Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!subnet.sub.net!flatlin!flyer.GUN.de!teralon!
rrz.uni-koeln.de!news.dfn.de!news.belwue.de!zib-berlin.de!netmbx.de!
Germany.EU.net!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!wubios.wustl.edu!david
From: da...@wubios.wustl.edu (David J Camp)
Subject: BSD vs. Linux
Message-ID: <1994Mar8.141900.2906@wubios.wustl.edu>
Sender: da...@wubios.wustl.edu (David J Camp)
Organization: Division of Biostatistics, WUMS, St. Louis, MO
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 14:19:00 GMT
Lines: 8

What are the relative merits of NetBSD vs. Linux?  Is either
technically superior?  I suppose BSD is more portable.  How difficult
is would it be to port the Linux utilities to BSD?  -David-

# da...@wubios.wustl.edu             David J. Camp BS MS     ^        #
# da...@campfire.stl.mo.us           +1 314 382 0584       < * >      #
# I am a member of:  The League for Programming Freedom.     v        #
# abs (investment#1 - investment#2) << abs (anyinvestment - anydebt)  #

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!yale!gumby!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!
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.linux,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux
Date: 8 Mar 94 15:37:35 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <michaelv.763141055@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu>
References: <1994Mar8.141900.2906@wubios.wustl.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ponderous.cc.iastate.edu

In <1994Mar8.141900.2...@wubios.wustl.edu> da...@wubios.wustl.edu (David J Camp) 
writes:

>What are the relative merits of NetBSD vs. Linux?  Is either
>technically superior?  I suppose BSD is more portable.  How difficult
>is would it be to port the Linux utilities to BSD?  -David-

*I'm* not getting into another NetBSD/Linux shootout.  Suffice it to
say *I* like NetBSD better because, in my opinion it's better
documented all the way around, the networking code is much more stable
and compatible with the world as we know it, and it just feels like a
more "real" big-time Unix than a PC O/S.

Right now, NetBSD-current (the stuff that will become NetBSD-1.0 when
it's ready) is about half-way between 4.3BSD and 4.4BSD.  As soon as
4.4BSD-Lite hits the streets, I'm sure most of the rest of 4.4 will be
absorbed in short order.

For what reason would you port Linux utilities to NetBSD?  NetBSD
already has a very rich suite of utilities.  Is there something
missing that I don't know about?

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 Michael L. VanLoon                 Iowa State University Computation Center
    micha...@iastate.edu                    Project Vincent Systems Staff
  Free your mind and your machine -- NetBSD free Unix for PC/Mac/Amiga/etc.

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!nigel.msen.com!sdd.hp.com!
decwrl!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!
strath-cs!strath-cs!not-for-mail
From: gpal...@cs.strath.ac.uk (Gary J Palmer C.S.3)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux
Date: 9 Mar 1994 08:32:54 -0000
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Glasgow, Scotland.
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <2lk1jm$aor@simpson-01.cs.strath.ac.uk>
References: <1994Mar8.141900.2906@wubios.wustl.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: simpson-01.cs.strath.ac.uk

In article <1994Mar8.141900.2...@wubios.wustl.edu> da...@wubios.wustl.edu 
(David J Camp) writes:
->What are the relative merits of NetBSD vs. Linux?  Is either
->technically superior?  I suppose BSD is more portable.  How difficult
->is would it be to port the Linux utilities to BSD?  -David-


*BSD : Lots of easily available C progs to compile & run easily.
       Bigger kernel, so more memory needed.

Linux: Pain to get some (most?) BSD progs to work.
       Smaller kernel, can run comfortably in 4Mb's.

I only speak of experience as a (long distance) user of FreeBSD and
Linux 0.99. Most stuff I've tried goes first time on the FreeBSD box,
but most stuff thakes a lot of time and effort (and extra
grey hairs) to run even partially sucessfully (I still haven't got
ytalk stable enough to call 'ported').

Hope this helps

Gary
-- 
JANET : gpal...@uk.ac.strath.cs | Internet : gpal...@cs.strath.ac.uk
Other Nets	: gpalmer%cs.strath.ac.uk@ plus one of :-
BITNET: UKACRL     UUCP: ukc.uucp | #include <std.disclaimer>
Member of Arch-BSD development team.

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!yale!gumby!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!
gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiitac
From: iii...@swan.pyr (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux
Message-ID: <1994Mar9.094748.4022@swan.pyr>
Organization: Swansea University College
References: <1994Mar8.141900.2906@wubios.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 09:47:48 GMT
Lines: 25

In article <1994Mar8.141900.2...@wubios.wustl.edu> da...@wubios.wustl.edu 
(David J Camp) writes:
>What are the relative merits of NetBSD vs. Linux?  Is either
>technically superior?  I suppose BSD is more portable.  How difficult
>is would it be to port the Linux utilities to BSD?  -David-
>
Most of the core utilities are the same - being the GNU utilities. Generally
speaking it looks like this

			BSD			Linux
Shells		bash,tcsh,ksh		bash,tcsh,ksh
X windows	Xfree86			Xfree86
Utilities	GNU			GNU
Compiler	GCC			GCC

etc...

Apart from avoiding the BSD only oddities in programs and sticking to ANSI
and POSIX (no bcopy etc) I treat them both as the same thing for applications
work. I run Linux for the DOS emulator, the networking code and the fact it
'feels' faster to me. The soon to be released intel IBCS (commercial unix
binary standard) support also matters here.

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

Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!agate.berkeley.edu!cgd
From: c...@erewhon.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Chris G. Demetriou)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux
Date: 9 Mar 94 08:55:40
Organization: Kernel Hackers 'r' Us
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <CGD.94Mar9085540@erewhon.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
References: <1994Mar8.141900.2906@wubios.wustl.edu> <1994Mar9.094748.4022@swan.pyr>
NNTP-Posting-Host: erewhon.cs.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: iiitac@swan.pyr's message of Wed, 9 Mar 1994 09:47:48 GMT

In article <1994Mar9.094748.4...@swan.pyr> iii...@swan.pyr (Alan Cox) writes:
>		BSD			Linux
>Shells		bash,tcsh,ksh		bash,tcsh,ksh
>X windows	Xfree86			Xfree86
>Utilities	GNU			GNU
>Compiler	GCC			GCC


That doesn't help people out who don't have i386's...

		NetBSD			Linux
		i386			i386
		amiga			amiga ("barely"?)
		Mac
		sparc
		hp300
		pc532


All the utilities in the world matter not a whit, if all you've
got is a SPARCstation and a Solaris2 CD...  8-)


chris
--
chris g. demetriou                                   c...@cs.berkeley.edu

                       you can eat anything once.

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!yale!gumby!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!
pipex!sunic!ugle.unit.no!flode.nvg.unit.no!flipper.pvv.unit.no!pvv.unit.no!arnej
From: ar...@pvv.unit.no (Arne H. Juul)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux
Date: 9 Mar 94 13:48:03
Organization: ProgramVareVerkstedet, Norwegian Institute of Technology
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <ARNEJ.94Mar9134803@supernova.pvv.unit.no>
References: <1994Mar8.141900.2906@wubios.wustl.edu> <1994Mar9.094748.4022@swan.pyr>
NNTP-Posting-Host: supernova.pvv.unit.no
In-reply-to: iiitac@swan.pyr's message of Wed, 9 Mar 1994 09:47:48 GMT


In article <1994Mar9.094748.4...@swan.pyr> iii...@swan.pyr (Alan Cox) writes:

 > Most of the core utilities are the same - being the GNU utilities. Generally
 > speaking it looks like this
 >
 > 		   BSD			Linux
 > Shells	bash,tcsh,ksh		bash,tcsh,ksh
 > X windows	Xfree86			Xfree86
 > Utilities	GNU			GNU
 > Compiler	GCC			GCC
 >
 > etc...


This is (partly) wrong. Linux relies much more on the GNU utilities
and libraries than does BSD.  This may be taken as a point in favour
of either OS depending on personal preferences. Also, some of the
utilities either are not GNU or are more-or-less modified.

The following table is probably more accurate, but bear in mind
that there really isn't any single 'BSD' and even less a single 'Linux'.

            BSD                Linux
Shell       ash, csh           bash, tcsh
C library   BSD                Homebrew GNU libc ???
vi          nvi                elvis
Compiler    GCC (modified)     GCC
Linker      GNU ld (w/mods)    GNU ld (w/even more mods)
X           Xfree86            Xfree86
Utilities   BSD                GNU

 > Apart from avoiding the BSD only oddities in programs and sticking to ANSI
 > and POSIX (no bcopy etc) I treat them both as the same thing for applications
 > work. I run Linux for the DOS emulator, the networking code and the fact it
 > 'feels' faster to me. The soon to be released intel IBCS (commercial unix
 > binary standard) support also matters here.
 >
 > Alan
 > iii...@pyr.swan.ac.uk

Running Linux for its networking code seems somewhat odd to me.

  -  Arne H. Juul

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet
From: John Dyson <dys...@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 94 19:18:38 -0500
Organization: Delphi (i...@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <JK4rPn2.dysonj@delphi.com>
References: <1994Mar8.141900.2906@wubios.wustl.edu> 
<2lk1jm$aor@simpson-01.cs.strath.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bos1b.delphi.com
X-To: Gary J Palmer C.S.3 <gpal...@cs.strath.ac.uk>

Gary J Palmer C.S.3 <gpal...@cs.strath.ac.uk> writes:
 
>*BSD : Lots of easily available C progs to compile & run easily.
>       Bigger kernel, so more memory needed.
>
>Linux: Pain to get some (most?) BSD progs to work.
>       Smaller kernel, can run comfortably in 4Mb's.
 
We (FreeBSD) have made significant inroads into running on small machines.
There are individuals running X on 4MB (but slowly.)
 
John
dy...@implode.root.com

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.pop.psu.edu!ctc.com!
news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!ames!olivea!decwrl!decwrl!
usenet.coe.montana.edu!bsd.coe.montana.edu!nate
From: n...@bsd.coe.montana.edu (Nate Williams)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux
Date: 10 Mar 1994 01:38:39 GMT
Organization: Montana State University, Bozeman  MT
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <2lltmv$pg4@pdq.coe.montana.edu>
References: <1994Mar8.141900.2906@wubios.wustl.edu> 
<2lk1jm$aor@simpson-01.cs.strath.ac.uk> <JK4rPn2.dysonj@delphi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bsd.coe.montana.edu

In article <JK4rPn2.dys...@delphi.com>, John Dyson  <dys...@delphi.com> wrote:
>Gary J Palmer C.S.3 <gpal...@cs.strath.ac.uk> writes:
> 
>>*BSD : Lots of easily available C progs to compile & run easily.
>>       Bigger kernel, so more memory needed.
.....

>We (FreeBSD) have made significant inroads into running on small machines.
>There are individuals running X on 4MB (but slowly.)

And there's one person running it on a 1MB machine, but for the life of
me I don't know how. :-)


Nate
-- 
n...@bsd.coe.montana.edu     |  FreeBSD core member and all around tech.
n...@cs.montana.edu          |  weenie.
work #: (406) 994-4836       |  Graduating May '94 with a BS in EE 
home #: (406) 586-0579       |  - looking for work in CS/EE field.

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
agate!agate.berkeley.edu!cgd
From: c...@erewhon.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Chris G. Demetriou)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux
Date: 9 Mar 94 18:03:33
Organization: Kernel Hackers 'r' Us
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <CGD.94Mar9180333@erewhon.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
References: <1994Mar8.141900.2906@wubios.wustl.edu> 
<2lk1jm$aor@simpson-01.cs.strath.ac.uk>
	<JK4rPn2.dysonj@delphi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: erewhon.cs.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: John Dyson's message of Wed, 9 Mar 94 19:18:38 -0500

In article <JK4rPn2.dys...@delphi.com> John Dyson <dys...@delphi.com> writes:
>We (FreeBSD) have made significant inroads into running on small machines.
>There are individuals running X on 4MB (but slowly.)

you make that sound so... AMAZING...

X386 has run on 4MB under *BSD of ram since the day X was ported to 386bsd.
"been there, done that, didn't want the t-shirt."

Perhaps some releases of *BSD (e.g. FreeBSD 1.0) weren't exactly... stable?
with 4M of RAM, but 386BSD worked fine w/4M of ram (it ran on my only
development machine, with that configuration, for a year, give or take...
with *2* megs for a while).  NetBSD hasn't had any troubles with 4M of
RAM (i'm still using that damned machine for development, but not most
of the time... 8-), and it'll apparently boot multi-user and be usable
on a 2M machine, with a somewhat-large kernel (i.e. including NFS, etc.).


In other words: "truth in advertising" -- running X on 4M is no significant
inroad.


cgd
--
chris g. demetriou                                   c...@cs.berkeley.edu

                       you can eat anything once.

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!yale!gumby!wupost!
howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiitac
From: iii...@swan.pyr (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux
Message-ID: <1994Mar10.120646.14144@swan.pyr>
Organization: Swansea University College
References: <1994Mar8.141900.2906@wubios.wustl.edu> 
<1994Mar9.094748.4022@swan.pyr> <ARNEJ.94Mar9134803@supernova.pvv.unit.no>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 12:06:46 GMT
Lines: 25

In article <ARNEJ.94Mar9134...@supernova.pvv.unit.no> ar...@pvv.unit.no 
(Arne H. Juul) writes:
>
>            BSD                Linux
>Shell       ash, csh           bash, tcsh
>C library   BSD                Homebrew GNU libc ???
>vi          nvi                elvis
>Compiler    GCC (modified)     GCC
>Linker      GNU ld (w/mods)    GNU ld (w/even more mods)
>X           Xfree86            Xfree86
>Utilities   BSD                GNU

Ah obviously the NetBSD I played with recently had been upgraded to real
tools.
>
>Running Linux for its networking code seems somewhat odd to me.

I need IPX networking, AX.25 amateur radio sockets and the ability to
run NETX in a dos box on my Unix system. Linux networking is more powerful
but less stable in some areas. Anyway you have a 15 year advantage.. and
compatibility by default.

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

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!
noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet
From: John Dyson <dys...@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 94 19:46:30 -0500
Organization: Delphi (i...@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <hc0rPJ2.dysonj@delphi.com>
References: <1994Mar8.141900.2906@wubios.wustl.edu> 
<2lk1jm$aor@simpson-01.cs.strath.ac.uk> <JK4rPn2.dysonj@delphi.com> 
<2lltmv$pg4@pdq.coe.montana.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bos1b.delphi.com
X-To: Nate Williams <n...@bsd.coe.montana.edu>

Nate Williams <n...@bsd.coe.montana.edu> writes:
 
>And there's one person running it on a 1MB machine, but for the life of
>me I don't know how. :-)
 
I can attest -- I have had a specially built FreeBSD that X would work in
2MB (not very well at all though.)  (I forgot if I had already mentioned it.)
Just getting old I guess.
 
John
dy...@implode.root.com

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!nntpserver.pppl.gov!princeton!att-in!
news.bu.edu!olivea!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!
MathWorks.Com!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet
From: John Dyson <dys...@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 94 20:10:30 -0500
Organization: Delphi (i...@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <hc3onZ+.dysonj@delphi.com>
References: <1994Mar8.141900.2906@wubios.wustl.edu> 
<2lk1jm$aor@simpson-01.cs.strath.ac.uk> <CGD.94Mar9180333@erewhon.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bos1b.delphi.com
X-To: Chris G. Demetriou <c...@erewhon.CS.Berkeley.EDU>

Chris G. Demetriou <c...@erewhon.CS.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
 
>Perhaps some releases of *BSD (e.g. FreeBSD 1.0) weren't exactly... stable?
>with 4M of RAM, but 386BSD worked fine w/4M of ram (it ran on my only
 
I think that it is best to compare using the FreeBSD 1.0 update.  We did have
some problems, but unless someone is misinforming, *all* software releases
have problems.  Truth-in-advertising: take a look at the real Beta release
of FreeBSD vs. the only currently available release of NetBSD (0.9).  Our
-current has startup time of in-memory segments 5X faster than previous and
we are using that as a springboard for some very high performance enhancements.
Being frank, I do not believe that 4MB is a good choice for a serious
development environment (but people stuck with that, I do respect.)  We
have FreeBSD running reliably in 4MB (the OLD problem was a *bug* not a structural
problem.)  And now, we are still planning on *not* ignoring 4MB systems, but
there is only so little optimization that can be done (You are really stuck
with disk I/O.)  Now we are working on improving and re-implementing
algorithms allowing more users, faster response, and better over-all
performance.  FreeBSD-current has real and significant algorithmic improvements
that are not NOT based on previous versions and are new work.  The goal
of FreeBSD is NOT to compete, but to get a stable and reliable platform.
 
Summing up -- I *still* think that it is impressive to run X in 4MB!!!  First
of all after all of the research and statistics that I have done, and the
severe lack of locality of reference, I think that it is great for any OS
to do it as efficiently as FreeBSD!!!!
 
John
dy...@implode.root.com

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!
europa.eng.gtefsd.com!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!honeydew.srv.cs.cmu.edu!
das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!husc.harvard.edu!scunix2!dholland
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux
Message-ID: <DHOLLAND.94Mar10205415@husc7.harvard.edu>
From: dholl...@husc7.harvard.edu (David Holland)
Date: 10 Mar 94 20:54:15
References: <1994Mar8.141900.2906@wubios.wustl.edu> 
 <1994Mar9.094748.4022@swan.pyr><ARNEJ.94Mar9134803@supernova.pvv.unit.no>
<1994Mar10.120646.14144@swan.pyr>
Organization: noitazinagro
NNTP-Posting-Host: husc7.harvard.edu
Lines: 15


iii...@swan.pyr's message of Thu, 10 Mar 1994 12:06:46 GMT said:

 > Linux networking is more powerful but less stable in some areas.
 > Anyway you [*BSD] have a 15 year advantage.. and compatibility by
 > default.

Don't forget that a 15 year advantage also means 15 years of
accumulated cruft. NetBSD (and the other 386 BSDs) require more system
than Linux does. This is the primary reason I use Linux as opposed to
other non-DOS OSs.

--
   - David A. Holland          | "The right to be heard does not automatically
     dholl...@husc.harvard.edu |  include the right to be taken seriously."

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.pop.psu.edu!psuvax1!
uwm.edu!fnnews.fnal.gov!mp.cs.niu.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!
saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!hpg30a.csc.cuhk.hk!uxmail!hk.super.net!
Virtual_Cafe.hk.super.net!Scot
From: S...@hk.super.net (Stephane Cotineau)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 23:17:55
Organization: Hong Kong SuperNet
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <Scot.11.00174D29@hk.super.net>
References: <1994Mar8.141900.2906@wubios.wustl.edu> 
<michaelv.763141055@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.14.67.33
X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A]


>In <1994Mar8.141900.2...@wubios.wustl.edu> da...@wubios.wustl.edu 
(David J Camp) writes:

>>What are the relative merits of NetBSD vs. Linux?  Is either
>>technically superior?  I suppose BSD is more portable.  How difficult
>>is would it be to port the Linux utilities to BSD?  -David-

>*I'm* not getting into another NetBSD/Linux shootout.  Suffice it to
>say *I* like NetBSD better because, in my opinion it's better
>documented all the way around, the networking code is much more stable
>and compatible with the world as we know it, and it just feels like a
>more "real" big-time Unix than a PC O/S.

>Right now, NetBSD-current (the stuff that will become NetBSD-1.0 when
>it's ready) is about half-way between 4.3BSD and 4.4BSD.  As soon as
>4.4BSD-Lite hits the streets, I'm sure most of the rest of 4.4 will be
>absorbed in short order.

>For what reason would you port Linux utilities to NetBSD?  NetBSD
>already has a very rich suite of utilities.  Is there something
>missing that I don't know about?

>-- 
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Michael L. VanLoon                 Iowa State University Computation Center
>    micha...@iastate.edu                    Project Vincent Systems Staff
>  Free your mind and your machine -- NetBSD free Unix for PC/Mac/Amiga/etc.

I have planned to install Unix on a 486 & am actually wondering what to 
choose. A friend lent me a CD with Linux & another one with 386BSD & NetBSD. 
After reading a few things about the instability of Linux networking ( one 
reason I want Unix) I'm contemplating installing NetBSD. The version that is 
on the CD is 0.8 (July 93) & I understand there is near 1.0 version right now. 
Where can I get it & should I install 0.8 then upgrade or rather get the files 
for the current version & start from scratch ?

Thks for any answer 

SCot

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.386bsd.questions
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!nntpserver.pppl.gov!princeton!att-in!
fnnews.fnal.gov!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!
uknet!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiitac
From: iii...@uk.ac.swan.pyr (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux
Message-ID: <1994Mar11.114932.11264@uk.ac.swan.pyr>
Organization: Swansea University College
References: <Scot.11.00174D29@hk.super.net> 
<michaelv.763323359@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu> 
<GLASS.94Mar10154207@sun-lamp.postgres.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 11:49:32 GMT
Lines: 13


Unless you are running a very heavily loaded gateway or a big ftp archive
the Linux networking these days is pretty much rock solid. I'd say its
about level with the patched Solaris 2.3 networking....

The good thing is whichever oif Linux 1.00 pre-release or NetBSD 0.9 you
play with you'll get a very good, very cheap OS.

I re4fuse to get into any X is better than Y arguments - try them both
and enjoy...

Alan

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet
From: John Dyson <dys...@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 94 11:51:45 -0500
Organization: Delphi (i...@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <JU1PQqB.dysonj@delphi.com>
References: <1994Mar8.141900.2906@wubios.wustl.edu> 
<michaelv.763141055@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu> <Scot.11.00174D29@hk.super.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: delphi.com
X-To: Stephane Cotineau <S...@hk.super.net>

Stephane Cotineau <S...@hk.super.net> writes:
 
>reason I want Unix) I'm contemplating installing NetBSD. The version that is 
>on the CD is 0.8 (July 93) & I understand there is near 1.0 version right now. 
>Where can I get it & should I install 0.8 then upgrade or rather get the files 
>for the current version & start from scratch ?
 
FreeBSD has significant performance enhancements in the pipeline and soon
will be out on CDROM in version 1.1.  The ONLY reason not to use FreeBSD
is if you are not using an X86.  Version 1.2 is going to be even better.
We actually have a BETA release ready now (as a full release and not just
a snapshot of -current.)  We (FreeBSD) are more in a catch-up mode in
some fluff features, but have been working on making the kernel and VM
much more solid.  Other platforms will probably be coming later.  As
far as the kernel robustness -- I think that FreeBSD has it now.  We have
had some problems in the past (so has everyone.)  Many of our kernel sources
are starting to diverge because of enhancements being made to FreeBSD (I
have heard that the VM stuff is 14K lines of diffs!!!)  Features will be
coming later.  (I want my stuff to run -- my customers don't care that I
am implementing the debugger through a procfs instead of a ptrace system call!!)
 
John Dyson
dy...@implode.root.com

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!
swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!usenet.coe.montana.edu!bsd.coe.montana.edu!nate
From: n...@bsd.coe.montana.edu (Nate Williams)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux
Date: 11 Mar 1994 18:36:07 GMT
Organization: Montana State University, Bozeman  MT
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <2lqdmn$153@pdq.coe.montana.edu>
References: <1994Mar8.141900.2906@wubios.wustl.edu> 
<ARNEJ.94Mar9134803@supernova.pvv.unit.no> <1994Mar10.120646.14144@swan.pyr> 
<DHOLLAND.94Mar10205415@husc7.harvard.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bsd.coe.montana.edu

In article <DHOLLAND.94Mar10205...@husc7.harvard.edu>,
David Holland <dholl...@husc7.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>iii...@swan.pyr's message of Thu, 10 Mar 1994 12:06:46 GMT said:
>
> > Linux networking is more powerful but less stable in some areas.
> > Anyway you [*BSD] have a 15 year advantage.. and compatibility by
> > default.
>
>Don't forget that a 15 year advantage also means 15 years of
>accumulated cruft.

*WRONG*

>NetBSD (and the other 386 BSDs) require more system
>than Linux does.

*WRONG*

With the current shlib implementation, the system requirements for
FreeBSD are the same or less as those of Linux.  However, the
installation process for Linux is such that it's easier to install
'pieces and parts' of the system as separate units rather than the
'whole shooting match' that the FreeBSD install does.  This will be
dealt with in the future, but at this point in time it's not possible
to install FreeBSD with as little disk space as Linux.  

However, don't confuse install problems with system requirements.


Nate
-- 
n...@bsd.coe.montana.edu     |  FreeBSD core member and all around tech.
n...@cs.montana.edu          |  weenie.
work #: (406) 994-4836       |  Graduating May '94 with a BS in EE 
home #: (406) 586-0579       |  - looking for work in CS/EE field.

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!
elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!netcomsv!netcomsv!zygot!dlb!megatest!albrecht
From: albre...@megatest.com (Dave Albrecht)
Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux
Message-ID: <CMJ38u.H1r@megatest.com>
Organization: Megatest Corporation
References: <michaelv.763141055@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 01:45:07 GMT
Lines: 17

From article <michaelv.763141...@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu>, 
by micha...@iastate.edu (Michael L. VanLoon):
> In <1994Mar8.141900.2...@wubios.wustl.edu> da...@wubios.wustl.edu 
(David J Camp) writes:
> 
>>What are the relative merits of NetBSD vs. Linux?  Is either
>>technically superior?  I suppose BSD is more portable.  How difficult
>>is would it be to port the Linux utilities to BSD?  -David-
> 
One factor which is vastly in favor of Linux (IMHO) which may or may not
be of interest to you is that there are a raft of people producing CDROMs
of the latest version of Linux, some to the extent of
releasing quarterly updates for very reasonable prices.  Having to download
10s of megabytes to a PC across a 14.4 modem isn't alot of fun.  I would like
to try Netbsd but have yet to hear of or see a single CDROM with the 0.9 release
on it.  I have read of a CDROM that has the latest FreeBSD on it so I might have
to settle for that even though I'd rather try NetBSD.

David Albrecht

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!yale!gumby!wupost!
math.ohio-state.edu!cyber2.cyberstore.ca!nwnexus!ole!rwing!eskimo!buddy
From: bu...@eskimo.com (Steven Horn)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux
Message-ID: <CMK8E9.EM5@eskimo.com>
Date: 12 Mar 94 16:27:36 GMT
References: <1994Mar8.141900.2906@wubios.wustl.edu> 
<2lk1jm$aor@simpson-01.cs.strath.ac.uk>
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
Lines: 10

gpal...@cs.strath.ac.uk (Gary J Palmer C.S.3) writes:


>*BSD : Lots of easily available C progs to compile & run easily.
>       Bigger kernel, so more memory needed.

>Linux: Pain to get some (most?) BSD progs to work.
>       Smaller kernel, can run comfortably in 4Mb's.

How much memory do you recommend to run *BSD??

Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!
news.kei.com!MathWorks.Com!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet
From: John Dyson <dys...@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 94 11:47:24 -0500
Organization: Delphi (i...@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <5o9twmM.dysonj@delphi.com>
References: <michaelv.763141055@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu> 
<CMJ38u.H1r@megatest.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bos1f.delphi.com
X-To: Dave Albrecht <albre...@megatest.com>

Dave Albrecht <albre...@megatest.com> writes:
 
>on it.  I have read of a CDROM that has the latest FreeBSD on it so I might have
>to settle for that even though I'd rather try NetBSD.
 
Oh come on :-).  FreeBSD has some optimizations that are being put in
place that really help it on *86 architectures.  After these optimizations
get completed -- then we are going to start adding features.  I am currently
using FreeBSD in embedded applications and in timesharing applications.  We
just in -current have improved process startup of in-memory segments by
6 times (and originally startup was faster than 386BSD.)  The FreeBSD
people are actually very easy to get along with -- and there is not
elitism.  FreeBSD in on incarnation or another is going to be around for
at least a couple of years (I cannot look ahead farther than that.)  We are
actually improving the technology base of *BSD (we cannot concentrate
on features, since our group is fairly small.)  At least two of us are
actually working *almost* full time on it, and major bugs are usually
fixed within a week or faster (once we are informed.)  Patches that users
come up with are *gladly* accepted, we really look at them.  The advantages
of FreeBSD include:
 
	1) Real VM speedups (many argue this who haven't tried it.)
	2) Easy to get along with people (actually friendly.)
	3) Improved paging algorithm (the old pager basically randomly
	   swapped out pages :-)).
	4) More efficient memory use by paging more of the process (Old
	   versions of *BSD left about 5 pages of a process memory (20K)).
	   If you have say, 20 processes -- 400K can be wasted under
	   swapping conditions!!!!
 
	6) Numerous other kernel improvements.
	7) We have no secret kernel source tree (other than development
	   sources on local machines.) You and others can see exactly
	   what we are doing.
	8) I personally elicit public open discussion of future changes
	   and kernel (VM oriented) enhancements.
 
I even accept phone calls anytime and am usually helpful (others on the
team are like that too...
(317)547-8347
 
John
dy...@implode.root.com

Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!
news.delphi.com!usenet
From: John Dyson <dys...@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 94 12:58:01 -0500
Organization: Delphi (i...@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <hi2v4OZ.dysonj@delphi.com>
References: <1994Mar8.141900.2906@wubios.wustl.edu> 
<2lk1jm$aor@simpson-01.cs.strath.ac.uk> <CMK8E9.EM5@eskimo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: delphi.com
X-To: Steven Horn <bu...@eskimo.com>

Steven Horn <bu...@eskimo.com> writes:
 
>How much memory do you recommend to run *BSD??
 
For FreeBSD (this is NOT the official line, but my opinion) you
should have at least 4MB of ram.  System performance is not ideal
especially if you are compiling things, but it works.  X is sluggish, but
usable if you do not start up many clients at once.  At 8MB X becomes
relatively useable (actually below my threshold of pain) and compiles
become reasonably quick (especially because you can start using MFS
to advantage.)  During makes at 8MB the object page cache is effective
and the system does not have to reload the memory segments for proceses
so often.  At 16MB for a single user (and if your load is similar to
my development machine) you are in the area of diminishing returns, but
when using X, the more memory the better.  FreeBSD will page stuff out
to the paging files before the system appears to really need memory --
so don't let that bother you -- pages in the system that are used whether
they are currently active or not do get priority over pages that have not
been used for a long time.
 
It *is* possible to build and configure a kernel to run in 2MB as well as
can be expected... But no caching of any kind is effective and paging
and swapping will be the norm.  I have brought X up in 2MB, but it is not
usable in my opinion.
 
John
dy...@implode.root.com

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!
kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!husc.harvard.edu!scunix2!dholland
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux
Message-ID: <DHOLLAND.94Mar13163925@husc7.harvard.edu>
From: dholl...@husc7.harvard.edu (David Holland)
Date: 13 Mar 94 16:39:25
References: <1994Mar8.141900.2906@wubios.wustl.edu>
<ARNEJ.94Mar9134803@supernova.pvv.unit.
 no><1994Mar10.120646.14144@swan.pyr><DHOLLAND.94Mar10205415@husc7.harvard.edu>
<2lqdmn$153@pdq.coe.montana.edu>
Organization: noitazinagro
NNTP-Posting-Host: husc7.harvard.edu
Lines: 36


n...@bsd.coe.montana.edu's message of 11 Mar 1994 18:36:07 GMT said:

 > >Don't forget that a 15 year advantage also means 15 years of
 > >accumulated cruft.
 > 
 > *WRONG*

Yes, it does. The Ultrix kernel (for example) has all sorts of cruft
in it associated with supporting obsolete terminal hardware and stuff
like that. Just for example. Are you going to convince me that BSD
doesn't suffer from the same sorts of problems? Re(?)-read _The
Mythical Man-Month_. All large systems eventually end up with lots of
unnecessary junk.

 > >NetBSD (and the other 386 BSDs) require more system
 > >than Linux does.
 > 
 > *WRONG*
 >
 > [some stuff about disk space deleted]

Disk space isn't the issue. When I went looking around last summer, I
was told/found out from FAQs that Linux ran quite happily on a 386SX
with 4 megs of RAM, whereas *BSD didn't. Considering that I *have* a
386SX with 4 megs of RAM, this was an important issue.

Maybe I got wrong information; in that case somebody ought to fix up
the BSD FAQs.

--
   - David A. Holland          | "The right to be heard does not automatically
     dholl...@husc.harvard.edu |  include the right to be taken seriously."
   -  -         -         -       -         -  -    -     -        -
 This message shall NOT be quoted or copied out of the electronic medium
 in which it originated without explicit permission from the author. 

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet
From: John Dyson <dys...@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 94 20:00:03 -0500
Organization: Delphi (i...@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <he4OwCb.dysonj@delphi.com>
References: <1994Mar8.141900.2906@wubios.wustl.edu>
<ARNEJ.94Mar9134803@supernova.pvv.unit. <DHOLLAND.94Mar13163925@husc7.harvard.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bos1c.delphi.com
X-To: David Holland <dholl...@husc7.harvard.edu>

David Holland <dholl...@husc7.harvard.edu> writes:
 
>Disk space isn't the issue. When I went looking around last summer, I
>was told/found out from FAQs that Linux ran quite happily on a 386SX
>with 4 megs of RAM, whereas *BSD didn't. Considering that I *have* a
>386SX with 4 megs of RAM, this was an important issue.
 
*BSD had problems mostly due to bugs than anything else.  Even without
*true* swapping *BSD should run nicely in 4MB.  I would suggest running
X in 8MB though.  Also GCC2 is more memory hungry than GCC1, so if you
are running on a 4MB system, it can be advantageous to build and use GCC1.
Structurally  limitations do start creeping in on less than 4MB, but
some people have run *BSD in 2MB (I have heard even less????).
 
John Dyson
dy...@implode.root.com

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!
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)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux
Date: 14 Mar 94 18:23:33 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <michaelv.763669413@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu>
References: <1994Mar8.141900.2906@wubios.wustl.edu> 
<2lk1jm$aor@simpson-01.cs.strath.ac.uk> <CMK8E9.EM5@eskimo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ponderous.cc.iastate.edu

In <CMK8E9....@eskimo.com> bu...@eskimo.com (Steven Horn) writes:

>gpal...@cs.strath.ac.uk (Gary J Palmer C.S.3) writes:

>>*BSD : Lots of easily available C progs to compile & run easily.
>>       Bigger kernel, so more memory needed.

Untrue.  You can trim as much out of the system as you want.  Trim
enough and it will even resemble Linux. :-)

>>Linux: Pain to get some (most?) BSD progs to work.
>>       Smaller kernel, can run comfortably in 4Mb's.

>How much memory do you recommend to run *BSD??

I started with 5 meg in my NetBSD-current system.  I currently have 10
meg.  Although I'd like to have more, my system runs pleasantly with X
most of the time.  Huge compiles can cause a bit of swapping when
chaning areas of the virtual desktop under tvtwm, but nothing
massively unpleasant.

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 Michael L. VanLoon                 Iowa State University Computation Center
    micha...@iastate.edu                    Project Vincent Systems Staff
  Free your mind and your machine -- NetBSD free Unix for PC/Mac/Amiga/etc.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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!
news.belwue.de!zib-berlin.de!netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!
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.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux
Date: 14 Mar 94 18:38:33 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <michaelv.763670313@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu>
References: <1994Mar8.141900.2906@wubios.wustl.edu>
<ARNEJ.94Mar9134803@supernova.pvv.unit.  no><1994Mar10.120646.14144@swan.pyr>
<DHOLLAND.94Mar10205415@husc7.harvard.edu><2lqdmn$153@pdq.coe.montana.edu> 
<DHOLLAND.94Mar13163925@husc7.harvard.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ponderous.cc.iastate.edu

In <DHOLLAND.94Mar13163...@husc7.harvard.edu> dholl...@husc7.harvard.edu 
(David Holland) writes:


>n...@bsd.coe.montana.edu's message of 11 Mar 1994 18:36:07 GMT said:

> > >Don't forget that a 15 year advantage also means 15 years of
> > >accumulated cruft.
> > 
> > *WRONG*

>Yes, it does. The Ultrix kernel (for example) has all sorts of cruft
>in it associated with supporting obsolete terminal hardware and stuff
>like that. Just for example. Are you going to convince me that BSD
>doesn't suffer from the same sorts of problems? Re(?)-read _The
>Mythical Man-Month_. All large systems eventually end up with lots of
>unnecessary junk.

NetBSD is *not* Ultrix.  While I like Ultrix, it is still heavily
4.2BSD based with extensions to make it 4.3ish.  DEC is not interested
in spending lots of man-hours making it a sleek modern Unix since it
has essentially reached its last version.  Because DEC has no interest
in updating Ultrix has absolutely zero relevance to the quality of
code in NetBSD.

NetBSD has had most of the cruft gutted and has been carfully
realigned with 4.3BSD and BNR2.  (The original 386BSD code was very
crufty, but NetBSD has very little of that code left.)  NetBSD is
currently about half way between 4.3BSD and 4.4.  As soon as 4.4BSD-
lite hits the streets, I'm sure the rest of it will be assimilated as
quickly as possible.

I do not speak for the core team of NetBSD developers.  These are
merely "facts" I've picked up over time as a NetBSD consumer and
contributor.  Corrections to my statements gladly accepted.


-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 Michael L. VanLoon                 Iowa State University Computation Center
    micha...@iastate.edu                    Project Vincent Systems Staff
  Free your mind and your machine -- NetBSD free Unix for PC/Mac/Amiga/etc.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

			        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/