Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!doc.ic.ac.uk!swan.doc.ic.ac.uk!ajt
From: a...@swan.doc.ic.ac.uk (Tony Travis)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Linux or 386BSD: neither or both ??
Message-ID: <19lkanINN40s@frigate.doc.ic.ac.uk>
Date: 21 Sep 92 23:02:47 GMT
Reply-To: a...@rri.sari.ac.uk
Organization: Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, University of London, UK.
Lines: 37
NNTP-Posting-Host: swan.doc.ic.ac.uk
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Like many people reading this newsgroup I also read comp.unix.bsd and I
am finding it difficult to decide between Linux or 386BSD ...

There is no doubt that Linux performs better than 386bsd on my 20 MHz
386SX with 4Mb RAM and it is a real pleasure to use in comparison with
the lumbering giant of 386bsd (even with a small 386bsd kernel
containing only the devices actually present on my PC).

It is almost impossible to use 386bsd when running a compilaton in the
background but Linux performs the same task without any problem at all.

On the face of it, Linux is the obvious choice but the organisation of
the 386bsd distribution is in a different league to the fragmented and
disorganised anarchy of Linux.  The manifests used in 386bsd contain
crc's and it is simple to verify a distribution.

I find it exasperating that there seem to be many different versions of
the same Linux distribution at different archive sites and it is quite
difficult to know where you are and what version is current.  The progress
of Minix was helped by regular publication of crc lists that 'defined' a
release.  This made it possible to check an installation and verify that
all the necessary files were present.

Were it not for the slow response and long compilation times on my system
when it is running 386bsd I would probably choose 386bsd because it is so
well organised and the major (gnu + X11R5) software is the same as Linux.

However, the performance of Linux on the same hardware is so much better!!

Is anyone else dithering like this, or am I alone in my indecision?

	Tony.
--
Dr. A.J.Travis,                       |  Tony Travis
Rowett Research Institute,            |  JANET: <a...@uk.ac.sari.rri>
Greenburn Road, Bucksburn,            |  other: <a...@rri.sari.ac.uk>
Aberdeen, AB2 9SB. UK.                |  phone: 0224-712751

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!wupost!spool.mu.edu!tulane!butler
From: but...@cs.tulane.edu (Larry Butler)
Subject: Re: Linux or 386BSD: neither or both ??
Message-ID: <1992Sep22.013248.25972@cs.tulane.edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-25916]: jupiter
Sender: n...@cs.tulane.edu
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA
References: <19lkanINN40s@frigate.doc.ic.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 01:32:48 GMT
Lines: 15

I have been using Linux for a while and I must say I have been *very*
pleased. Recently, I bought a new and larger hard disk, and I decided to give
386BSD v0.1 a try. I did this mostly because I liked the idea that most
packages that I might want to compile would have instructions for compiling
on BSD (and ftp sites that carry 386BSD stuff seem to be *much* more
organized). But, I found that I was getting more than I was bargaining for.
386BSD is ENORMOUS. And the performance didn't seem to be any better or worse
than Linux. Some things were much nicer than on Linux (i.e.shutdown/startup
procedures). Overall Linux seems much more practicle for what it was designed
to do. I'm sure when Linux v1.0 is released all of those little inconviences
will be taken care of. The long and short of it is I'm going back to linux.

BTW, could someone explain to me why 386BSD has to be so BIG and COMPLEX.

Larry

Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!uwm.edu!ogicse!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!
daemon
From: ty...@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Theodore Ts'o)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux or 386BSD: neither or both ??
Message-ID: <1992Sep22.042523.13873@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 22 Sep 92 04:25:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: athena.1992Sep22.042523.13873
Sender: dae...@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Reply-To: ty...@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Theodore Ts'o)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 44


   From: a...@swan.doc.ic.ac.uk (Tony Travis)
   Date: 21 Sep 92 23:02:47 GMT
   Reply-To: a...@rri.sari.ac.uk

   There is no doubt that Linux performs better than 386bsd on my 20 MHz
   386SX with 4Mb RAM and it is a real pleasure to use in comparison with
   the lumbering giant of 386bsd (even with a small 386bsd kernel
   containing only the devices actually present on my PC).

   On the face of it, Linux is the obvious choice but the organisation of
   the 386bsd distribution is in a different league to the fragmented and
   disorganised anarchy of Linux.  The manifests used in 386bsd contain
   crc's and it is simple to verify a distribution.

I think a lot of this is due to the relative speeds at which Linux
development and 386bsd development is happening.  Linux kernel releases
have been happening roughly once a week for quite a while now; people
waited a *long* time between 386BSD 0.1 and 386BSD 0.2.

One way of partially solving this problem is to stick with either the
MCC Interim releases or the SLS releases.  Both of these releases now
are quite obsolete --- which is to say a few weeks old --- but at least
they contain a fairly stable system.  They won't contain the latest
features, but you won't have to recompile "ps" every week, either.
And despite the fact that are a bit behind at this point, the MCC
Interim releases was *still* issueing new releases faster that 386BSD
was.  I can't say anything about the SLS release, since it's only been
out one releases so far.

One thing that might help is "Intro to Linux" document that explains how
linux development works, and has a section about how to deal with Linux
FTP sites for someone who wants to bring up Linux: Step 1: Run, don't
walk, to either the MCC Interim releases or the SLS release; IGNORE ALL
OTHER FILES.  Step 2: Use the distribution mechanism to install Linux on
your disk.  Step 3: If you want to be adventuresome and upgrade to a new
kernel, follow the following steps: ....  Do we have any volunteers to
write such a document?

Also, I suspect things will get much better once Linux 1.0 comes out and
we start seeing stable releases which are based on 1.0.  At least, I
hope so.  Let's keep our fingers crossed!

						- Ted

Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!goanna!minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au!rcskb
From: rc...@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Kendall Bennett)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux or 386BSD: neither or both ??
Message-ID: <1992Sep22.174343.10655@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au>
Date: 22 Sep 92 22:43:43 GMT
References: <19lkanINN40s@frigate.doc.ic.ac.uk> <1992Sep22.013248.25972@cs.tulane.edu>
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre, Melbourne Australia.
Lines: 40

but...@cs.tulane.edu (Larry Butler) writes:

>BTW, could someone explain to me why 386BSD has to be so BIG and COMPLEX.

Simply because it is a complete 4.3BSD (or is it 4.2?) implmentation. It
has everything in it, including sockets, internetworking, networked file
systems etc. A lot of this stuff is not present in Linux, and if it is
it is a simplified implementation (sometimes more efficient).

Porting code to Linux is not so easy as porting to 386BSD, simply because
386BSD has all the standard BSD stuff in it.

I think one of the reasons that 386BSD is so enormous is that it is still
in it's infancy. I wouldn't bother to use it unless you are prepared to
put in a lot of time and effort getting the thing to run on your machine
and setting it up the way you want it - and then installing all necessary
patches (which are needed since the 0.1 distribution has numerous bugs
in it). Maybe when version 1.0 of 386BSD comes out it will be better and
will be a lot simpler to install.

I am another one sitting on the fence at the moment. I installed Linux
on my machine a while back (has a few problems and still could not get it
to boot off my hard disk), but was rather impressed with it's performance
and size. X11 was nice too.

However, I have since installed 386BSD and am currently trying this out.
I do believe that I will stick with 386BSD simply because it is BSD
and UNIX apps will compile for it more easily (but I will give Linux 1.0
a try when it is released).

Ciao.

+------------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Kendall Bennett,                         | Internet:                     |
| Advanced Computer Graphics Centre,       | k...@godzilla.cgl.citri.edu.au |
| Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, | rc...@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au    |
| Victoria, AUSTRALIA.                     |                               | 
+------------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| CoSysop (Bossman), PC Connection Australia:               +61 3 688 0909 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: sparky!uunet!caen!destroyer!ubc-cs!upham
From: up...@cs.ubc.ca (Derek Upham)
Subject: Re: Linux or 386BSD: neither or both ??
Message-ID: <1992Sep22.170419.21738@cs.ubc.ca>
Sender: use...@cs.ubc.ca (Usenet News)
Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
References: <19lkanINN40s@frigate.doc.ic.ac.uk> <1992Sep22.013248.25972@cs.tulane.edu> 
<1992Sep22.174343.10655@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 92 17:04:19 GMT
Lines: 50

rc...@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Kendall Bennett) writes:

>I am another one sitting on the fence at the moment. I installed Linux
>on my machine a while back (has a few problems and still could not get it
>to boot off my hard disk), but was rather impressed with it's performance
>and size. X11 was nice too.

>However, I have since installed 386BSD and am currently trying this out.
>I do believe that I will stick with 386BSD simply because it is BSD
>and UNIX apps will compile for it more easily (but I will give Linux 1.0
>a try when it is released).

I installed Linux (mcc-interim 0.95c, I think) when I got my current
386 box.  386BSD 0.0 wasn't an option, because I don't have a math
coprocessor.  I moved to 386BSD when 0.1 came out, but over this past
weekend, I moved back to Linux.  Why?

First, I could _not_ get reliable high-speed connections with my
V.32bis, 16550A UART modem under 386BSD.  There was a patch that
helped a little, but it didn't solve the problem.  Linux's device
driver seems to be bulletproof---I'm transferring 1600 cps without
errors.  Since I use my home box primarily for dialing up campus
machines, this was a major issue.

Second, I kept on getting hit by incompatibilites between the GNU
software I was trying to install, and the existing BSD development
environment (strange, but true).  I'm betting that Linux, which uses
GNU tools all over, will not suffer from these problems (and having
the GNU C library available Real Soon Now should help a lot).  Also,
the GNU developers have begun specifically targeting Linux systems,
which is nice.

Third, 386BSD took up too much disk space.  I had 180 megs and was
running at 75% capacity (this after deleting a bunch of stuff I knew I
wouldn't need).  Compiling large packages would push me over the top.
Linux doesn't have that problem (of course, it doesn't have half of
the utilities either, but those can be installed).

Two things I do regret losing when I dropped 386BSD are the Berkeley
file system and the working TCP/IP code.  The extended file system is
promising, but it still shows problems, and I can't seem to get ka9q
to run SLIP at all.  We'll see what happens.

Derek

-- 
Derek Lynn Upham                               University of British Columbia
up...@cs.ubc.ca                                   Computer Science Department
=============================================================================
"Ha!  Your Leaping Tiger Kung Fu is no match for my Frightened Piglet Style!"

Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!agate!soda.berkeley.edu!wjolitz
From: wjol...@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Jolitz)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux or 386BSD: neither or both ??
Date: 22 Sep 1992 18:23:05 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <19noa9INNldr@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: <19lkanINN40s@frigate.doc.ic.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu


In article <19lkanINN...@frigate.doc.ic.ac.uk> a...@rri.sari.ac.uk writes:
>Like many people reading this newsgroup I also read comp.unix.bsd and I
>am finding it difficult to decide between Linux or 386BSD ...

Well, you can use both if you like. Both 386BSD and Linux work within
partitions, so you can use them for different tasks (study, new work).

>There is no doubt that Linux performs better than 386bsd on my 20 MHz
>386SX with 4Mb RAM and it is a real pleasure to use in comparison with
>the lumbering giant of 386bsd (even with a small 386bsd kernel
>containing only the devices actually present on my PC).

I don't believe it. I have a 16 MHz 386SX that the original version was
done on. It works great.

In fact, 386BSD can work on even smaller systems than linux.

This is untrue.

>It is almost impossible to use 386bsd when running a compilaton in the
>background but Linux performs the same task without any problem at all.

Oh? I've run 8 compilations in the background (recompiling the system,
X-windows, a database program, the whole user command set of 386BSD -- how
else do you test a compiler) with no problem.

You obviously don't know what your doing.

I can make any system look good or bad if I so choose, by choosing 
specious or biased benchmarks, but that is not sensible, practical or relevent.

If people are happy with linux, that's great. If people like 386BSD, that's 
great. If people like both, wonderful. Linus put a lot of work into
this system, just as I did with 386BSD, and I'm glad they're both being used. 

But the point of research systems is to get more people working on new 
solutions and exploring new topics.

This kind of petty discussion is more appropriate to a elementary schoolyard
and not the software development arena. 

Bill.

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: sparky!uunet!unislc!erc
From: e...@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp)
Subject: Re: Linux or 386BSD: neither or both ??
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
References: <19noa9INNldr@agate.berkeley.edu>
Message-ID: <1992Sep22.204435.7374@unislc.uucp>
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 20:44:35 GMT
Lines: 62

William F. Jolitz (wjol...@soda.berkeley.edu) wrote:

: >There is no doubt that Linux performs better than 386bsd on my 20 MHz
: >386SX with 4Mb RAM and it is a real pleasure to use in comparison with
: >the lumbering giant of 386bsd (even with a small 386bsd kernel
: >containing only the devices actually present on my PC).
: 
: I don't believe it. I have a 16 MHz 386SX that the original version was
: done on. It works great.

Different hardware *can* make a difference, Bill.  It makes a difference in how
drivers and such are written.  386BSD and Linux were designed from the ground
up with different design goals in mind.

: In fact, 386BSD can work on even smaller systems than linux.
: 
: This is untrue.

What is untrue?

: >It is almost impossible to use 386bsd when running a compilaton in the
: >background but Linux performs the same task without any problem at all.
: 
: Oh? I've run 8 compilations in the background (recompiling the system,
: X-windows, a database program, the whole user command set of 386BSD -- how
: else do you test a compiler) with no problem.

And how much memory were you using?  What machine, how much swap, etc.?

: You obviously don't know what your doing.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about.  I've seen it before -
someone writes some software, and lets it go to their head.  Next thing you
know, Bill Jolitz has another sacred cow to defend.  Why are you so angry if
someone posts that 386BSD didn't work for them as well as Linux?  I, too,
can design a scenario that would make 386BSD look like shit compared to
Linux - or vice versa.  Grow up.

Bill Jolitz - God of 386BSD.  <sigh>  :(

: If people are happy with linux, that's great. If people like 386BSD, that's 
: great. If people like both, wonderful. Linus put a lot of work into
: this system, just as I did with 386BSD, and I'm glad they're both being used. 

As am I.  People email me all the time, asking me which they should use.
I ask them, "well, what do you want it to do?"  Linux is good at some things,
bad at others.  386BSD (also) is good at some things, bad at others.  I
personally feel that a head-to-head comparison of 386BSD and Linux is
really meaningless - it's like comparing apples and oranges.

: But the point of research systems is to get more people working on new 
: solutions and exploring new topics.
: 
: This kind of petty discussion is more appropriate to a elementary schoolyard
: and not the software development arena. 

Then why did you start it with insults?
-- 
Ed Carp, N7EKG     e...@apple.com                801/538-0177
"This is the final task I will ever give you, and it  goes  on  forever.   Act
happy, feel happy, be happy, without a reason in the world. Then you can love,
and do what you will."           -- Dan Millman, "Way Of The Peaceful Warrior"

Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!soda.berkeley.edu!wjolitz
From: wjol...@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Jolitz)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux or 386BSD: neither or both ??
Message-ID: <19od16INNq9v@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 23 Sep 92 00:16:38 GMT
References: <19noa9INNldr@agate.berkeley.edu> <1992Sep22.204435.7374@unislc.uucp>
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
Lines: 72
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu



In article <1992Sep22.204435.7...@unislc.uucp> e...@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp) writes:

>...[lots of very strange things -- comp.unix.bsd people should catch this 
> thread to find out what's being talked about behind their backs...]
>...
>Bill Jolitz - God of 386BSD.  <sigh>  :(
>...

What? Wait a moment -- where did this come from?

Ah well, since Bill has gone off to work (and, unlike some people, doesn't
treat a corporation as a welfare system by whiling away away hours 
at a work desk playing with readnews instead of working), I suppose I 
should respond. Otherwise, someone might really believe this.

Anyways, I must admit that I haven't laughed like this since the time I
got accused of withholding 386BSD because I was trying to make it "perfect".

I can just hear the music now, from one of those old children's cartoons:

	"The God of Thunder, oops, UNIX, nope, UNIX-like, Mighty Bill"?

Oh, yes, and I can see the hammer hurled down on high from Valhalla, wreaking
havoc wherever he chooses.

Of course, it must be most confusing, to be called a "God" in one sentence 
and be told that one knows nothing of hardware or software in other paragraphs. 
Amusing, given who we're talking about here. (Early BSD work, PDP-11 2.8 
release, several subsequent releases for different architectures, four years 
on 386BSD, and lots and lots of writings on various topics of UNIX and 
networking). And also amusing, being cited for writing a "little software",
given the number of other people who have worked very hard on 386BSD and BSD
in general over the years.

Perhaps when Mr. Carp (a truely well-chosen name if I ever heard one) comes
back to reality, he'll find that linux and 386bsd, while both not perfect,
can stand on their merits without ridiculous and false comparisions. In sum,
I claim his statements were poorly constructed and totally unsupported.

However, as both systems are not yet perfect (and we strive for 
perfection, do we not? :-) ), and as we find problems, we should take
advantage of our ability to stand up and CHALLANGE each other to solve
and/or explain these problems in a methodical and appropriate manner.

One such approach is to cross-post items relating to both groups (I 
note Mr. Carp did not dare to try that). This way, one can get
responses from all over the world on small configuration systems, 
benchmarks, problems, and solutions, and would present the opportunity
for claims to be methodically dissected. This would allow people to
really discover the problems and force out better solutions. (However, this 
approach won't salve the ego of the self-annointed and dedicated chauvinist.)

So I propose the following: That we start having CHALLANGED AND 
PROFESSIONAL COMPETITIONS, the goal of which is to better both systems!
This is akin to taking two jazzed-up sports cars and racing them under 
all kinds of conditions.  

We set up groups all over the world and see how we do. Tinker, improve,
race again.  Who knows, before you know it, we might even attract attention 
from the big guys, by setting undreamed of records.

Any Takers? I am sure that we can find able and willing racers from the
386BSD side in the comp.unix.bsd newsgroup.

Competition, if professional, will breed great things. Carpers only breed 
failure.

Let's go for it!

Lynne Jolitz.

Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!
agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiitac
From: iii...@cybaswan.UUCP (Alan Cox)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux or 386BSD: neither or both ??
Keywords: linux posix porting sys5
Message-ID: <1019@cybaswan.UUCP>
Date: 23 Sep 92 09:18:37 GMT
References: <1992Sep22.013248.25972@cs.tulane.edu> 
<1992Sep22.174343.10655@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au> <1992Sep22.173618.5896@serval.net.wsu.edu>
Organization: Swansea University Computer Society
Lines: 6

Coming from the System5 world I've found porting to linux much easier
than to BSD, because Linux is more posix like. It's certainly not been
much harder than the sun I have to try and run, and its both faster
and more secure.

Alan

Path: sparky!uunet!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!news2me.ebay.sun.com!
exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!slovax.Eng.Sun.COM!lm
From: l...@slovax.Eng.Sun.COM (Larry McVoy)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux or 386BSD: neither or both ??
Date: 29 Sep 1992 06:27:12 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.  Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <lcftq0INNlvu@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
References: <1992Sep22.170419.21738@cs.ubc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: slovax

up...@cs.ubc.ca (Derek Upham) writes:
: Two things I do regret losing when I dropped 386BSD are the Berkeley
: file system and the working TCP/IP code.  

I'm not a networking expert but I have worked extensively in the BSD
FFS mentioned.  I could probably port it to Linux in a week or two but
I haven't bit the bullet and bought a development system.

If someone else picks up the code and gives it a wack, I can provide 
help (like what does func so and so do?) if that would be interesting
(probably not, but it's what I can do right now).
---
Larry McVoy			(415) 336-7627			 l...@sun.com

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO vs IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or
research.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/