Slashdot Mirror


NetBSD 1.6 Released

BSD Forums writes "The NetBSD Project is pleased to announce that release 1.6 of the NetBSD operating system is now available. NetBSD is widely known as the most portable operating system in the world. It currently supports fifty two different system architectures, all from a single source tree, and is always being ported to more. The NetBSD 1.6 release contains complete binary releases for thirty nine different system architectures. The thirteen remaining are not fully supported at this time and are thus not part of the binary distribution." hubertf adds some important notes: "Many of the FTP Mirrors are now carrying the NetBSD 1.6 distribution. Please try to use the NetBSD FTP Mirror Site closest to you. ... Czech, German, French, Japanese, Polish, Portugese , Russian, Spanish and Swedish language translations of the NetBSD 1.6 release announcement are available." The NetBSD packages collection now includes over 3000 pieces of software, including KDE3, OpenOffice and many more of the usual suspects.

42 of 199 comments (clear)

  1. Front page? by Dahan · · Score: 2

    Man, I was about to make a post (to the NetBSD foundation board election results story) wondering if 1.6 would make the front page or not... I guess it did, which is nice for a change.

    1. Re:Front page? by Dahan · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I was seeing a whole slew of Linux development kernel announcements on the front page (Linux 2.5.17 is out! Linux 2.5.18 is out! Linux 2.5.18-ac7 is out! Linux 2.5.18-ac7pl2 is out! Linux 2.5.18-ac7pl2r2.7182818 is out!), so I wanted to see if a NetBSD development kernel would make it to the front page. It didn't, of course.

  2. I r dumb :-/ by Zakabog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was just wondering, what's the difference between OpenBSD, FreeBSD and NetBSD? I have FreeBSD on one computer (just wanted to learn a new OS and I already have linux on a bunch of my computers). When I picked which BSD I wanted I just figured I'd go with FreeBSD since I hear about it alot. Now I'm beginning to wonder, what's the difference (really, I don't have a clue.) Sorry that this is a bit off topic I just don't want to be kicked from some #bsd channels for asking such a stupid question.

    1. Re:I r dumb :-/ by Arandir · · Score: 2

      I was just wondering, what's the difference between OpenBSD, FreeBSD and NetBSD?

      Why is this question posted every time a BSD story makes it to the front page? Inquiring minds want to know...

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    2. Re:I r dumb :-/ by KC7GR · · Score: 2

      No, you're not dumb. Just curious. Curious is a Good Thing.

      Although all the *BSD's are based on the same branch of the Unix tree (Berkeley Systems Design, as you may already know), the difference between NetBSD, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD is, at least to my eyes, in the orientation of the particular system involved.

      To clarify: NetBSD's orientation has always been to be runnable on as many different hardware architectures as possible, and to be a solid, general-purpose OS for servers and development. So, if your goal is to set up a free *nix OS on, say, a MicroVAX or older NEC RISC machine, NetBSD would be a good choice.

      FreeBSD has always been oriented towards the PC platform, hardware-wise, and also seems to be among the more user-friendly of the BSD family. If you're just starting out with BSD, and you don't want to learn the ins and outs of non-PC hardware, FreeBSD is a good choice that will grow with you as you gain (programming) skills.

      OpenBSD has always had one, single, simple focus: Security. Its aim is to be secure right out of the box. Default installations are locked down tight, port and service-wise, until you actually go in and enable what you want to enable. OpenBSD's other strength is that it is rapidly gaining on NetBSD where being able to run on many different hardware platforms is concerned.

      If you're setting up a machine to be a firewall/router, or a -very- secure server, OpenBSD will do the trick.

      Hope that helps. Keep the peace(es).

      --

      Bruce Lane, KC7GR,

      Blue Feather Technologies

  3. Re:bsd by Zakabog · · Score: 2, Informative

    Really? Linux 7.3? Did a wormhole open up somewhere in space and spit out a copy of Linux 7.3? Will people PLEASE stop reffering to Redhat (or mandrake, if there is a 7.3) 7.3 as "Linux 7.3"!!!! I'm in #linuxhelp on efnet alot, helping people, and it's driving me nuts that half the people think they have Linux .

    The kernel version is the version of Linux you have, 7.3 is your distro version, things like this make me hate redhat, sure it introduces people to linux but it's mostly the wrong people. Also, you don't seriously belive that because this number is 1.6 and you have redhat 7.3 that redhat 7.3 is newer, do you? I really hope you were joking but then again some people are trully clueless. Anyway, if you don't belive me get into a shell and type less /proc/version it should say something like Linux version 2.4.whatever. Dunno what redhat comes with.

  4. Re:bsd by alan_d_post · · Score: 3, Funny

    I believe you have been trolled . . . .

    It is time to take a deep breath, relax, and install NetBSD.

  5. Re:Have the init scripts been fixed yet? by flynn_nrg · · Score: 3, Informative

    Please, take your time to study how the NetBSD rc system works. It has all the advantages of sysV style init scritps, but none of the disadvantages. Let's say I install apache via the pkgsrc system. Now all I have to do is add apache=YES in my /etc/rc.conf file and the system will automagically start apache at boot time. Of course I can start or stop it manually should I have the need to do so with a simple /etc/rc.d/apache [start|stop]

    FWIW, FreeBSD 5.0 will feature this same system, Gordon Tetlow and others are working on a port of NetBSD's script system to FreeBSD.

  6. "Supported" systems by 00_NOP · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not wanting to start a religious war and all that... but although NetBSD lists the Dreamcast as supported. the support is pretty poor: no sound, no lightgun, no rumblepak, no mouse, no X windows, no vmu. All of these are supported in LinuxDC.

  7. Re:bsd by dattaway · · Score: 2

    But he does convey the biggest problem when people ask for help. They fail to realize unix systems are very modular and newbies give amazing detailed lists of irrelevant information. Like what does the kernel have to do with the mailing system?

  8. The 'real' easy answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    NetBSD is the one without any ported desktop applications

    OpenBSD is the one that can't do SMP.

    FreeBSD is the one Mac users and fags (usually one in the same) flock to.


    Heh. NetBSD actually has a surprising number of ports- or 'packages,' as they call both make skeletons for source builds and binary tarballs; I just installed NetBSD (and upgraded today, whee) for my own sick reasons, and was surprised to discover how much software was available; the 'pkgsrc' tree works not only on every NetBSD architecture, but Solaris and Darwin as well- rather surprising, coming from FreeBSD. It also has sane update/upgrade targets, something FreeBSD's only just copied with portupgrade.

    The nice thing is that NetBSD installs package files to /usr/pkg, or a configurable path (/usr/local/pkg would really make more sense), freeing up /usr/local/bin and the like for sysadmin tweaking. FreeBSD users will know what a mess /usr/local/bin becomes with a reasonable load of software, and how annoying it'd be to install a homebuilt binary there and forget about it.

    NetBSD also tends to attract features from all-comers, meaning it gets some nifty stuff- USB support, new filesystems, various RAID features first. It also means NetBSD users end up risking stability with these first. ;)

    As OpenBSD was forked from NetBSD, neither have SMP just yet. OpenBSD is "the one you install if you want a reasonable guarantee of security for the first hours of configuration." Now that all BSD distros have adopted some of the basic tenets of the OpenBSD mindset- turning off unnecessary services in the base install- it's less of an issue, but even with the recent OpenSSH holes, there's something to be said for the audited kernel and userland. OpenBSD is what you run on your router/NAT/VPN-service box, don't bother with it as a desktop unless you Need To Be L33t. (It does make a good learner's system, given its relative adherence to simplicity, but that's supposed to be NetBSD's department, and it probably would be less painful.)

    FreeBSD is 'the one everyone uses.' It's a descendent of 386BSD, the first post-AT&T-lawsuit project to take a stab at a free BSD distribution. (NetBSD followed shortly, and the release of new sources brought both to the same underpinnings.) Today, it's a mishmash of features from the other two, but while NetBSD's goal is "Run on Everything, Try out Everything," and OpenBSD's is "Secure by Default," FreeBSD tries (with varying success) to be a sort of stable and predictable platform for the average user. Given the 386BSD history, x86 has always been the platform of choice, and the kernel features some tweaks in that direction which the other BSDs may have missed. It's the One That Supports SMP, and The One That Will Support SMP Much Better with the upcoming release of 5.0.

    Each BSD works on a different development cycle, and each's kernel evolves with the distribution, rather than separately. NetBSD goes on a two-year cycle, if I understand correctly, with each release branch frozen immediately (barring security patches, which can occasionally inspire point releases, as seen with 1.5.1, 1.5.2, 1.5.3); OpenBSD sticks to a release every 6 months- 3.0 was just 'what happened after 2.9.' FreeBSD forks on major version numbers, running an evolving -STABLE branch (4.0, 4.1 .. 4.7, 4-STABLE) with features getting rolled back and forth between those trees and the development sources; major architectural changes are saved for version jumps, as seen in the huge improvements between 3.x and 4.x, and the introduction of KSE and SMPng for 5.x)

    Darwin is the bastard child maintained by Apple, using a Mach kernel, FreeBSD userland, NetBSD pkgsrc, and whatever else is deemed to best suit OS X. It's 'fun' for a certain class of developer, but the mention of Mach should prove it's best left to the insane. If you'd want Darwin, you may as well buy a Mac and enjoy the benefits of the Quartz graphics system.

    1. Re:The 'real' easy answer. by flynn_nrg · · Score: 2, Informative
      Blockquoth parent:
      As OpenBSD was forked from NetBSD, neither have SMP just yet.

      christine: {2} sysctl hw
      hw.machine = i386
      hw.model = Intel Pentium III (Katmai) (686-class)
      hw.ncpu = 2
      christine: {3} uname -srn
      NetBSD christine 1.6

    2. Re:The 'real' easy answer. by Fweeky · · Score: 3, Informative
      FreeBSD users will know what a mess /usr/local/bin becomes with a reasonable load of software, and how annoying it'd be to install a homebuilt binary there and forget about it.

      echo "LOCALBASE = /usr/pkg" >>/etc/make.conf

      Just be prepared to uncover the odd LOCALBASE cleanliness bug.
    3. Re:The 'real' easy answer. by jschauma · · Score: 2

      the 'pkgsrc' tree works not only on every NetBSD architecture, but Solaris and Darwin as well

      pkgsrc also works beautifully on Linux, making it possible to break package-manager-hell for those who must run linux. Shweet.
      --

      -- "Tradition is the illusion of permanence."
  9. It's spelled PORTUGUESE! by eggstasy · · Score: 2, Informative

    I am one, and I hate seeing that mistake over and over again. If you can, please correct that.
    Thank you.

    1. Re:It's spelled PORTUGUESE! by hubertf · · Score: 2

      Fixed! :)
      (The change will be on the web site within an hour)

      - Hubert

  10. lost in the noise by g4dget · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The *BSD kernels may be a little more reliable and simple, and the Linux kernel may support more drivers, but it seems to me the differences are pretty much lost in the noise.

    I think Jobs had the right idea when he picked Mach as the basis for NeXTStep: he wanted a kernel that looked like UNIX from the outside but that was much more componentized than the UNIX kernels of the time, or BSD/Linux today. I don't know whether Mach/Darwin is the best choice for that, but in general, I think it's where open source needs to go.

    After all, we don't recompile Bash or dynamically load libraries into Bash every time someone comes out with a new command line program. We shouldn't have to do that either for a new file system type, networking protocol, or driver. And expending much time on a BSD/Linux rivalry isn't going to address such issues.

    1. Re:lost in the noise by g4dget · · Score: 3, Insightful
      No, but you could, if you needed it to be a shell builtin for performance or other reasons.

      Indeed. When I do need the performance, it would be nice to be able to load modules dynamically. But for something like IPsec, PPP, UFS, ISO9660, CMOS, etc., I don't need the performance; maybe you do on your big server, but I don't, on my little laptop. As for "other reasons", there shouldn't be any reason other than performance to load something dynamically.

      You still have to write and compile something - why not a kernel module?

      Because, empirically, kernel modules seem to end up being very dependent on kernel versions; if they weren't, distributions like Debian wouldn't ship with different collections of most kernel modules for each kernel, they would ship with one kernel module per package for each function/driver, without much of a notion of a "kernel version".

      Another reason is that one bug in one kernel modules brings down the whole thing. That's unnecessary and makes driver development a huge pain.

      Not that OS X is actually a microkernel OS!

      I made no claims about what it is or even whether it is a good architecture. What I claimed was that Jobs correctly identified a problem and tried to address it as best as possible with the software available at the time.

      And I think he actually succeeded much more than Linux did in this particular regard: kernel extensions on OS X work much better than on Linux.

      (Jobs also correctly identified the problem with C/C++ GUI toolkits and his solution, Objective-C with DisplayPostscript, probably also was the best technical compromise at the time, but I think that choice hasn't turned out as well as his choice for kernel--OpenStep and Cocoa ended up with most of the same problems as other GUI toolkits.)

    2. Re:lost in the noise by be-fan · · Score: 2

      Because, empirically, kernel modules seem to end up being very dependent on kernel versions; if they weren't, distributions like Debian wouldn't ship with different collections of most kernel modules for each kernel, they would ship with one kernel module per package for each function/driver, without much of a notion of a "kernel version".
      >>>>>>
      That's more attributable to the fact that Linus doesn't want to freeze the driver API rather than any fault of the design. BeOS (and Windows!) both use dynamically loaded drivers into kernel space, and they work just fine (Windows' other design weirdness aside).

      Another reason is that one bug in one kernel modules brings down the whole thing. That's unnecessary and makes driver development a huge pain.
      >>>>>>>>
      Umm, the same thing happens with most OSs. If it works for a 64-proc Solaris box, it sure as hell is good enough for my laptop! Given that OS X runs everything in kernel space, it isn't immune to this either.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    3. Re:lost in the noise by be-fan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, Darwin is about half as fast as Linux on the same hardware for basic kernel operations (mmap, open, etc). And its subsystems (especially the VM) aren't anything to brag about in comparison to their counterparts in FreeBSD and NetBSD.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    4. Re:lost in the noise by be-fan · · Score: 2

      1.3.7 I wouldn't expect newer versions to be dramatically faster, most of the changes (read the changelogs) occured in userspace (Quartz and whatnot).

      http://clustermonkey.org/~laz/pbook/rob.lmbench. tx t

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    5. Re:lost in the noise by g4dget · · Score: 2
      That's more attributable to the fact that Linus doesn't want to freeze the driver API rather than any fault of the design.

      If, after 10 years of hacking, it's not possible to provide a basic set of APIs for drivers, file systems, and other common kernel components, then the design is at fault. If not anything else, the Linux kernel could have two sets of APIs: stable and experimental. Other kernel architectures, involving message passing, RPC, or objects, also force people to think about this rather than keep changing things around haphazardly.

      Umm, the same thing happens with most OSs.

      I don't know what "most" means, but there are certainly many ways of avoiding that problem. For example, if you write the kernel in something other than assembly or C/C++, it gets much harder to crash the kernel accidentally. If you build a message passing kernel, you can transparently move drivers in and out of kernel address space, trading off performance and safety as needed. It's only monolithic kernels written in an unsafe language that are this sensitive.

      Don't get me wrong: Linux has been a reliable workhorse for many years, and the functionality in it is wonderful. But I think these issues are really becoming the biggest obstacle to its more widespread adoption and use on the desktop, and it's only going to get worse. If people don't seriously start thinking about addressing this now, some other kernel will take over in a few years, and that would mean more hassle for everybody. There are many ways of fixing it (see above), but first the patient has to admit that there is a problem, and I don't see that happening yet.

    6. Re:lost in the noise by be-fan · · Score: 2

      If, after 10 years of hacking, it's not possible to provide a basic set of APIs for drivers, file systems, and other common kernel components, then the design is at fault. If not anything else, the Linux kernel could have two sets of APIs: stable and experimental. Other kernel architectures, involving message passing, RPC, or objects, also force people to think about this rather than keep changing things around haphazardly.
      >>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;
      Before you go faulting the design of the kernel, I'd ask you, what do you know that everyone hacking on the kernel doesn't. Face it, hardware changes, the goals of the OS change. Even now, if the driver API were frozen, it might be (for example) unsuitable for the NUMA machines that Linux is trying to target. Keeping the driver API fluid allows developers to fix stuff as needed, instead of being a slave to backwards compatibility. One thing an open source kernel gains over a closed-source one is more freedom with interfaces. GCC can keep breaking binary compatibility (and hence keep improving the ABI) because people can just recompile their software. Closed source OSs can't do that, and there is no reason for Linux to try to emulate that undesireable behavior.
      Umm, the same thing happens with most OSs.

      I don't know what "most" means, but there are certainly many ways of avoiding that problem. For example, if you write the kernel in something other than assembly or C/C++,
      >>>>>>>>
      You've immediatly lost all credibility right there. In the real world, people don't use sissy languages like Scheme to do OS programming. Its ASM and C, live with it.

      it gets much harder to crash the kernel accidentally.
      >>>>
      And you lose all semblence of performance.

      If you build a message passing kernel, you can transparently move drivers in and out of kernel address space, trading off performance and safety as needed.
      >>>>>
      If you're drivers are bothering you that much, you've got a problem. I've used some pretty flaky drivers in the past (NVIDIA's early kernel drivers) and I have yet to crash the kernel due to a driver problem. This is a dead horse. People long ago figured out that existing architectures were just not designed for microkernel systems, and that the saftey of a message passing interface did not justify the overhead required to give drivers access to the hardware. Even OS-X realized this, and put the whole kernel back in kernel-space, and replaced messaging with procedure calls.

      It's only monolithic kernels written in an unsafe language that are this sensitive.
      >>>>>>>>>
      Which is basically all of them. And they are that way for a reason. Besides, the fact that you use the word monolithic identifies you as a throwback to the 1990's. There are no monolithic kernels anymore, they're all modular. They don't have the safety of microkernels, but have all the advantage of seperating out components, and that's always been the real win.

      Don't get me wrong: Linux has been a reliable workhorse for many years, and the functionality in it is wonderful. But I think these issues are really becoming the biggest obstacle to its more widespread adoption and use on the desktop, and it's only going to get worse.
      >>>>>>>>>
      People don't go, "I don't use Linux because its not a microkernel written in Scheme," people say "I don't use Linux because it doesn't have the software I need." I mean what problem exactly are you trying to solve? Instability? Come on, not even MS claims that Linux is unstable. How about ease of use? Nope. As long as you're using an easy distro like Redhat or Mandrake, driver updates are a simple urpmi kernel-2.4.XX away. These days, there is very little mainstream hardware not supported in the stock kernel. On my Inspiron 8200 laptop, for example, every single gadget I have, from my USB mouse to my Pocket PC to my QuickCam is supported in the stock kernel. There is simply no reason to install outside drivers. And because there is no reason to do that, it makes no sense to limit the kernel developers just so the 3 people that distribute seperate drivers can have a stable ABI.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    7. Re:lost in the noise by g4dget · · Score: 2
      Before you go faulting the design of the kernel, I'd ask you, what do you know that everyone hacking on the kernel doesn't. Face it, hardware changes, the goals of the OS change.

      Microsoft, Apple, Amiga, and BeOS manage to make it work. It's only Linux that, in practice, seems to require kernel recompilation for many installations and distributions.

      In the real world, people don't use sissy [...]

      Look, I'm speaking as a user. I don't care about your (mis-)conceptions about software engineering or systems programming, I'm not suggesting any specific solutions for Linux. I'm telling you: the Linux kernel is my biggest headache in maintaining Linux desktops and servers. All the other stuff is handled wonderfully by the standard packaging and configuration systems.

      On my Inspiron 8200 laptop, for example, every single gadget I have, [...]

      Yes, the rallying cry of a software developer who doesn't care about users: "I like the way it works". And that's fine. If the Linux kernel developers don't want to fix that, that's their choice, that's the way open source works. But if they want continue to see widespread usage by others, I predict they need to fix this, because a kernel without this deficiency (from the point of many users) will come along sooner or later.

      Example: IPsec. Not included in the standard kernel. In order to get it working, I'll have to patch, configure, and recompile kernels for half a dozen different machines. For handhelds running Linux, this will be even more of a chore.

      And because there is no reason to do that, it makes no sense to limit the kernel developers just so the 3 people that distribute seperate drivers can have a stable ABI.

      Yes, and that is one of the problems: rather than fixing the kernel, kernel developers just stick more and more drivers into the kernel source tree.

      People don't go, "I don't use Linux because its not a microkernel written in Scheme," people say "I don't use Linux because it doesn't have the software I need."

      I agree 100%. And the software they need that isn't working is the drivers and other kernel modules they need to get their hardware working and communicate with the rest of the world.

    8. Re:lost in the noise by be-fan · · Score: 2

      Example: IPsec. Not included in the standard kernel. In order to get it working, I'll have to patch, configure, and recompile kernels for half a dozen different machines. For handhelds running Linux, this will be even more of a chore.
      >>>>>>
      If you need IPsec, then you can certainly recompile your kernel. The thing is that external stuff like IPsec is entirely analagous to external stuff in Windows. For example, Windows prior to Win98 SE didn't come with any NAT capability. Installing an add-on like raspppoe took a good bit of work. IPsec isn't a part of the standard Linux installation. Thus, it is to be expected that installing it takes some extra work.

      Yes, and that is one of the problems: rather than fixing the kernel, kernel developers just stick more and more drivers into the kernel source tree.
      >>>>>>>>>>
      There is no problem to fix. If the kernel developers wanted a standard ABI, they could have done it long ago. But they didn't for a reason. PC hardware changes too quickly for that to be feasible. Look at Windows and how long it takes them to support advances to PC hardware. Why? Because they have to be very careful that any changes they make don't break old binary drivers. Both Linux and Windows were designed at a time when drivers needed to know nothing about power management or ACPI or hotplugging. Now, drivers need to know these things. To support this, Windows has all sorts of strange interfaces (writing Windows drivers is a lot harder than writing UNIX drivers. I/O request packets and whatnot are a bitch). Linux has had to break interfaces, but the end result is much cleaner and more managable. As for adding more drivers, that's a good thing. The more drivers that are in the standard tree, the more support there is for hardware out of box.

      I agree 100%. And the software they need that isn't working is the drivers and other kernel modules they need to get their hardware working and communicate with the rest of the world.
      >>>>>>>>>>
      Again, what hardware drivers are you talking about? If you're using a modern distribution, everything should be supported out of box. If it isn't, then consider it a piece of hardware that Linux doesn't support by default. Just as Windows doesn't support certain hardware out of box. Both take some work to get running.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    9. Re:lost in the noise by g4dget · · Score: 2
      If you need IPsec, then you can certainly recompile your kernel.

      So, you admit it, you just don't think it's a problem. Well, wake up and smell the coffee: for real-world installations, this is a problem. Both sys admins and users have better things to do than recompile kernels.

      If you're using a modern distribution,

      I'm using Debian and RedHat.

      everything should be supported out of box.

      Well, it isn't on the majority of machines that I have installed. It's things like ACPI, Mosix, audio cards, on-board networks, Bluetooth, FireWire, multimedia, USB devices, and file system types.

      Just as Windows doesn't support certain hardware out of box. Both take some work to get running.

      On Windows or MacOS, I can download a ready-made driver package and install it. On Linux, I should be able to do an "apt-get install bluetooth-drivers" or "apt-get install ipsec-kernel-module", and it should download a few hundred kilobytes at most, but no distribution has figured out how to make that work. And that's the problem.

  11. The Secret to BSD Trolls by dirtyhippie · · Score: 3, Funny

    I just figured it out!

    The Secret to BSD Trolls! ...Is that they are actually written by BSD users themselves, in an effort to keep lamoid linux users from making statements on their mailing lists like:

    - FreeBSD is my favorite linux distro!

    - How do I copy stuff under BSD? I tried clicking
    all over the place, but I don't see a cursor or
    anything.

    - I know the install was completely self
    explanatory and all, but I really prefer
    Mandrake/Redhat's GUI installation. Can you
    give me pointers on porting it? Oh yeah, I want
    that little penguin, errr, i mean daemon screen
    on boot too. Who needs kernel messages?

    - When I try to build a port, and it says
    checksum mismatch, how do I override it?

    - OpenBSD is elite. No one can hack me! Oh yeah.
    I also forgot my root password, can someone
    help? My IP is x.x.x.x...

    - I just installed NetBSD on my { insert old or
    obscure hardware here }, but I can't play Doom
    under an i386 emulator running linux emulation
    of wine. Why?

    - How will running "rm -rf /*" fix my problem
    again?

    Keep up the good work, guys! :-) Hope I'm not giving away your secret!

    Peace,
    DH

    Yeehaw! Time to lose some karma!

  12. Re:NotSoIgnorant question by danamania · · Score: 2

    As far as command line syntax - it's so similar you could go from linux to NetBSD for a look around the OS without blinking much - certainly less of a change than jumping from linux to say, a windows command prompt :).

    It's worth taking a peek at - I think that knowing two similar but different OS's fairly well is near as important as knowing one single one inside out.

    a grrl & her server

  13. Re:*BSD is dying by Gordonjcp · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's official; Netcraft confirms: "*BSD is dying" trolls are dying

    One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered "*BSD is dying" trolls community when IDC confirmed that "*BSD is dying" trolls market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that "*BSD is dying" trolls has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. "*BSD is dying" trolls are collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

    You don't need to be a Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict "*BSD is dying" trolls's future. The hand writing is on the wall: "*BSD is dying" trolls faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for "*BSD is dying" trolls because "*BSD is dying" trolls are dying. Things are looking very bad for "*BSD is dying" trolls. As many of us are already aware, "*BSD is dying" trolls continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

    All major surveys show that "*BSD is dying" trolls has steadily declined in market share. "*BSD is dying" trolls are very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If "*BSD is dying" trolls are to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. "*BSD is dying" trolls continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, "*BSD is dying" trolls are dead.

    Fact: "*BSD is dying" trolls are dying.

  14. Re:Easy answer by Ventilator · · Score: 2, Informative

    For Intels, FreeBSD is probably the best choice, speaking of performance.

    NetBSD is cool because it runs on almost anything with a decent CPU inside (Sparc, Toaster, Mower...) I plan on using it for my NAT/FW on an almost obsolete SparcStation 5 and for a SSH-only Mailmachine on an even obsoleter (but still cute) Sparc IPX.

    Speaking of OpenBSD I still believe that a reasonable admin can achieve as much a secure system with Free- and NetBSD or a Linux as he could with OpenBSD.

    Mostly, the choice is of your BSD is rather ideological than technical. As is with choosing a Linux Distribution. (For example, I quite like Slackware because of it's BSDish approach to Linux.)

    --
    --- If OS were buildings, then the first woodpecker to come around would erase 95 % of civilization.
  15. Re:Ponderances by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You can technically make a beowulf cluster out of anything that supports openssh that you can compile the pieces of your program for.

    A simple beowulf cluster is just a shell script that does some sshing to each client and compiling and running the job to be run, combine that with another trivial script to scp files over, and that's it.

    clusterrun.sh:
    ssh cluster@192.168.0.1 $1
    ssh cluster@192.168.0.2 $1 ...
    ssh cluster@192.168.0.n $1

    clustercopy.sh
    scp $1 cluster@192.168.0.1:$2
    scp $1 cluster@192.168.0.2:$2 ...
    scp $1 cluster@192.168.0.n:$2

    $ ./clustercopy.sh mysource.c '/home/cluster/work'
    $ ./clusterrun.sh 'gcc /home/cluster/work/mysource.c'
    $ ./clusterrun.sh '/home/cluster/work/a.out'

    Anyway, that's all there is to it.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  16. Learning about Unix. by saintlupus · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think that NetBSD is possibly the best system for a newbie who really _wants_ to learn Unix, if only because it's so bare-boned that you have to figure out the whole thing to get any work done.

    My first experience with it was on an old Quadra 700 Macintosh, which I installed NetBSD 1.4.something on to try and get used to using a command line. Outside of the sun boxen at the college I attended, I hadn't used a shell prompt before, but I wanted to figure out how to get things done before OS X came out.

    Well, NetBSD isn't what I'd call "user friendly," especially the installer for the Mac68k port. But I managed to figure it out, and by bothering the hell out of the local Linux and Solaris geeks, I managed to get everything up and running properly.

    By the time OS X came out, I wasn't prepared to give up the BSDs I've come to appreciate - so I've got a NetBSD box, one for OpenBSD, and one for FreeBSD on my network. They're all hand-configured to the purposes I need them for. And all that time meant that I have a much better grasp of how my systems fit together than any of the l33t haX0rs at work with their Mandrake installs and their deep fear of the command line.

    In short, if you want to learn a particular distros tools, install some flavor of Linux and use the administration stuff that comes with it. But if you want knowledge that bridges between Unix variants, give NetBSD a shot. You'll be pleasantly surprised.

    --saint

    1. Re:Learning about Unix. by dohcvtec · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Indeed, NetBSD is quite bare-boned, at least that's what I've noticed from the few installs I've done. Everyone says how bare-bones OpenBSD is, but it's actually quite full-featured compared to the other BSDs and Linux distributions. With OpenBSD, you really have a full-featured general-purpose server right out of the box (just edit rc.conf to suit) whereas NetBSD does require more in-depth configuration. But it's a great learning experience, and once you're done you know exactly what's on the machine and what it's doing. By the way, I find NetBSD to be a screamingly fast OS. Even more so than FreeBSD. Given the similarity among the BSDs, it's surprising that performance differences are so noticeable.

      --
      -- Never hit a man with glasses. Hit him with a baseball bat.
  17. Here are the differences... by Cadre · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I was just wondering, what's the difference between OpenBSD, FreeBSD and NetBSD?

    TedU recently posted in comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc the answer to this question:

    "What's the difference?" doesn't count as a specific question.

    FreeBSD has tcsh installed as /bin/csh. OpenBSD and NetBSD don't. NetBSD runs on a Cobalt Qube2. OpenBSD and FreeBSD don't. OpenBSD can encrypt swap. NetBSD and FreeBSD don't.

    I hope that explains the differences you were interested in.
    --
    All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
  18. Great, NetBSD is soo under-rated by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As restrictions come in to play for new hardware, ( drm, etc ) NetBSD will slowly begin to play a very important role keeping old 'unencumbered' hardware alive. ( and freedom ).

    Is it just me, or does all the BSD news around here get more then its share of idiot trolls?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  19. Re:*BSD is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've been wondering about the BSD trolls lately. I mean when you see a BSD article nowdays, the first post is always some non-value fp. Remember back when the BSD trolls always had like the first 6 or 7 posts? Not only that it seems like they just aren't trying anymore. Where whill Slashdot's heritage be when the BSD trolls are gone? Can you imagine a Slashdot without them? It's important that we assist these trolls in order to perserve all that is Slashdot. When a BSD troll posts, pat him on the head and tell him to believe whatever he wants (despite the evidence to the contrary). Save the trolls before it's too late!

  20. Re:Easy answer by mbadolato · · Score: 2

    How nice of you to make blanket statements of how BSD sucks and Linux is better, without providing one single point to support that!

    Just because you have an opinion, doesn't mean you're right.

  21. Re:Huh. by Dahan · · Score: 2

    Actually, SMP on i386 is still on a CVS branch--if you download the released 1.6, it'll only use one of the processors. However, 1.6 does support SMP on some architectures, such as alpha, vax, and sparc. And PowerMacs will have SMP support in the next release.

  22. Re:*BSD is dying by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2
    At least 3 people rated that funny. No wonder Bush got elected.


    And the best bit is... I'm British! Yep, you could quite happily vote some random British hacker to be President of the US, couldn't you? Let's face it, I could hardly make a worse job than the present incumbent...

  23. Re:*BSD is dying by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2

    Yep, probably. Give me a note of your email addy and I'll see if I can get you an application form.

  24. I have cooked a NetBSD breakfast by 198348726583297634 · · Score: 2, Funny

    NetBSD eggs, sausage, bacon, and ham. Delicious ham. Roll on, eggs! Roll on, sausage, roll on, ham!

    1. Re:I have cooked a NetBSD breakfast by 198348726583297634 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey! Give me the recipe for that NetBSD breakfast!