Technology and Trends
 USENET Archives
  
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!paladin.american.edu!
gatech!news.ans.net!malgudi.oar.net!news.ysu.edu!yfn.ysu.edu!ap713
From: ap...@yfn.ysu.edu (Christopher L. Mikkelson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: SUMMARY: FreeBSD vs. Linux
Date: 10 Nov 1993 22:30:02 GMT
Organization: Youngstown State/Youngstown Free-Net
Lines: 197
Message-ID: <2brq1b$a8j@news.ysu.edu>
Reply-To: ap...@yfn.ysu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: yfn.ysu.edu


  I got a few responses to my post, and some people have been asking for
them, so here they are.


Message #15 (24 is last):
Date: Sun Oct 31 18:32:41 1993
From: st...@mnementh.cs.mcgill.ca (Marc WANDSCHNEIDER)
Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux
To: ap...@yfn.ysu.edu
>Newsgroups:  comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.os.linux.help


In article <2b1bjr$...@news.ysu.edu> you write:
>
>  Hello all!  I am kinda stuck between Linux (Yggdrasil LGX) and FreeBSD.
>I was wondering what LGX would give me that FreeBSD wouldn't and vice versa.
>Please e-mail responses.

	Linux has a scary kernel, bad networking code, and is generally
	a pretty patchy system.  NetBSD and FreeBSD are full
	blown ports of 4.3 Net/2, so they have all the advantages
	(and disadvantages) that this system had.  Specifically, a 	
	COOOL  Filesystem, Great networking code, integrated SLIP and PPP
	support, and BSD familiar utiltiies.  Linux tends to be VEYR patchy
	int his aspect---You have to use -lbsdcompat, -lthis -lthat, etc.

	To Linux's credit, a LOT of these problems are being addressed.

	NetBSD also now has Sun style Pic-based shared libraires, which
	freeBSD lacks.  Linux has some scary jump table based shared
	lib.s

	Linux has the advantage of having about twice the number
	of users however, a large number of which are frothing
	freebie freaks who can't understand why one would POISSIBLY
	want to use anything other than Linux.

	Linux has dosemu, which lets you run DOS progarms.  As most
	*BSD people use UNIX to escape DOS, there is no demand for this
	in the *BSD world :-)

	Both systems (NetBSD and Linux) have wine, which is a project
	in the alpha stages to wort of do the same thing as WABI.

	The choice is complex:

	1.  If DOS requirements are a MUST, then Linux is the best.
	2.  If you want a clean OS with nice kernel, and ALL The utilities
	under the sun, Net/FreeBSD are the way to go.
	3.  If you have more than one type of machine, or plan on getting
	more machines, NetBSD is the way to go---It currently runs on the
	i386/i486, Sun3, Sparc, hp300, Amiga, Mac, and two others I've
	never heard of before.


	Having used SunOS a while, and being a big fan of TRULY free
	source code (ulnike the GPL, under which ALL linux code falls),
	I found NetBSD to be entirely optimal for my needs.



						Toodlepip!
						Marc 'em.


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Wandschneider					    Seattle, WA
Barney the Dinosaur sings! You faint... Barney sings!  Barney sings! --More--
You Die... --More--

Message #18 (24 is last):
Date: Mon Nov  1 01:07:20 1993
From: n...@bsd.coe.montana.edu (Nate Williams)
Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux
To: ap...@yfn.ysu.edu
>Newsgroups:  comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.os.linux.help


In article <2b1bjr$...@news.ysu.edu> you write:
>
>  Hello all!  I am kinda stuck between Linux (Yggdrasil LGX) and FreeBSD.
>I was wondering what LGX would give me that FreeBSD wouldn't and vice versa.
>Please e-mail responses.

FreeBSD is BSD unix.  It is not a hodge-podge which has different binaries
and se an entire operating system.  The system has a nice
coherent feel to it.

Also, because BSD unix
bookstore. (Including kernel programming books if you want to do
that)  For Linux, you are relying on the documentation that is supplied
by the users, which is sparse and hard to find.

Finally, if you need networking, Linux just doesn't cut it.  My FreeBSD
box has been on the Internet 24 hours for almost a year now without ANY
problems due to the networking code.

And, most of the stability problems have been addressed by FreeBSD, so
the old arguement that Linux is more stable than FreeBSD is no longer valid.

(And from some Linuxers around here, I would now say the opposite is true)

Bottom line though is you need to run whatever version you feel more
comfortable with.  If there are 100 FreeBSD users near you, obviously
your best bet is to use it, but if there are only Linux users around you
would be better off with Linux.



Nate
-- 
n...@bsd.coe.montana.edu     |  Freely available *nix clones benefit everyone,
n...@cs.montana.edu          |  so let's not compete with each other, let's
work #: (406) 994-4836       |  compete with folks who try to tie us down to
home #: (406) 586-0579       |  proprietary O.S.'s (Microsloth) - Me

Message #19 (24 is last):
Date: Mon Nov  1 10:52:08 1993
From: de...@cdfsga.fnal.gov (Dejan Vucinic)
Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux
To: ap...@yfn.ysu.edu


In article <2b1bjr$...@news.ysu.edu> you write:
|> 
|>   Hello all!  I am kinda stuck between Linux (Yggdrasil LGX) and FreeBSD.
|> I was wondering what LGX would give me that FreeBSD wouldn't and vice versa.
|> Please e-mail responses.
|>                         Thank you,
|>                            Chris
|> -- 

Yuck. Go find yourself a NetBSD 0.9. Linux is a toy. It's a nice system really,
but still in its early childhood days. It's cool for DOS-damaged people to 
play with something that's not a real big system, but is much better than DOS.
FreeBSD is a kind of NetBSD branch that was shooting for stability and hit
the wall. It's not any more stable than NetBSD 0.9, and it's six months behind
it in the evolution. NetBSD is the fastest growing thing with more brainpower
under it than both of the other two systems together. I have a NetBSD-only box
and it's more stable than the bloody Silicon Graphics Challenge I use at work!

NetBSD is in my opinion ready for a 1.0 release, and I am sure that you'll see
it soon. The Sun-like shared libraries support is already in the current tree.
There are ports for Sun 3, HP 300, Amiga, Mac, and your favourite pocket
calculator. It is pretty much the same thing as BSD 4.4 (after all, the 
main distribution sites are located in the same place, those people work in
the same department). There are teams working on quite esoteric things such as 
culsterisation (farming, imagine 100 PCs/Macs/Amigas munching your code in 
parallel). The Mach kernel will soon be available in NetBSD kernel source, and
there is talk about building NetBSD server on top of Mach 3.0 microkernel.

So, why the hell would you want to suffer from Linux!? (hey, it's a System V!)
Just go and look at the CHANGES and TODO files, nothing more need be said.

Happy Hacking,,
Dejan


Message #20 (24 is last):
Date: Mon Nov  1 12:05:14 1993
From: tille...@cae.wisc.edu
Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux
To: ap...@yfn.ysu.edu


ap...@yfn.ysu.edu (Christopher L. Mikkelson):
> 
>   Hello all!  I am kinda stuck between Linux (Yggdrasil LGX) and FreeBSD.
> I was wondering what LGX would give me that FreeBSD wouldn't and vice versa.
> Please e-mail responses.
>                         Thank you,

Well, I haven't used the Yggdrasil version of linux, but have used both
linus and FreeBSD (1.0 Gamma).  For my system (486/33, 8 meg ram), Linux
does a whole lot less disk thrashing than FreeBSD does.  No one has come up
with a good answer except that shared libraries weren't implemented in
BSD yet, they were being worked on though, so executables tended to be
a lot larger, and took up more memory.  I could easily bring the system
to a grinding halt, and lock up FreeBSD by loading large files, which 
didn't happen on Linux.  

Linux has more DOS support if that matters.  It has a dos emulator, and
eventually will have Windows support as well, though I think that that
(Wine is the package name) will be able to run on BSD as well.  Otherwise,
it's more what you like.  If you like BSD like features, you'd do better
with BSD, but if you like SYS-V & POSIX, Linux is better.  Then again, 
your hardware will play a role as well.  I like BSD much better, but 
linux runs faster and recognized my harddrive from day one, which BSD didn't
do until FreeBSD came out (Net and 386BSD don't recognize it still).

Good luck.

John
tille...@cae.wisc.edu
-- 

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.386bsd.questions
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.pop.psu.edu!ra!
tantalus.nrl.navy.mil!eric
From: e...@tantalus.nrl.navy.mil (Eric Youngdale)
Subject: Re: SUMMARY: FreeBSD vs. Linux
Message-ID: <CGAw8z.KAI@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
Sender: use...@ra.nrl.navy.mil
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory
References: <2brq1b$a8j@news.ysu.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 00:05:22 GMT
Lines: 48

In article <2brq1b$...@news.ysu.edu> ap...@yfn.ysu.edu writes:
>
>  I got a few responses to my post, and some people have been asking for
>them, so here they are.
>
>
>Message #15 (24 is last):
>Date: Sun Oct 31 18:32:41 1993
>From: st...@mnementh.cs.mcgill.ca (Marc WANDSCHNEIDER)
>	Linux has a scary kernel, bad networking code, and is generally
>	a pretty patchy system.  NetBSD and FreeBSD are full

	Oh, honestly!  I realize that you are biased, but if you have no first
hand experience with linux (which your reaction would tend to suggest), why
don't you just leave this thread alone.

	I will ignore the rest of Marc's post, because it is not an objective
comparison and is filled with flame bait.

>From: n...@bsd.coe.montana.edu (Nate Williams)
>Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux
>To: ap...@yfn.ysu.edu
>Bottom line though is you need to run whatever version you feel more
>comfortable with.  If there are 100 FreeBSD users near you, obviously
>your best bet is to use it, but if there are only Linux users around you
>would be better off with Linux.

	A very good suggestion.

	My own personal answer is that it depends upon what you want.  Each
system has some strengths and weaknesses (the BSD variants have been better
with networking, although this is changing rapidly, and linux tends to support
a lot more of the inexpensive oddball boards out there).  If you came out and
said "My machine configuration is X, and I would like to use the machine for Y.
Which would work better?", we might be able to identify specific reasons why
one choice would be better than the other.  Unless you have specific reasons
to choose one over the other, you will probably be satisfied with either
choice.

	The Yggdrasil cdrom is a turnkey system that is more or less ready to
go.  There are a few warts in some of the setup scripts, but on the whole it is
pretty easy to get things set up and ready to go.  

-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!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!
ames!tulane!uno.edu!CAJHO
From: ca...@uno.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: Re: SUMMARY: FreeBSD vs. Linux
Date: 11 Nov 1993 00:15:01 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA
Lines: 7
Message-ID: <2bs065$1gd@news.cs.tulane.edu>
References: <2brq1b$a8j@news.ysu.edu>
Reply-To: ca...@uno.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: jazz.ucc.uno.edu

Hmmm.  If Linux is so scary and NetBSD so nice, why so many Linux users and
why is Linux growing so damn fast?  It just seems like Linux exploded...
This is a serious question, not a jab at the BSD folks.  I am wondering what it
is about Linux that is causing this...
 
Craig.

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!
mcsun!ieunet!news.ieunet.ie!jkh
From: j...@whisker.lotus.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: Re: SUMMARY: FreeBSD vs. Linux
Date: 11 Nov 1993 09:52:26 GMT
Organization: Lotus Development Ireland
Lines: 17
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <JKH.93Nov11015226@whisker.lotus.ie>
References: <2brq1b$a8j@news.ysu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: whisker.lotus.ie
In-reply-to: ap713@yfn.ysu.edu's message of 10 Nov 1993 22:30:02 GMT

In article <2brq1b$...@news.ysu.edu> ap...@yfn.ysu.edu (Christopher L. Mikkelson) writes:

	   NetBSD also now has Sun style Pic-based shared libraires, which
	   freeBSD lacks.  Linux has some scary jump table based shared
	   lib.s

Not for long - I'm running my FreeBSD 1.0 system with everything
except X shared at the moment; we're not too far behind NetBSD in
shared libs at this moment and hope to do 1.1 as a full shared-lib
enabled release.

				Jordan
--
(Jordan K. Hubbard)  j...@violet.berkeley.edu, j...@al.org, j...@whisker.lotus.ie

I do not speak for Lotus, nor am I even a Lotus employee.  I am an independent
contractor.

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.386bsd.questions
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!
usenet.ucs.indiana.edu!bigbang.astro.indiana.edu!pitts
From: pi...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Jim Pitts)
Subject: Re: SUMMARY: FreeBSD vs. Linux
Message-ID: <CGC6nH.J08@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Sender: n...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University Astrophysics, Bloomington, IN
References: <2brq1b$a8j@news.ysu.edu> <2bs065$1gd@news.cs.tulane.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 16:47:40 GMT
Lines: 37

In article <2bs065$...@news.cs.tulane.edu> ca...@uno.edu writes:
>Hmmm.  If Linux is so scary and NetBSD so nice, why so many Linux users and
>why is Linux growing so damn fast?  It just seems like Linux exploded...
>This is a serious question, not a jab at the BSD folks.  I am wondering what it
>is about Linux that is causing this...
> 

I use FreeBSD (and like it).  There are a -few- areas that need to be
worked on in NetBSD before I will switch.  I look forward to the day
when I can.

Around here, Linux is the way people go.  Being personally biased
towards Free/NetBSD, I try to encourate people to at least consider
alternate systems to Linux.

In the end, the fact is that most of the people around here are cheap.
I mean $$$ cheap.  Literally.  They don't want to deal with the
resources (mostly hard disk) required to set up a *BSD system.  Most
don't have the disk space right off to make things work.          

Linux has been so seductive around here because it promises good
performance with a mimimal demand on hardware.

It is a trade off ... a trade off that I think hits many in the pocket
book.  It is a trade off that, I think, people wind up paying for in the
end with a somewhat luke warm version of unix.  In the end they
generally wind up wanting to do things that I do in FreeBSD that they
can't do in Linux.

So, obviously I think that Linux is a great package for someone wanting
a Unix/X system with no investment in hardware.  But if you got the
resources, don't mess around with it.  You get what you pay for.

Hey, this is my personal opinion.  Don't burn me for it!

					Jim

Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!math.fu-berlin.de!netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!
uknet!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!tulane!uno.edu!CAJHO
From: ca...@uno.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: Re: SUMMARY: FreeBSD vs. Linux
Date: 11 Nov 1993 18:12:13 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <2btv9t$4nb@news.cs.tulane.edu>
References: <2brq1b$a8j@news.ysu.edu> <2bs065$1gd@news.cs.tulane.edu>,
<CGC6nH.J08@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Reply-To: ca...@uno.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: jazz.ucc.uno.edu


>It is a trade off ... a trade off that I think hits many in the pocket
>book.  It is a trade off that, I think, people wind up paying for in the
>end with a somewhat luke warm version of unix.  In the end they
>generally wind up wanting to do things that I do in FreeBSD that they
>can't do in Linux.

Examples please of things you do in FreeBSD that one cannot do in Linux.  I'd
be interested in hearing about these, as I have a fairly maxed-out system.
Lukewarm?  In what respects?

>
>So, obviously I think that Linux is a great package for someone wanting
>a Unix/X system with no investment in hardware.  But if you got the
>resources, don't mess around with it.  You get what you pay for.

What sort of resources are you talking about?  I have read the FAQ, but it
really lists a minimum.  What sort of disk space/anything else important
do you have invested in FreeBSD? What would you recommend?  Would about 440
megs be enough disk to not be cramped after installing lots of big stuff
like X, TeX, etc, etc?  How (if you know) does the speed compare to Linux?


>
>Hey, this is my personal opinion.  Don't burn me for it!
>
>					Jim

--
Craig Johnston     |   Cavitas in dentibus facimus!
ca...@uno.edu      |   Cavitas in dentibus facimus!

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!
uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!news2.uunet.ca!fw.novatel.ca!hpeyerl
From: hpey...@novatel.ca (Herb Peyerl)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: Re: SUMMARY: FreeBSD vs. Linux
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.386bsd.questions
Date: 11 Nov 1993 23:31:31 GMT
Organization: NovAtel Communications Ltd.
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <2bui0j$blb@fw.novatel.ca>
References: <2brq1b$a8j@news.ysu.edu> <2bs065$1gd@news.cs.tulane.edu>,
<CGC6nH.J08@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <2btv9t$4nb@news.cs.tulane.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sid.corp.novatel.ca
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL0]

ca...@uno.edu wrote:
: Examples please of things you do in FreeBSD that one cannot do in Linux.  I'd
: be interested in hearing about these, as I have a fairly maxed-out system.
: Lukewarm?  In what respects?

I don't know about FreeBSD but there's things I can do with NetBSD that
can't be done with Linux.  The relevance of which is going to be different
for everyone:

Run it on a Mac
Run it on an Amiga
Run it on an hp300
Run it on a pc532
Run it on a Sparc
(plus all the other platforms that are coming)
Run Sun-OS binaries.
Run real shared libraries.
(And some other things I can't remember now :-> )

--
hpey...@novatel.ca                           |  NovAtel Commnications Ltd.
hpey...@fsa.ca                               | <nothing I say matters anyway>
       <NetBSD: A drinking group with a serious computing problem!>

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.386bsd.questions
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!
headwall.Stanford.EDU!kithrup.com!sef
From: s...@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan)
Subject: Re: SUMMARY: FreeBSD vs. Linux
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
References: <2brq1b$a8j@news.ysu.edu> <CGC6nH.J08@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> 
<2btv9t$4nb@news.cs.tulane.edu> <2bui0j$blb@fw.novatel.ca>
Message-ID: <CGCroz.B6r@kithrup.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1993 00:21:57 GMT
Lines: 13

In article <2bui0j$...@fw.novatel.ca> hpey...@novatel.ca (Herb Peyerl) writes:
>Run it on a Mac
>Run it on an Amiga

There are, I believe, both mac and amiga ports of linux happening.

>Run real shared libraries.

Dynamicly-linked shared libraries were announced for testing for linux
before they were announced for *bsd.  If I remember correctly, from looking
at it, it was also less of a hack, and used ELF instead of a.out.  (Even
COFF would be better than a.out for shared libraries, sheesh.)

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.386bsd.questions
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!math.fu-berlin.de!zib-berlin.de!zrz.TU-Berlin.DE!
netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!sun4nl!sci.kun.nl!HNYKUN11.URC.KUN.NL!U001295
From: U001...@HNYKUN11.URC.KUN.NL (R. Schalk)
Subject: Re: SUMMARY: FreeBSD vs. Linux
Message-ID: <16C841041BS85.U001295@HNYKUN11.URC.KUN.NL>
Sender: n...@sci.kun.nl (News owner)
Nntp-Posting-Host: vm.uci.kun.nl
Organization: K.U. Nijmegen
References: <2brq1b$a8j@news.ysu.edu> <2bs065$1gd@news.cs.tulane.edu> 
<CGC6nH.J08@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1993 17:29:46 GMT
Lines: 20

In article <CGC6nH....@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
pi...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Jim Pitts) writes:
 
<a lot deleted>
 
>In the end they
>generally wind up wanting to do things that I do in FreeBSD that they
>can't do in Linux.
 
Please tell me what you can do in FreeBSD and not in Linux???????
 
Grtx Ronald
 
********************************************************************
* ing. Ronald Schalk, afdeling CS, sectie COOS                     *
* Universitair Centrum Informatievoorziening (UCI)                 *
* University of Nijmegen (KUN)    snailmail: Geert Grooteplein 41  *
* e-mail : R.Sch...@uci.kun.nl               6525 GA Nijmegen      *
* tel: +31 80 617997 fax: +31 80 617979      The Netherlands       *
********************************************************************

Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!fauern!rrze.uni-erlangen.de!
late.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de!eilts
From: ei...@late.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de (Hinrich Eilts)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: Re: SUMMARY: FreeBSD vs. Linux
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 08:53:13 GMT
Organization: LATE, Uni-Erlangen, Germany
Message-ID: <2c7g1pE847@uni-erlangen.de>
References: <2brq1b$a8j@news.ysu.edu> <2bs065$1gd@news.cs.tulane.edu> 
<CGC6nH.J08@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <16C841041BS85.U001295@HNYKUN11.URC.KUN.NL>
NNTP-Posting-Host: late4.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de
Lines: 21

U001...@HNYKUN11.URC.KUN.NL (R. Schalk) writes:

>In article <CGC6nH....@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
>pi...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Jim Pitts) writes:
> 
<a lot deleted>
>Please tell me what you can do in FreeBSD and not in Linux???????
Reliable networking. I tried Linus on a 386, connected to a NeXT and got:
NFS, mounted on NeXT:
 NexT --> PC: 131 kB/sec,  PC --> NeXT: 548 kB/sec
NFS, mounted on PC:
 NeXT --> PC: 125 kB/sec,  PC --> NeXT: 19 (!) kB/sec
by copying two 1.4MB files.
rcp and remote-piping ("rsh 'xx yy' < zz" etc) brokes.

NetBSD: 88, 264, 368, 121 kB/sec for the same NFS-operations, rcp
works (with about the same speed as NFS).
-- 
              Bye                                 | G i b   D O S |
                   Hinrich Eilts                  | k  e  i  n  e |
  (e-mail: ei...@late.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de)  | C h a n c e ! |

Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!prism!gt8134b
From: gt81...@prism.gatech.EDU (Robert Sanders)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: Re: SUMMARY: FreeBSD vs. Linux
Message-ID: <123591@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: 15 Nov 93 18:34:04 GMT
References: <2brq1b$a8j@news.ysu.edu> <CGC6nH.J08@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> 
<2btv9t$4nb@news.cs.tulane.edu> <2bui0j$blb@fw.novatel.ca> <CGCroz.B6r@kithrup.com>
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.help
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 26

In <CGCroz....@kithrup.com> s...@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:

>>Run real shared libraries.

>Dynamicly-linked shared libraries were announced for testing for linux
>before they were announced for *bsd.  If I remember correctly, from looking
>at it, it was also less of a hack, and used ELF instead of a.out.  (Even
>COFF would be better than a.out for shared libraries, sheesh.)

All true; however, the original poster did not mention "dynamically
linked."  Linux has had "real" shared libraries since I started using it long
ago.  And if the *BSD shared library scheme is similar to SunOS's, I'm
only partially impressed.  Despite all the *BSD ranting against, Linux
shared libraries do everything you'd want them to *except* move around
in the address space.  They'll definitely be faster than *BSD's PIC
scheme, and probably create fewer dirty pages to boot.

On the other hand, to appease the *BSD "do it right or not at all" 
fanatics, Eric Youngdale is very close to having ELF shared libraries 
for Linux.

-- 
 _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*'

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.help
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!library.ucla.edu!
europa.eng.gtefsd.com!darwin.sura.net!ra!tantalus.nrl.navy.mil!eric
From: e...@tantalus.nrl.navy.mil (Eric Youngdale)
Subject: Re: SUMMARY: FreeBSD vs. Linux
Message-ID: <CGJvoL.FBA@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
Sender: use...@ra.nrl.navy.mil
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory
References: <2bui0j$blb@fw.novatel.ca> <CGCroz.B6r@kithrup.com> 
<123591@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 20:31:32 GMT
Lines: 37

In article <123...@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt81...@prism.gatech.EDU (Robert Sanders) writes:
>On the other hand, to appease the *BSD "do it right or not at all" 
>fanatics, Eric Youngdale is very close to having ELF shared libraries 
>for Linux.

	No, it has nothing to do with the *BSD fanatics.  I will be the first
to admit that there are some klugey aspects to the linux shared libraries.  I
know - I developed them.  The end users do not see any of the klugey aspects
because it all hangs together quite well, but from a library developers
perspective it is a bit of a nuisance, and I have to dole out the address space
and answer questions.

	With regards to ELF, the major holdup for the past 6 months has been
the fact that the gnu binutils/gnu assembler are not quite up to snuff.  Quite
recently there have been releases that are good enough to static link binaries,
but ELF shared library support is not quite present.  This I expect to change
sometime soon as there are a lot of people interested in using the GNU
utilities under SVr4.

	Anyway, for the record, I have been able to run ELF binaries,
(including ones that require ELF shared libraries) for about 6 months.  The
program loader/dynamic linker works well, although it would need some
self-bootstrapping modifications before it would be PIC.  All of the binaries
that I have tried have been compiled and linked under SVr4.  I also have some
special libraries that I have used to directly run some SVr4 binaries under
linux.  Some of the syscall emulation is incomplete, so not every SVr4 binary
will run.  In particular, some features like STREAMS are absent from linux so
any SVr4 binary that uses them would tend not to work very well at all.
Anyway, most of the interest in importing binaries from other platforms seems
to be in COFF, since this is what commercial binaries are.  Other people are
hard at work on this front.

-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."

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.386bsd.questions
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!cf-cm!
cybaswan!iiitac
From: iii...@swan.pyr (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: SUMMARY: FreeBSD vs. Linux
Message-ID: <1993Nov16.172813.18984@swan.pyr>
Organization: Swansea University College
References: <CGC6nH.J08@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> 
<2btv9t$4nb@news.cs.tulane.edu> <2bui0j$blb@fw.novatel.ca>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 17:28:13 GMT
Lines: 21

In article <2bui0j$...@fw.novatel.ca> hpey...@novatel.ca (Herb Peyerl) writes:
>
>I don't know about FreeBSD but there's things I can do with NetBSD that
>can't be done with Linux.  The relevance of which is going to be different
>for everyone:
>
<List of machines removed>
>Run Sun-OS binaries.
Interesting - SunOS or Solaris  - and I assume only on a sun running netbsd.
Also what percentage of SunOS - just the bits NetBSD supports ?
>Run real shared libraries.
Pardon .. Pray how are the Linux shared libraries not real, they seem to be
dynamically linked, bound at run time, loaded by a dynamically linked loader
and every other feature I know of..
>(And some other things I can't remember now :-> )
Like not running DOS emulations or a fair %age of IBSC2 compliant binaries.
8-)
  ^-- no flames please

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

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.386bsd.questions
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!cf-cm!
cybaswan!iiitac
From: iii...@swan.pyr (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: SUMMARY: FreeBSD vs. Linux
Message-ID: <1993Nov18.221856.13769@swan.pyr>
Organization: Swansea University College
References: <CGC6nH.J08@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> 
<16C841041BS85.U001295@HNYKUN11.URC.KUN.NL> <2c7g1pE847@uni-erlangen.de>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1993 22:18:56 GMT
Lines: 29

In article <2c7g1pE...@uni-erlangen.de> ei...@late.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de 
(Hinrich Eilts) writes:
>U001...@HNYKUN11.URC.KUN.NL (R. Schalk) writes:
>>Please tell me what you can do in FreeBSD and not in Linux???????
>Reliable networking. I tried Linus on a 386, connected to a NeXT and got:
>NFS, mounted on NeXT:
> NexT --> PC: 131 kB/sec,  PC --> NeXT: 548 kB/sec
>NFS, mounted on PC:
> NeXT --> PC: 125 kB/sec,  PC --> NeXT: 19 (!) kB/sec
>by copying two 1.4MB files.
>rcp and remote-piping ("rsh 'xx yy' < zz" etc) brokes.
rcp and rsh work fine on pl13r or later, but yes your basic comment stands
the Linux networking is still a little less reliable than BSD, but we are
working on it and things are getting there. 

Now your NFS example is a bit sad because its a BSD problem not a Linux
problem. You see Linux is doing NFS in 1K blocks and unfortunately the
BSD(SUN actually I think ?) derived kernel NFS and the low level block
handlers on BSD kernels aren't capable of sensible synchronous IO writes. So
every time Linux does a write BSD and Next goes READ 4 or 8K alter 1K write
4 or 8K synchronous. Since the lowest level drivers could do 1K blocks happily
the problem is the standard kernel nfsd that most people use. This is similar
to the problems with BSD NFS serving PC machines using small block sizes,
or older SYS5.2/3 NFS implementations which also commonly used 1K.

I guess its truer to say that BSD based kernels can't cope with small blocksize
NFS writes very well, while Linux doesn't do so badly. 8-)

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