> <2nm6tb$m6u@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
<2nmeb4$ro@menudo.uh.edu> <JKH.94Apr3184442@whisker.hubbard.ie>
<MAGNUS.94Apr3194958@haukugle.ii.uib.no>
<JKH.94Apr4025000@whisker.hubbard.ie>
Reply-To: mag...@ii.uib.no
NNTP-Posting-Host: haukugle.ii.uib.no
In-reply-to: jkh@whisker.hubbard.ie's message of 04 Apr 1994 01:50:00 GMT
M> Well, everyone will be using Linux.
J> This one goes on my refrigerator along with the wonderful `People
J> Unclear On The Concept' Herman cartoons! :-) They _won't_ be using
J> Linux if exactly the same things hold true for Linus Torvalds and
J> his band of merry volunteers! We're all human, and if ANY group of
Gee, none of my posts have ever gone on a refridgerator before! The
point I was trying to make was that I think the way development is
being done on Linux is a good idea. Linus holds a crucial role as the
kernel coordinator, of course - but even if he dropped out there are
other that could take over.
Who needs a core team?
J> Jordan -- Jordan K. Hubbard
J> FreeBSD core team Raving lunatic
-Magnus
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!yale!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!
ddsw1!tadpole.com!news.dell.com!swrinde!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!munnari.oz.au!
hippo.ru.ac.za!Braae!g89r4222
From: c...@cs.ru.ac.za (Geoff Rehmet)
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Message-ID: <Cnryws.7vo@hippo.ru.ac.za>
Sender: n...@hippo.ru.ac.za (Usenet News Admin)
Reply-To: c...@cs.ru.ac.za
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
References: <CMzw69.92K@tower.nullnet.fi> <2neomp$k5t@clarknet.clark.net>
<2nf0fo$76u@sbus.entropic.com> <2nm6tb$m6u@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
<2nmeb4$ro@menudo.uh.edu> <JKH.94Apr3184442@whisker.hubbard.ie>
<MAGNUS.94Apr3194958@haukugle.ii.uib.no> <JKH.94Apr4025000@whisker.hubbard.ie>
<MAGNUS.94Apr4201634@haukugle.ii.uib.no>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 07:17:15 GMT
Lines: 36
In <MAGNUS.94Apr4201...@haukugle.ii.uib.no> mag...@haukugle.ii.uib.no
(Magnus Y Alvestad) writes:
>Gee, none of my posts have ever gone on a refridgerator before! The
>point I was trying to make was that I think the way development is
>being done on Linux is a good idea. Linus holds a crucial role as the
>kernel coordinator, of course - but even if he dropped out there are
>other that could take over.
>Who needs a core team?
The idea of having a "core team" is basically a good one - these are
the people who coordinate the direction which the OS is taking, build
distributions and maintain proper software management practices with
respect to the source code of the system (among many other hundred
activities ;-). The core teams are also the official spokesmen (umm no
women yet) on the system.
I for one like the degree of control which is created by having a core
team - this makes for a stable develpment environment. The degree of
coordination in the *BSD camps also makes it possible for me to download
*every* morning the latest fixes etc (by sup) (not that I compile my
source tree every day ;-). (There are lots of other benefits of the
degree of coordination that is created by having a "core" team.)
I don't know how Linux is coordinated (apart from that it appears that
Linus coordinates the kernel).
(Maybe some people like the (seemingly) more chaotic way in which Linux
develops, I prefer a coordinated approach.)
Geoff.
(Not a member of the FreeBSD core team.)
--
Geoff Rehmet, Computer Science Department, | ____ _ o /\
Rhodes University, South Africa |___ _-\_<, /\/\/\
email : c...@cs.ru.ac.za | (*)/'(*) /\/\/\/\/\
: ge...@neptune.ru.ac.za |
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
pipex!uknet!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiitac
From: iii...@uk.ac.swan.pyr (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Message-ID: <1994Apr5.120507.6543@uk.ac.swan.pyr>
Organization: Swansea University College
References: <JKH.94Apr4025000@whisker.hubbard.ie>>
<MAGNUS.94Apr4201634@haukugle.ii.uib.no> <Cnryws.7vo@hippo.ru.ac.za>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 12:05:07 GMT
Lines: 15
In article <Cnryws....@hippo.ru.ac.za> c...@cs.ru.ac.za writes:
>In <MAGNUS.94Apr4201...@haukugle.ii.uib.no> mag...@haukugle.ii.uib.no
(Magnus Y Alvestad) writes:
>>Who needs a core team?
>
>The idea of having a "core team" is basically a good one - these are
>the people who coordinate the direction which the OS is taking, build
Linux definitely has a 'core' of developers, they just have a formal
'core team' name. You only need to look at the SCSI drivers, the net drivers,
the networking, ext2fs etc to see each module has a core person or team, or
in some cases has passed down through such teams.
Unlike the way the BSD organisation seems to be, it is a core per major
module with a Linus on the top of the pile.
Alan
Path: gmd.de!urmel.informatik.rwth-aachen.de!newsserver.rrzn.uni-hannover.de!
ina.zfn.uni-bremen.de!marvin.pc-labor.uni-bremen.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!
rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!
decwrl!pa.dec.com!usenet.pa.dec.com!jkh
From: j...@sentnl.ilo.dec.com (Jordan Hubbard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: DOS vs Linux vs FreeBSD vs Joe Foreman in today's title fight
Date: 07 Apr 1994 11:45:28 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Galway Ireland
Lines: 31
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <JKH.94Apr7124529@sentnl.ilo.dec.com>
References: <CMzw69.92K@tower.nullnet.fi> <2nq530$7hh@hecate.umd.edu>
<2nt3fk$b0l@menudo.uh.edu> <2nuo9g$dmb@hecate.umd.edu>
<2o075c$kpf@menudo.uh.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sentnl.ilo.dec.com
In-reply-to: cosc19v2@menudo.uh.edu's message of 7 Apr 1994 00:53:48 -0500
Hey! People! What's up here, somebody pour deluxe doses of itching
powder into your jockeys this morning?? :-)
I don't really see the point of this whole debate. Some people have
DOS on their machines. Fine. Some people have DOS and Linux on their
machines. That's fine too! Some people (gasp, shock, horror!) have..
DOS and FreeBSD on their machines! Yowza! Great! Some folks, like
myself, even have DOS, FreeBSD and Linux on their machines! My god!
An ACM Turing award (to say nothing of the Nobel peace prize) is
certainly not out of the question! I'd better go rent my Tux now and
avoid the rush! :-)
All of which brings us to our final conclusion, which is: "So?"
There's nothing mutually exclusive about any of these operating
systems. It might be argued that trying to _emulate_ one of these
OS's from another is a waste of time, but that's not what we're
talking about. We're talking about users are perfectly happy to run
Microsoft Word (or, in my case, DOOM, "Day of the tentacle" and "Alone
in the Dark 2" :-) under DOS and various other bits of software under
Linux or FreeBSD and other people, who obviously don't have enough
to do, are _flaming_ them for it! Sorry, but I just don't geddit.
If I had my choice, I'd have DOS/Windows, FreeBSD and NeXTStep all
running on my PC, and I'd use them all for very different and
useful purposes. It's just a pity that I can't afford NeXTStep! :-)
Jordan