Slashdot Mirror

Your criteria is "small, fast, and compatible" not to mention "freely hacked"

Yet BSD is a BETTER choice based on your criteria.
Small - PicoBSD is a fully functioning Unix OS on a floppy.
Fast - BSD on benchmarks runs FASTER than linux. 10-30% faster.
Compatible - The result of the X86Open group (creation of a common binary format for X86 unixes) was a Linux ELF format. Thusly products like FreeBSD can run Linux binaries. And, FreeBSD can run Quake III linux binaries FASTER than Linux does. And, it is well known and accepted that NetBSD is ported to more platforms.

And, "freely hackable", the BSD license allows the user of the code to commericalize their product without the worry of having to release the IP the company uses in the product. The code is MUCH more free to do what a human wants to than other licenses.

Looking at 2 'linux' projects that are willing to admit they used the pioneering work of NetBSD are the dreamcast port (acknolodge the boot code is NetBSD inspired) and Linux on WinCE

Linux may 'work well', but in the world of computer code, the BSD tree is BETTER!

My understanding was that the Dreamcast had a proprietary "GD-ROM" drive that has a capacity of 1Mb or so I asked Is this being used a the boot device for NetBSD?

So I dug around, it looks like the DC is actually capable of booting off a standard ISO-9660 CD-ROM.

Interesting? I thought so... Here are some really interesting links on Dreamcast Software Programming and Hardware programming.

It's incredible what's going on. What else has been ported to the DC?

I think NetBSD's package system works on Linux... (and Solaris too). The non-NetBSD support isn't well-documented though, and I haven't tried it myself... Take a look at the messages in this thread if you're interested.

I think NetBSD's package system works on Linux... (and Solaris too). The non-NetBSD support isn't well-documented though, and I haven't tried it myself... Take a look at the messages in this thread if you're interested.

I think NetBSD's package system works on Linux... (and Solaris too). The non-NetBSD support isn't well-documented though, and I haven't tried it myself... Take a look at the messages in this thread if you're interested.

No, I was not joking. It was an eaiser link than this web interface to the CVS logs.

But, be my guest. Download the CVS of the BSD tree and look through the code. Or go to http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ and look for yourself.

Or to NetBSD and see the one change by Mr. Sanchez. do a search for wsanchez

The choice of link does not change the fact that Apple HAS contributed back to BSD.

Looking at this Excellent Summary Page over at NetBSD's home, it looks like you're still out of luck.

Nearly anything will run NetBSD, though.

-Daniel

Jim said:
I'm pretty sure BSD does not.

You would be wrong.

FreeBSD

NetBSD

BSD/OS

OpenBSD does not. But don't perpetuate the falsehood that all BSD does not.

Tested operating systems include FreeDOS beta 4, MS-DOS 6.22, Red Hat 6 Linux and NetBSD 1.5, stay tuned for more to come. Instead of doing full CPU instruction emulation, Plex86 runs native i386 code at full CPU speed, and only intercepts the code for system calls into the host platform as well as instructions that modify the machine state like trap or IO operations. Simply speaking, it is an open source version VMWare.

See the NetBSD site for more information!

- Hubert

plex was ported to NetBSD, see the netbsd site. Might help in porting. ;)

- Hubert

If you're scared of spamming and mail bombing, stay off the internet. Frankly, any good admin worth his salt would want to see how his boxes stand up under such a load, rather than be a big weenie and run away from a fight.

So what I read is: Theo threatened to mailbomb, and didn't? Link to mail thread

Just bizarre. Frankly there are a lot of high horses out there. OpenBSD is a good system. I'm not a big fan of BSD, but I encourage people to use OpenBSD just to try it and learn. (I did run it for a while on a sparc and it ran better than linux on that box.)

Every OS has it's place. OpenBSD is just canadian and has balls (big encrypted balls.) It's neat and it ships with things like ssh out of the box.

I'm just very depressed lately (lately being a long time now) of hate-mailers and winers on slashdot--- the people who write the software (free) that we use (quality) often don't get the respect they deserve.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

Those who do not familiar with Mr. Theo de Raadt's usual action about BSDs should know the following history about the mail filtering.

• not only NetBSD, but also FreeBSD maintain such filtering.
• the reason why the filtering exists is that Mr. de Raadt made threat that he will send mail bomb, and he never retract that. You can confirm this by mailing list archive of FreeBSD or NetBSD.
• NetBSD doesn't maintain a black-hole route to the OpenBSD project networks, but did make a black-hole route to Mr. de Raadt's network. Other OpenBSD developer should not have problem, and there are many developers who have both OpenBSD and NetBSD developers' account. For example, one of NetBSD's core member is a OpenBSD's developer.

This issue is once raised by a OpenBSD developer in DaemonNews forum which has neutral position between FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD, and its conclusion is that the forum should never have posted the topic. I don't know why Mr. de Raadt mentioned this filtering again in slashdot. Perhaps He'd like to show that he is still ready to post mail bomb to FreeBSD/NetBSD mailing list?

I'd love to have Open's level of security, but it won't run on my older Mac clone (PowerBase 240) and its 3rd party USB card. Guess I'll try NetBSD instead. Net runs on pretty much anything made after the last Toaster Mac.

The screenshots show a single user boot. NetBSD first booted single user on the Dreamcast October 17th this year.

Look at this mail

Not true, NetBSD had a single user shell on the dreamcast in October.

this pisses me off as a BSD supporter. NetBSD is supposta be the number #1 ported OS, and here we have linux working on dreamcast before NetBSD?

fudge.

just makes me made.

Once The NetBSD Project finishes its Sega Dreamcast Port, and you can upgrade the modem in the Dreamcast to a network card, there will be no reason that you cannot use a dreamcast as a server (as far as I know). They are cheap (relative to the price of a computer) and the wow-factor of running a server off of a Dreamcast is way up there. Of course, network cards may never actually come and the full NetBSD port may never actually come, but I'd love to see this if it ever becomes possible.

-----

I'm afraid I just don't see why there is such a flurry of discussion to the effect that OS-X will somehow "vitalize" the usage and understanding of the BSDs. From what I hear, MacOS-X represents a "pretty light" variation on BSD, combined with a horde of MacOS-oriented graphical tools.

As such, it decidedly won't come with the hordes of CLI and console tools you'd expect to see in the typical NetBSD / FreeBSD / OpenBSD installation.

I would think it a whole lot more economical, and likely more of a "Unix-oriented" learning experience, to head to CheapBytes and order CD sets for all three of the "free" BSD variations for IA-32, perhaps along with some of the O'Reilly BSD documentation. That'll cost a whole lot less than a G3 PowerMac, nay, that, including a wall-full of documentation, might well cost less than merely getting the MacOS-X license.

I try to get them to try NetBSD, which has one (series of) kernel, one core SW install distribution, one package system (which beats Red Hat's all to hell, but could take a couple of lessons from Debian's if what I've read is accurate), runs on almost anything, is supposed to be able to run Linux binaries (I've never tried), and other Good Things (TM). It's far less overwhelming/daunting for a newbie than the Linux menagerie. I think that the one major technical point holding it back is the install; it's not pretty from any angle...

If you have a newer (read: iMac or G4 series) PowerPC Mac, you can run OpenBSD/powerpc. For any other PPC system, try NetBSD/macppc. If you're running a 680x0 version Mac, see OpenBSD/mac68k or NetBSD/Mac68k. To compare with a linux distro for mac, try Yellow Dog Linux, Linuxppc.org, mlinux, or Linux/m68k. I believe Debian runs on macs, too.

Personally, my experience with linux was not so great (I used redhate 5.2 and 6.0 neither of which was very stable or powerful) so I would recommend BSD which is both (not to mention secure as all hell if your machine supports OpenBSD). Perhaps I will give Linux another go when I get another box to put it on. Honestly, it doesn't really matter, as long as you are committed to using a free Unix-like OS and are willing to put in the time to learn the OS, pretty much any BSD or linux will do. Just find what agrees with you most and what is best for your tasks.

-----

If you have a newer (read: iMac or G4 series) PowerPC Mac, you can run OpenBSD/powerpc. For any other PPC system, try NetBSD/macppc. If you're running a 680x0 version Mac, see OpenBSD/mac68k or NetBSD/Mac68k. To compare with a linux distro for mac, try Yellow Dog Linux, Linuxppc.org, mlinux, or Linux/m68k. I believe Debian runs on macs, too.

Personally, my experience with linux was not so great (I used redhate 5.2 and 6.0 neither of which was very stable or powerful) so I would recommend BSD which is both (not to mention secure as all hell if your machine supports OpenBSD). Perhaps I will give Linux another go when I get another box to put it on. Honestly, it doesn't really matter, as long as you are committed to using a free Unix-like OS and are willing to put in the time to learn the OS, pretty much any BSD or linux will do. Just find what agrees with you most and what is best for your tasks.

-----

... ULTRIX hardware?

ULTRIX ran on various VAXen and on the MIPS-based DECstations. Most models of both are well supported by NetBSD: VAX, MIPS. Most ULTRIX binaries can be run under NetBSD.

There was also ULTRIX-11 for the PDP-11, but you're almost certainly not thinking of that.

... ULTRIX hardware?

ULTRIX ran on various VAXen and on the MIPS-based DECstations. Most models of both are well supported by NetBSD: VAX, MIPS. Most ULTRIX binaries can be run under NetBSD.

There was also ULTRIX-11 for the PDP-11, but you're almost certainly not thinking of that.

... ULTRIX hardware?

ULTRIX ran on various VAXen and on the MIPS-based DECstations. Most models of both are well supported by NetBSD: VAX, MIPS. Most ULTRIX binaries can be run under NetBSD.

There was also ULTRIX-11 for the PDP-11, but you're almost certainly not thinking of that.

OpenBSD for Mac68K
NetBSD for Mac68K

I can't vouch for either of these on PPC. I use Linux on those boxes.

-B...

as their motto - "of course it runs NetBSD" - implies, you can run a non OS X BSD on your mac: NetBSD. if you have a G3 or better, and can run OS X, i'd recommend Darwin, if only because it needs the user base and the bug reporting/developing effort right now.

the fully righteous NetBSD will run on most macs, and will give you a better experience in most cases than even LinuxPPC, simply because of the parity between the releases / ports. netbsd/macPPC already runs on the G4 cube (as of the beta of 1.5) and just about everything back to the first PCI powermacs. silly nubus architecture...

i even have netbsd/mac68k (formerly macBSD) running on an LCii, which has given the little bugger a whole new lease on life.

http://www.netbsd.org

it runs on pretty much evrything from amiga to VAXes.

Laurent

Check this out, its NetBSD's Dreamcast port. "Of course it runs NetBSD".


You're tired of Slashdot ads? Get junkbuster now!

• Free Software Foundation
• OpenBSD
• Apache
• NetBSD
• PostgreSQL
• SAMBA
• FreeBSD
• LinuxFund.org
• KPFK radio

Looks like it supports 'em to me... arm32 and arm26. NetBSD was the OS that ran on DEC's DNARD network appliance thing.

Looks like it supports 'em to me... arm32 and arm26. NetBSD was the OS that ran on DEC's DNARD network appliance thing.

Well, maybe "hack to death" has negative connotations, but FreeBSD's VM is most certainly based on Mach VM. It's a heavily modified version of the 4.4BSD VM system, which was based on Mach's.

And since UCB has *not* been merged yet, as you confirmed, it seems I'm still up to date with my info.

Sure it has.

Obviously it depends on your personal preferences, but you could try:

the FSF: donate here
KDE: contacts here

other projects as you use them; e.g., netbsd, openbsd, Apache, XFree86.

Or just donate computers to Africa or somewhere.

See http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/sparc/& lt;P> I have it running on these SPARCStations in my personal collection:

• SLC
• ELC
• IPX
• Classic X
• LX
• 4

Jason Thorpe has committed an OpenSSH-based Secure Shell to the main NetBSD sources. This will be pulled into the netbsd-1-5 branch, so it will be available in NetBSD 1.5.

Please note that the OpenSSH-based implementation is a temporary measure; it will be replaced with a completely independent implementation as soon as that other implementation is ready (within the next couple of months it is hoped).

I have some doubts you /really/ have talked to the core of NetBSD or FreeBSD since I don't believe any [Net|Free]BSD-developer/core-member would have said such thing.

BTW: This text (written more than *seven* years ago to end the discussion about merging) sums it up, how it *really* was and still is: NetBSD-FreeBSD-merge > This is a sad state of affairs, and hurts BSD a lot. Could you tell us why? Where? When?

Personally I don't think *BSD can be compared to a distrubution of Linux. I think of Linux as a police force and *BSD as the FBI. *BSD is more stable, more professional, more rock hard kick ass. I picture Linux to be more slick, stable, personal and cool. There are three main BSDs, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD. As far as I know, FreeBSD seems to be focused on stability, and being robust. OpenBSD is focused on security. NetBSD seems to be focused on being a server and running on many platforms.

Take QNX RTP/4 for example. It can stay up and functional regardless of the situation, even through hardware installations. This is an assett for many uses; Nuclear Fuel monitoring, etc... Try that with a monolithic kernel.

OK, FreeBSD is also very portable, but it is also a monolythic kernel design, like LINUX. (is FreeBSD also available on Mainframes ??) But do not assume, that Mach3 gains the protability of FreeBSD !! At last, please only count real distributions not possible hacks !!

It's NetBSD! Not FreeBSD!

On the MainFrame issue... Show me any corporation that uses Linux on a mainframe (for actual work), and I'll show you one poorly managed corporation. Anyway, to answer your question, NetBSD isn't available on a mainframe, but is Linux available (functionaly) on a VAX?

---------------------------
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
--Voltaire

Do you even know what a microkernel is? The very essence of the design is that it incorporates the smallest amount of stuff into kernel space as possible, and still maintains functionality. An ultra-small kernel is *not* indicative of resource hogging, an ultra-large monolithic kernel (like Linux) *is*.

Last not least, the most portable OS is Linux. Hard to say, but this is the reality, and last not least it is faster.

Complete and utter bullshit, just like everything else you've said up to this point. Have you ever heard of NetBSD sir?

Nobody takes profit from the "adavantages" of the microkernel architecture, because erverybody uses a SVR4 or a BSD personality. The Mach seems only to be designed, to emulate off the self environments, thats not an advantage !!!

Everybody? I've never heard of any law or decree that states that you must incorporate a UNIX layer atop of a microkernel foundation, have you? See, there's this OS called QNX RTP/4 that doesn't actually do this, and is pretty much heralded as a microkernel done right.

---------------------------
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
--Voltaire

I don't subscribe to the notion that these are in opposition to one another. That OpenBSD is not always the answer is very true. But all good things have their purposes. In fact, I use them both in my segmented, handy-man-special, home network:

OpenBSD for Mac68K (all these were bought for a pittance on eBay):
2 Quadra 700s: transparent firewall (ipf) and 3-legged NAT (ipnat)
Quadra 610: mail server (qmail)
Centris 610 (w/68040): dns server (djbdns)

LinuxPPC: (Bastille'd by using the Sparc trick on the FAQ)
2 7300s: apache and MySQL (soon to be PostgreSQL?)
9500/G3: mol / streaming with videod, icecast (Better choices are welcome.)
Pismo PowerBook: dual boot

I haven't had as many years using Linux (only 2) as you have. And aside from that my computer experience amounts to a few mid-'80s semesters of VAXen and the entire life of the Mac platform -- and around 4 months of NetBSD and OpenBSD. But I have to say it (adding BSD to the mix) hasn't been that hard at all. There are many similarities with Linux. Much of your current knowledge will transfer. For anyone who has learned guitar and then tried bass, or ukulele, you've experienced this before.

-B...

FreeBSD doesn't have a sparc port yet. (in progress though) Perhaps you're thinking of NetBSD/sparc64 instead. Note that this is still a work in progress. Regardless, with the "soft dependencies" support under NetBSD, the small files issue is resolved, without needing to run the filesystem in async mode.

Have you considered the "cachefs" support in Solaris? I'm not really familiar with it, but I've seen references to using it for something like this.

Try NetBSD on your sparc 2... I believe there's an MMU issue with the sun4c architecture that results in netbsd running much faster than linux on machines of this class. It's true, too... I run NetBSD on my sparc 2 and it's almost usably fast on the ol' 40 mhz beast.

Well, he said NetBSD or FreeBSD. NetBSD works on just about all PowerMacs less than 5 years old, and almost every 68K Mac with a 68020+PMMU or higher.

Well, he said NetBSD or FreeBSD. NetBSD works on just about all PowerMacs less than 5 years old, and almost every 68K Mac with a 68020+PMMU or higher.

One only needs a BSD

From our great friends and minds at NetBSD -- www.netbsd.org/Ports/hpcmips/

One only needs a BSD

From our great friends and minds at NetBSD -- www.netbsd.org/Ports/hpcmips/

The TS1000 computer has 2K of random access memory built into it. (The ZX81 has just 1K.) The Sinclair 16K RAM Pack will increase your computer's memory capacity to 16K so that you can load and run all of the most popular software titles. This 16K RAM can also be used to extend the TS1500's built-in 16K RAM to 32K.

Now hiring experienced client- & server-side developers

So what? Debian may support it but the kernel is still sloppy on the SPARC. Go look at the MMU code. NetBSD runs on over 20 architectures, so whats your point? The distro wars are lame son.

Whats especially sad is that those machines where in a closet. "Since 2000/05/11, MCA support is part of NetBSD tree" http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/i386/ps2.html

Those machines would kick ass on what I used learning TurboPascal and TurboC++ (an original HP Vectra = 12 Mhz 80286).