Tech Insider					   Technology and Trends


			   USENET Archives


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

Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!
umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!newman
From: new...@netcom.com (Charles E Newman)
Subject: BSD UNIX
Message-ID: <newmanCCL33A.GBo@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1993 17:54:45 GMT
Lines: 5



   My local college computer store has a BSD based UNIX for only $249 but it
requires a 486. Does anyone know of a BSD of Sys V Based UNIX for the PC that
runs on a 386 and costs $249 or less. 

Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!
news.tufts.edu!gowen
From: go...@apex.cs.tufts.edu (Gregory Owen)
Subject: Re: BSD UNIX
In-Reply-To: newman@netcom.com's message of Mon, 30 Aug 1993 17:54:45 GMT
Message-ID: <GOWEN.93Aug30234233@apex.cs.tufts.edu>
Sender: n...@news.tufts.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Tufts University Department of Computer Science
References: <newmanCCL33A.GBo@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1993 04:42:33 GMT
Lines: 53


new...@netcom.com writes:
>    My local college computer store has a BSD based UNIX for only $249
> but it requires a 486. Does anyone know of a BSD of Sys V Based UNIX
> for the PC that runs on a 386 and costs $249 or less.

	I can name three alternatives off the top of my head.  There is
Linux, a free Unix clone, which is written by torva...@helsinki.fi and
developed for by multitudes of net people.  There are several groups
devoted to it, comp.os.linux.* (note comp.os.linux itself is soon to
be superseded by the new groups; don't post there).  It runs on 386+
machines with ISA and EISA bus (No MCA report but rumors of it working
have been seen; if you have true blue IBM it might or might not work).
	Linux attempts to comply to POSIX, SysV, and BSD in that
order, I believe.  I note it is much more BSD than Solaris, which is a
SysV4 system.
	Linux supports most any major package you want: gcc 2.4.5,
emacs 19.whatver-today-is, X, LaTeX, ghostscript, etc. etc.  Heavy usage
of GNU software, and the kernel itself is copylefted and source freely
distributed.  Ftp sites are tsx-11.mit.edu (avoid!) and
sunsite.unc.edu (good), to name two.  Read the HOWTOs and the Getting
Started guide first, if you are interested -- there's a lot of FAQs
but you don't need all of them to go.

	A second alternative which is, I believe, free, is 386bsd
which has the newsgroups comp.os.386bsd.* devoted to it.  I know very
little about it except that it is not copylefted (berkely copyright, I
think) and that asking "which is better, 386bsd or linux?" is a 100%
sure way to create 2 months worth of noise on any newsgroup.  I'd
advise you to find someone who uses it to get an opinion; I have no
experience with it.

	One commercial option is Mark Williams Coherent, a $99 Unix
advertised in many Unix mags.  I hear it is nice but perhaps a bit
slow in development, as all commercial apps are -- Linux has a new
kernel release a minimum of once a month to fix and improve things.
(note the obvious bias here.  Don't flame me, pls.)  Last I heard X
support had been introduced as an add-on.

	I've been using Linux since may and am tickled pink with it.
I'd been stuck in DOS for so long, and love having an operating system
that isn't crippled.  Just a personal testament.

	Good luck, and I'm willing to answer questions sent to my tufts
address.  The work address will be ignored as I'm hitting vacation
time.

  Greg Owen  { go...@forte.cs.tufts.edu, go...@xis.xerox.com }
 1.01 GCS/GO d++ p+ c++ l++ u++ e+ -m+ s++/- n- h !(f)? g+ -w+ t+ r-- y?
"These fragments I have shored against my ruins/Why then Ile fit you.
 Hieronymo's mad againe./Datta. Dayadhvam. Damyata."

Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!
news.smith.edu!jfieber
From: jfie...@sophia.smith.edu (J Fieber)
Subject: Re: BSD UNIX
Message-ID: <1993Aug31.185019.22189@sophia.smith.edu>
Organization: Smith College
References: <newmanCCL33A.GBo@netcom.com> <GOWEN.93Aug30234233@apex.cs.tufts.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1993 18:50:19 GMT
Lines: 75

In article <GOWEN.93Aug30234...@apex.cs.tufts.edu> go...@apex.cs.tufts.edu 
(Gregory Owen) writes:
>
>new...@netcom.com writes:
>>    My local college computer store has a BSD based UNIX for only $249
>> but it requires a 486. Does anyone know of a BSD of Sys V Based UNIX
>> for the PC that runs on a 386 and costs $249 or less.

>	Linux attempts to comply to POSIX, SysV, and BSD in that
>order, I believe.  I note it is much more BSD than Solaris, which is a
>SysV4 system.

386bsd and NetBSD attempt to comply with BSD/POSIX and on
occasion SysV where it seems appropriate.

>	Linux supports most any major package you want: gcc 2.4.5,
>emacs 19.whatver-today-is, X, LaTeX, ghostscript, etc. etc.  

386bsd and NetBSD support most any major package you want: gcc
2.4.5, emacs 19.whatever-today-is, X, LaTeX, ghostscript, etc. etc.

>	A second alternative which is, I believe, free, is 386bsd
>which has the newsgroups comp.os.386bsd.* devoted to it.  I know very
>little about it except that it is not copylefted (berkely copyright, I
>think) and that asking "which is better, 386bsd or linux?" is a 100%
>sure way to create 2 months worth of noise on any newsgroup.  I'd
>advise you to find someone who uses it to get an opinion; I have no
>experience with it.

linux versus 386bsd threads don't usually get too out of hand in
the comp.os.386bsd.* groups.  I stopped monitoring the linux
groups a while ago (so much news, so little time!).  Both systems
have evolved enough that it is getting pretty hard to come up
with substantial things to pick at any more.

I would add that 386bsd is based on the BSD Net2 release by the
Jolitz's.  Since the release of version 0.1, they have been more
or less privately working on the "next greatest version" while
bunches of net-people have been providing excellent support and
upgrades for the 0.1 release.

Due to some differences in opinion as to the direction 386bsd
should take (useful for everyday use versus OS research) A branch
has split off and it is called NetBSD.  The improvement of the
original release continues and a new base binary release, to be
called FreeBSD should be coming out very soon.  There is no
reliable word on the next release from the Jolitz's.

In their infancy, it was easy to point out great strengths and
weakneses between Linux and 386bsd but it is becoming much harder
now.  My general impression at this point is that Linux a wee bit
less hardware hungry, particularly with respect to disk space
since it has shared libraries.  Linux also has the reputation of
very quick development and bug fixes, but sometimes at the cost
of stability.  386bsd has had a tendancy to be slower about
changes and upgrades but bug-fixes are well tested and the
over-all system a bit more robust and stable because of that.  

However, at this point I believe both systems to be extremely
stable and porting applications is more often than not just a
"make; make install".  Really, the biggest differences may be a
matter of style (SysV versus BSD) and cultural.

>	I've been using Linux since may and am tickled pink with it.
>I'd been stuck in DOS for so long, and love having an operating system
>that isn't crippled.  Just a personal testament.

I've been using 386bsd since March and am tickled pink with it.
Fortunately I *wasn't* stuck with DOS (Had an Amiga before) but
for my purposes, moving to 386bsd was a good move.  (Just as
NetBSD is being ported to the Amiga...)

-john
-- 
=== jfie...@sophia.smith.edu ================================================
======================================= Come up and be a kite!  --K. Bush ===

Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!sun4nl!tedux.hobby.nl!mo.hobby.nl!compi.hobby.nl!
muts
From: m...@compi.hobby.nl (Peter Mutsaers)
Subject: Re: BSD UNIX
In-Reply-To: jfieber@sophia.smith.edu's message of Tue, 31 Aug 1993 18:50:19 GMT
References: <newmanCCL33A.GBo@netcom.com> <GOWEN.93Aug30234233@apex.cs.tufts.edu>
	<1993Aug31.185019.22189@sophia.smith.edu>
Sender: m...@compi.hobby.nl (Peter Mutsaers)
Organization: My unorganized home
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 19:51:47 GMT
X-Attribution: PLM
Message-ID: <MUTS.93Sep2205147@compi.hobby.nl>
Lines: 25

>> On Tue, 31 Aug 1993 18:50:19 GMT, jfie...@sophia.smith.edu (J
>> Fieber) said:

  JF> Due to some differences in opinion as to the direction 386bsd
  JF> should take (useful for everyday use versus OS research) A
  JF> branch has split off and it is called NetBSD.  The improvement
  JF> of the original release continues and a new base binary release,
  JF> to be called FreeBSD should be coming out very soon.  There is
  JF> no reliable word on the next release from the Jolitz's.

  JF> In their infancy, it was easy to point out great strengths and
  JF> weakneses between Linux and 386bsd but it is becoming much harder
  JF> now.  My general impression at this point is that Linux a wee bit

I am puzzled a bit by all the Net/386/Free BSD releases. This is a
pity. At the moment I use Linux with very good result, but I 'grew up'
with BSD and disliking SYSV. Therefore I would actually rather see a
real BSD become the widespread and maybe defeat SYSVR4 in the end.
However at the moment Linux has, I think, more coordinated development
and therefore has a better defined standard and faster development. I
wish the net/386/free BSD community(ies?) could agree more and make
their Unix more unified and better.
-- 
_______________________________________________________________
Peter Mutsaers, Bunnik (Ut), the Netherlands.

Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.misc
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!
hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!news.iastate.edu!
ponderous.cc.iastate.edu!michaelv
From: micha...@iastate.edu (Michael L. VanLoon)
Subject: Re: BSD UNIX
Message-ID: <michaelv.747084422@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu>
Sender: n...@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
References: <newmanCCL33A.GBo@netcom.com> <GOWEN.93Aug30234233@apex.cs.tufts.edu> 
<1993Aug31.185019.22189@sophia.smith.edu> <MUTS.93Sep2205147@compi.hobby.nl>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 19:27:02 GMT
Lines: 74

In <MUTS.93Sep2205...@compi.hobby.nl> m...@compi.hobby.nl (Peter Mutsaers) writes:

>I am puzzled a bit by all the Net/386/Free BSD releases. This is a
>pity. At the moment I use Linux with very good result, but I 'grew up'
>with BSD and disliking SYSV. Therefore I would actually rather see a
>real BSD become the widespread and maybe defeat SYSVR4 in the end.
>However at the moment Linux has, I think, more coordinated development
>and therefore has a better defined standard and faster development. I
>wish the net/386/free BSD community(ies?) could agree more and make
>their Unix more unified and better.

Actually, from what I can gather, the only one not coordinating is
Bill Jolitz himself, since he refuses to let anyone see anything til
he decides to grace the world with his next new great release.  It's
been over a year since his last year.

On the other hand, the NetBSD and FreeBSD development groups
cooperate, and in fact, share code and new developments with each
other.  They're on quite friendly terms and have a "working"
relationship.

I run NetBSD.  I love it and will not move to anything else unless
something truly momentous were to happen elsewhere.  This is my
opinion.

The main differences are: 386BSD, the core of them all.  NetBSD and
FreeBSD are derivatives of the original 386BSD work.  386BSD hasn't
been improved in over a year by its author, but has a "patchkit" that
helps it along.  I would view this as a tedious and masochistic system
to install.

FreeBSD is the patchkit taken to an entirely seperate release.  It's
fairly close to the original 386BSD for those who want to stay there,
but with mucho bug fixes and upgrades.

NetBSD is a completely current work apart from 386BSD.  Although its
original source started with 386BSD, the massive amount of changes to
the kernel and other things qualify this as a totally seperate system.
The NetBSD maintainers have stated a few main goals (from *my*
understanding): a) The most stable, bugfree, production quality
release possible in a free unix, b) As complete as possible compliance
with 4.3BSD and Net/2, c) Incorporate as much of 4.4BSD as possible,
as it evolves, d) Buildable on as many architectures as possible
(386/486 currently in production, Amiga & HP300 in beta, many others
in alpha testing).

All three are true BSD unixes and are based on 4.3BSD for the most
part.  They all also incorporate Berkeley Net Release 2 networking
code to a varrying degree (the stuff in 4.3 and 4.4BSD).

I hope I haven't erred too much in my analysis. :-)

Linux is a completely different beast.  I haven't installed it and I
don't want it, but I know people who run it.  It works for certain
people, and more power to them.  We're all different. :-) Linux is not
based on any particular pre-existing unix, but is a built-from-scratch
OS designed to be posix compliant, and SysV/BSD compliant where
possible.  It's development is a bit more erratic, but productive.
It's kernel structure is not as clean, having had things piled on top
to add functionality many times.  Until recently, its networking was
not at all complete.  They have recently adopted Net/2, but it is
still somewhat buggy.  The advantage of Linux is that it has shared
libraries so uses much less memory and disk space.  Also, its rumored
to co-exist with DOS better, but this may be more opinion than fact.





-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Michael L. VanLoon                           Project Vincent Systems Staff
  micha...@iastate.edu              Iowa State University Computation Center
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.misc
Path: gmd.de!dearn!frmop11.cnusc.fr!univ-lyon1.fr!zaphod.crihan.fr!warwick!
 pipex!uunet!spool.mu.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!mcrcim.mcgill.edu!sifon!
CC.UMontreal.CA!IRO.UMontreal.CA!zap!fortin
From: for...@zap.uniforum.qc.ca (Denis Fortin)
Subject: Re: BSD UNIX
Organization: zap, Montreal, QC, Canada
References: <newmanCCL33A.GBo@netcom.com> <1993Aug31.185019.22189@sophia.smith.edu> 
<MUTS.93Sep2205147@compi.hobby.nl> <michaelv.747084422@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu>
Message-ID: <CCxLn8.Iv8@zap.uniforum.qc.ca>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 12:06:29 GMT
Lines: 11

In article <michaelv.747084...@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu> micha...@iastate.edu 
(Michael L. VanLoon) writes:
>Linux is a completely different beast.  [...]
>Until recently, its networking was not at all complete.  They have recently
>adopted Net/2, but it is still somewhat buggy.

Actually, I recently discovered by reading one of the Linux FAQs that
Linux's Net-2 simply means "the second release of the Linux networking
code" and has nothing to do with Berkeley's Net/2 (which I originally
thought it was).
--
Denis, for...@zap.uniforum.qc.ca

Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.misc
Path: gmd.de!dearn!frmop11.cnusc.fr!univ-lyon1.fr!ghost.dsi.unimi.it!
batcomputer!
 caen!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!
uknet!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiitac
From: iii...@swan.pyr (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: BSD UNIX
Message-ID: <1993Sep6.162039.12812@swan.pyr>
Organization: Swansea University College
References: <MUTS.93Sep2205147@compi.hobby.nl> 
<michaelv.747084422@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu> <CCxLn8.Iv8@zap.uniforum.qc.ca>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 16:20:39 GMT
Lines: 25

In article <CCxLn8....@zap.uniforum.qc.ca> for...@zap.uniforum.qc.ca 
(Denis Fortin) writes:
>In article <michaelv.747084...@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu> micha...@iastate.edu 
(Michael L. VanLoon) writes:
>>Linux is a completely different beast.  [...]
>>Until recently, its networking was not at all complete.  They have recently
>>adopted Net/2, but it is still somewhat buggy.
It's none too complete now, however its great fun helping to debug it.
>
>Actually, I recently discovered by reading one of the Linux FAQs that
>Linux's Net-2 simply means "the second release of the Linux networking
>code" and has nothing to do with Berkeley's Net/2 (which I originally
>thought it was).

This is unfortunately misleading there is NET-2 and NET/2 for Linux. The
first is FvK's work on Ross Biro's from scratch tcp/ip for Linux, the second
is a port of BSD Networking release 2 for Linux. Both exist, both are used.
In time NET-2 should be as good as the BSD networking, but for the moment
its providing some good lessons on interrupt and network writing.
The original primary motive was to avoid potentially 'contaminated' code
from BSD releases getting into Linux given the ATT v BSDI lawsuit. Without
that I'm fairly sure the BSD networking code would have been used straight off.

Alan
iii...@pyr.swan.ac.uk

			   USENET Archives


Notice
******

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/