NetBSD 3.1 and 3.0.2 Released

hubertf writes, "The NetBSD release engineering team has announced that the NetBSD 3.1 and 3.0.2 releases are now available. NetBSD 3.1 contains many bugfixes, security updates, new drivers, and new features like support for Xen3 DomU. NetBSD 3.0.2 is the second security/critical update of the NetBSD 3.0 release branch which includes a selected subset of fixes deemed critical in nature for stability or security reasons. See the NetBSD 3.1 Release Announcement and the NetBSD 3.0.2 Release Announcement for more information."

Comments

Great!

[borizz]

Good news from one fine project. Even though I don't use it myself...

I don't get it

[BeeBeard]

I've read the press release. What do I get by installing this that I can't get in a 2 year-old Gentoo Linux installation? The BSD's have always been a bit of an enigma to me. Could someone enlighten me?

Re:I don't get it

[debilo]

I've read the press release. What do I get by installing this that I can't get in a 2 year-old Gentoo Linux installation? The BSD's have always been a bit of an enigma to me. Could someone enlighten me?

I'm not sure if this is flamebait or if you really want to be enlightened, but if the BSDs "have always been a bit of an enigma" to you, why not install one of them in a spare partition or fire up a VMware session, and play around with them for awhile? You really don't gain much by reading release information only, you know?

The BSDs provide everything you've come to love in Linux: stability, security, and probably a little more consistency especially regarding system administration and configuration. Linux and the BSDs are both fine systems, but maybe you'll prefer how BSD handles things. I honestly find it easier and more comfortable to do system administration via the CLI on BSD than via the various GUI administration tools in Linux, but that's just a matter of taste.

So, don't just dismiss NetBSD just because a release information page doesn't provide a detailed list of reasons why NetBSD is better than a 2 year old Gentoo installation. Try it out. Get your hands dirty and be "enlightened".

Re:I don't get it

[kv9]

What do I get by installing this that I can't get in a 2 year-old Gentoo Linux installation? The BSD's have always been a bit of an enigma to me. Could someone enlighten me?

firs of all, nobody is trying to make you switch. the BSDs aren't out to conquer the world (AFAIK), they just try to make proper operating systems.

second, you get:

• totally sweet firewalling, with ipf and pf
• proper package management with pkgsrc (your beloved portage? that's where it gets its roots)
• the ability to run the same configuration on dozens of different archs (that might not sound like much, if you only run i386, but there's people with lots of different gear out there)
• a clean, small, stable base system which includes everything you need to get your server going in a few minutes (literally, NetBSD installs in 2 minutes, even on old hardware) -- you can build on top of that, with pkgsrc or prebuilt binary packages
• run your favorite proprietary applications through the emulation layer (compat Linux, compat WIN32, etc)

and many more. you can read in detail on the project's feature page. that being said:

10:49:47 (1.15 MB/s) - `i386cd-3.0.2.iso' saved [209747968]

Re:I don't get it

[Preacher X]

Let me first state two things. First, I am a gentoo user. Second I have only vaguely played with the BSDs.

That said, allow me to elaborate on the things I have seen. The most drastic difference between the BSD's and ANY other OS I have seen is stability. They are rock freaking solid. This however comes are a great cost to thier tech currency. Lets face it, new software although bright and shiny, is not stable. The BSD release trees have always been sluggish but only because they insist that packages be as stable as reasonably possible.

This is a very stark contrast to Gentoo's "bleeding edge" approach. Even the "stable" tree of gentoo is considered bleeding edge by most standards in a network OS.

Both standards have thier place and I am not really for or against the BSD architecture. I prefer gentoo only because it is what i started with and rpm is horribly flawed in it's base incarnation. YUM has worked to improve this alot and the newest Suse distros are not bad.

Re:I don't get it

[kv9]

The BSD release trees have always been sluggish but only because they insist that packages be as stable as reasonably possible.

that "sluggishness" can also be considered a feature. some people don't like the upgrade treadmill, and if the new "features" might introduce bugs they choose to stick with their sta[b]le installs. i still run 2.0.2 on the "serious" boxen for example. so even the BSDs can be too fast sometimes.

Re:I don't get it

[tao]

I honestly find it easier and more comfortable to do system administration via the CLI on BSD than via the various GUI administration tools in Linux, but that's just a matter of taste.

Uhm, you do know that you can do system administration on the command-line in Linux too, right? (And I bet that there are GUI administration tools for the BSD's too, for that matter...

Re:I don't get it

[Lord Kano]

This is a very stark contrast to Gentoo's "bleeding edge" approach. Even the "stable" tree of gentoo is considered bleeding edge by most standards in a network OS.

Sigh...

"Bleeding edge"

We're talking about computers and software, not motorcycles and muscle cars.

I suppose that bleeding edge could refer to those cheap cases that don't have any of the sheet metal folded to protect our fingers, but seriously does all of this "extreme" bullshit have to happen here too?

LK

Re:I don't get it

[Shados]

I can't talk for the poster you replied to, but my interpretation is that it was EXACTLY the point they were trying to put across...

Re:I don't get it

[debilo]

Uhm, you do know that you can do system administration on the command-line in Linux too, right? (And I bet that there are GUI administration tools for the BSD's too, for that matter...

Yes, Mr. Romero, that's quite obvious, and I think you're misunderstanding what I wrote. I wasn't complaining about the lack of a CLI on Linux or the lack of GUI utilities in BSD. Most of the big Linux distributions come with pretty installers and widgets, and they encourage their users to use those instead of the CLI, so naturally most Linux users who try out one of the BSDs for the first time are rather taken aback by the focus on the CLI and are quick to consider the BSDs old-fashioned and not up the par with Linux. Yes, there's PC-BSD and DesktopBSD, both of them provide nice installers and GUIs, and I also know of Webmin; I was merely pointing out that I find working on the CLI in BSD more comfortable than clicking widgets in Linux, probably due to BSD's more central approach regarding the system layout, compare /etc/rc.conf in BSD to all the runlevel config files in Linux. I never got the hang of them, but again, it's a matter of taste. I just don't want new users to be discouraged by the lack of widgets in BSD as opposed to major Linux distros.

Here's a pretty interesting thread by a BSD user who had to learn to use Debian at work and shares his experiences. He sums up the differences between FreeBSD and Debian quite nicely. Makes for an interesting read.

Re:I don't get it

[RAMMS EIN]

``What do I get by installing this that I can't get in a 2 year-old Gentoo Linux installation?''

A BSD system, basically. Although, functionally, it will be very similar to GNU/Linux, the focus is different. NetBSD, in particular, seems to focus on portability and quality/cleanliness of code, rather than features (like Linux and FreeBSD) or ideology (like GNU). For fun, read some of the NetBSD kernel source and compare it to the Linux source. I had particular "fun" trying to figure out how the VFS works in Linux...

Re:I don't get it

[tao]

It just comes down to what distro you choose. And if you want rc-file style init, there's for instance file-rc.

And I find it quite revealing that the thread you refer to complains about the need of hunting down repositories for Debian, when Debian already contains the biggest set of packages available in any distribution... Also, searching enough it's always possible to find something to whine about if you really want to. The user in the refered to thread obviously wants things to work out of the box - if so he should've tried Ubuntu, to get a Debian-system with that kind of setup (or used a recent enough version of Debian - I have working wireless on my Debian laptop without any problems what so ever, without any config-file changes). From that thread: "I really dislike the fact that upgrading a few packages can result in upgrading the whole OS version." Uhm? No. The only way to upgrade the OS-version in Debian is to do a dist-upgrade. And since Debian only releases when it's ready, this means at least 18 months apart or more.

Re:I don't get it

[petrus4]

I strongly suspect that this is a troll, but I'll bite:-

Why run one of the BSDs?

• Pkgsrc/ports - package management that works. (unlike some systems for Linux which will remain nameless ;)) Ports also has some other great features such as the vulnerability database, which you can use to check installed packages for security holes.
  
• A core system which is developed in a centralised and generally more disciplined way, as opposed to Linux's more organic, chaotic modularity.
  
• A system developed by people who don't see the UNIX heritage as a liability, and who aren't afraid to let UNIX *be* UNIX, as opposed to desperately trying to turn it into a Windows clone.
  
• Free, open source UNIX, without the tyrannical, narcissistic scourge of Richard Stallman and his Red Army. (Praise be to God in the highest! ;))
  
• A system with a license (and culture, more importantly) that allows you to write your own extensions/improvements, fork it off, and then (wonder of wonders!) sell a completely closed source version if you wish! There's no hoarse, wild-eyed Trotskyite screaming about the supposed hell-spawned evil of daring to want to make money from your work. Vive la Capitalism, baby!
  

In other words, you've basically got a system which is very similar to Linux in terms of nearly all of Linux's positive characteristics, without the elements of Linux that really suck.

Re:I don't get it

[tao]

Uhm, no, I'm not retarded, thank you very much (and if you cannot even stand for your opinions, you should not post such things). I read the original posters comment, I responded to some of the incorrect critique against Linux, I did not say anywhere that Linux is superior to BSD. If you find my posts to be "frothy-mouthed linux zealotry" you really need a reality check... I do however suspect that you are some sort of zealot, and I definitely do not think it furthers whatever cause you support...

Re:I don't get it

[GrizlyAdams]

Some might call this flamebait, but I believe the term you were looking for was enema. I've found doing anything in *BSD is more painful than it should be. Except for OS X of course. NetBSD though can run a ton of hardware though (oldworld macs & pdas be damned)

Re:I don't get it

[weteko]

The part about letting unix be unix and not just trying to be a window clone is so true!

I remember when I left the GNU/Linux world behind me and I was so amazed by how not all forums and mailing-lists where filled with the "but windows is doing this" "a windows-like desktop that" . Instead just meaningful discussions. Wow! The average linooxer seems to have some bizarre inferiority complex related to Microsoft.

I remember reading something along the lines "linux people do what they do because they hate windows. BSD people do what they do because they love unix". It very much rings true.

Re:I don't get it

[LizardKing]

If you like source based packaging systems, then NetBSD is a better choice than Gentoo. I have the misfortune to work with someone who insists on using Gentoo on his work machine. He's a lazy sod, but even if he wasn't he would still be unable to do much work because usually his machine is either grinding through another rebuild or awaiting a reinstall because a half-baked update has rendered it unbootable. If you want binary packages, the quarterly releases of pkgsrc are excellent - and far more reliable than Debian in my experience (for instance, GCJ has been dumping core for at least a week on the Debian box here at work - I'm about to see if this mornings update cures it).

As someone else pointed out, the command line tools are the usual way to configure a BSD system. It should be emphasised though, that compared to Linux the tools are far more consistent and better documented. This is true of all the BSD's but especially OpenBSD. Compare this with Linux where the tools are from disparate sources, and the man pages are often omitted or incomplete. Yeah, there might be an out of date HOWTO on the web that can help, but that's not much use when your trying to get a machine online in the first place. The consistency of the BSD's is a consequence of developing a complete operating system, not stitching together the entire system from a mass of poorly integrated sources.

Finally, having all the architectures built out of the same tree means far less breakage than with Linux. I've run Linux on PA-RISC and Sparc machines in the past, and it's frustrating when the vanilla kernel can only be trusted to work out of the box on x86. If you're trying to track the latest development you end up having to marshal patches from various sources in the hope of keeping things going - with NetBSD it's just a CVS update from one repository.

Re:I don't get it

[weteko]

What you get with the BSDs is a complete OS where every part is designed to fit into the whole. As opposed to a kernel with some random packages thrown on top of it.

Re:I don't get it

[LizardKing]

I've found doing anything in *BSD is more painful than it should be.

I'm struggling to think of an example. For instance, installing init scripts for third party software is far more painful on Linux:

cp foo.sh /etc/init.d/
ln /etc/init.d/foo.sh /etc/rcS.d/K69foo
ln /etc/init.d/foo.sh /etc/rc0.d/K69foo
ln /etc/init.d/foo.sh /etc/rc1.d/K69foo
ln /etc/init.d/foo.sh /etc/rc2.d/K69foo
ln /etc/init.d/foo.sh /etc/rc3.d/S69foo
/etc/init.d/foo.sh start

Unless your Linux distribution supports one of the other half-baked init schemes of course.

Meanwhile, on NetBSD it's:

cp foo.sh /etc/rc/
vi /etc/rc.conf (add the line foo=YES)
/etc/rc/foo start

Basically, anything administrative I can think of is more tedious or complex on Linux than on NetBSD.

Re:I don't get it

[RAMMS EIN]

``NetBSD installs in 2 minutes''

Wow. Ubuntu doesn't even _boot_ in that.

Re:I don't get it

[RAMMS EIN]

I agree with you on all but your last point, but I still wanted to add some dissenting opinions.

``Pkgsrc/ports - package management that works. (unlike some systems for Linux which will remain nameless ;))''

On the other hand, I still find Debian's package management more convenient.

``A core system which is developed in a centralised and generally more disciplined way, as opposed to Linux's more organic, chaotic modularity.''

The disadvantage of which is that if there's a vulnerability in the base system, you probably end up updating much more than if there's a vulnerability in one of the packages in, say, Debian's base system. This is what finally turned me away from OpenBSD.

``A system developed by people who don't see the UNIX heritage as a liability, and who aren't afraid to let UNIX *be* UNIX, as opposed to desperately trying to turn it into a Windows clone.''

It's mostly GNOME and KDE that look like they are Windows clones, and those exist equally well for GNU/Linux and NetBSD.

``Free, open source UNIX, without the tyrannical, narcissistic scourge of Richard Stallman and his Red Army. (Praise be to God in the highest! ;))''

On the other hand, GNU/Linux may owe a lot of its mind share to the political cause that many people associate with it.

``A system with a license (and culture, more importantly) that allows you to write your own extensions/improvements, fork it off, and then (wonder of wonders!) sell a completely closed source version if you wish!''

Yes, but, as one of the NetBSD founders put it, GNU/Linux may well be more successful than NetBSD in part because of NetBSD's non-political attitude and licensing: with Free Software, you have no choice but to contribute to the community if you want to distribute your changes, whereas with non-copyleft open source, you can hire away community developers and work on your proprietary fork, never giving back. This may also be a deterrent for corporate contributions: you know your competitors could benefit from your gifts, but not give you anything in return.

``There's no hoarse, wild-eyed Trotskyite screaming about the supposed hell-spawned evil of daring to want to make money from your work.''

Oh, I'm sure there are such Trotskyites. At any rate, you have just as much right to make money from a BSD-licensed project as you have from a GPL-licensed project.

Re:I don't get it

[zoftie]

"I have the misfortune to work with someone who insists on using Gentoo on his work machine. He's a lazy sod, but even if he wasn't he would still be unable to do much work because usually his machine is either grinding through another rebuild or awaiting a reinstall because a half-baked update has rendered it unbootable."

Difference between BSD and Gentoo, which strode towards BSD, is that it has meaningful error messages, instead of just failing, or ignoring input altogether. As well because of install base, cut and paste into google usually yields fruitful results and if not forums.gentoo.org. Whats more if you keep it up to date, weekly builds, then
you shouldn't have any more trouble then any other distro. I'd choose ubuntu not to waste time, unless i really need source packages. Which is nice to cherry pick features and compile them in.

BSD has its niche, but it came from big iron, where people are suppose to just know stuff. Gentoo, if flakey, comes from people who aren't afrait to toss a log message or two , to let the user know what's going on. That is all..
of course IMO.

Re:I don't get it

[kv9]

``NetBSD installs in 2 minutes'' Wow. Ubuntu doesn't even _boot_ in that.

it takes 2 minutes because it has to unpack 62M of .tgz-s for the 3.1 release (full base install, no X, GENERIC kernel). you probably spend more time fiddling around the installer menus, than actually installing the OS.

depending how much shit you got in rc.local, NetBSD will also boot in half an hour if you want it to. but after you install it you'll reach the login in a few seconds. i don't know exactly, i haven't timed it, but it can't be more than 15. seconds.

Re:I don't get it

[raddan]

Man pages. Lots of them. For everything, even system calls. And an experience blissfully free of dependency hell, which, as a Gentoo user, I'm sure you're quite familiar with.

Of course, you can pretty much say goodbye to bleeding edge stuff and complicated GUI apps like Ardour, etc.

Re:I don't get it

[archen]

This is a very stark contrast to Gentoo's "bleeding edge" approach.

Gentoo isn't as bleeding edge as it used to be. I'm still using KDE 3.5.2 on gentoo's stable branch. When darwinports is beating your release cycle, that says a lot. Gentoo is fairly up to date, but it's been slowly dragging more and more in its release cycle. That's not necessarily a bad thing if you like stability.

Re:I don't get it

[Preacher X]

I am sure you are aware but "bleeding edge" refers to the damage and pain that current, unstable software can cause to a business when used in a production environment. It is a direct parody of leading edge and refers to software even more untested than those termed this way. Gentoo up until recently was considered very bleeding edge because during the install it processed and installed the most current version of a package in it's production trees. This led to many unstable systems and a high number of failed installs (compared to most "stable" linux OSes) in my experiences.

Last I knew it was not a term in any way associate with the recent "fast and the furious" x-treme crap that has been invading every facet of life lately.

Re:I don't get it

[hubertf]

> What do I get by installing this that I can't get in a 6.1
> FreeBSD installation?

Support for ~50 hardware platforms.

  - Hubert

Re:I don't get it

[drinkypoo]

The BSDs provide everything you've come to love in Linux: stability, security, and probably a little more consistency especially regarding system administration and configuration.

What the BSDs are missing is software support. It seems that most noncommercial (and tons of commercial) Unix software is now developed on Linux and then later ported to *BSD, which means that updates are available for Linux first.

This is not universal, but it does seem to be the pattern.

Re:I don't get it

[Billly Gates]

That worker is not being paid to beta test Gentoo. He can do that at home on his own time and equipment. Sounds to me he needs to go if he can't get his work done when needed. If Gentoo is the problem then its his decision for not using something stable. Its not an excuse when he is at the office staring at a screen with gcc instead of doing work because something broke and he can't open emacs. Most shops lock down their desktops for that reason so they can do work and not be distracted with IT downtime.

Re:I don't get it

[LizardKing]

You've pretty much described my opinion on the matter. However, there's an ongoing battle between the project manager, who wants shot of him, and human resources who are on the other side of the country and don't give a shit about discipline in our office. In the meantime I've suggested locking down his computer with Fedora or CentOS and a BIOS password.

Re:I don't get it

[Billly Gates]

Just do what they did to George in Seinfield. Just take the computer away from his desk and ignore him until he walks out and quits as he wont be able to do anything.

Maybe his network connection on that computer might mysteriously not work ... hmmm .. its like the router is not letting his machine network.

Seriously if HR wont discipline him for lack of performance than hacking certainly would get him canned. After all his boss did not approve and installing extra software and damaging equipment can get you fired in almost any office.

Re:I don't get it

[pkplex]

"Whats more if you keep it up to date, weekly builds, then you shouldn't have any more trouble then any other distro."

Are you serious? WEEKLY builds? And thats not already a lot more trouble than any other distro?

Re:I don't get it

[phoenix_rizzen]

You do need to hunt down repositories for Debian, if you want software that isn't included in the standard repos. For instance, at the time of writing for that thread (July 2005) you could not get Java, Madwifi, or KDE 3.4+ in the standard repos. To get those, I had to search the web for custom repos to use with Sarge. Not a lot of fun for a Debian newbie.

Debian may have the highest number of packages available, but it does not have the highest number of applications. A lot of the packages in the Debian repos are for the libs that come with apps, and for multiple versions of the same app with various features enabled or disabled. If you take out all those duplicates, you end up with a lot fewer apps. A lot, yes, but probably not the most.

At the time that I wrote that piece, Ubuntu was a horrid little thing that was just starting out. Kubuntu didn't exist yet, and being a KDE user, why would I try Ubuntu?

Wireless is the worst grafted-on technology in the Linux world. There are multiple wireless networking stacks, multiple WPA supplicants, multiple commands for working with wired connections, wireless connections, and device-specific options. And Debian was (at the time) one of the worst for wireless support -- there was none officially in Sarge for madwifi or wpa_supplicant. Now, in Etch, things are a bit better, but nowhere near the level in FreeBSD. Why is there an ifconfig, a iwconfig, and driver-specific commands to work with wireless links? In FreeBSD, there's only ifconfig since they are all network interfaces, there's only a single networking stack that all the devices use. There a single config file to manage the wireless side of things.

I've become proficient with Debian in the year and a bit since I posted that, but Debian in particular and Linux in general remains a conglomeration of a bunch of hacked together software projects without an overarching feeling of togetherness or unity to it. There's no cohesiveness to "Linux" even in some of the distros.

Ubuntu is moving along nicely in that area, but that only drives home the notion that there is no Linux OS, just a hodge podge of OSes built around it, each with their own ideosyncracies, and the only way to get anything done is to standardise on a single distro. People need to get out of the "Linux" mindset and into the "Ubuntu" or "Fedora" or "Debian" or "Gentoo" mindset. Once that happens, then things will probably get better ... or else it will cause the splintering of "Linux" like the splintering of Unix back in the day.

And, yes, upgrading a couple apps can result in an upgrade to the entire OS. I've done it a few times. I'll never understand the whole Linux distro concept of "the OS and apps are one". Why do I need to upgrade to Debian Etch in order to run KDE 3.5? I can run KDE 3.5 on FreeBSD 4.11, 5.5, and 6.1, it doesn't require an OS upgrade to run newer apps.

Re:I don't get it

[phoenix_rizzen]

I believe you're thinking of the tag/signature that made the rounds back in the late 90s that looked something like this:

Linux: For those that hate Windows
FreeBSD: For those that love Unix

Not sure where it first cropped up, but it's certainly remained true. :)

Re:I don't get it

[hhw]

"The disadvantage of which is that if there's a vulnerability in the base system, you probably end up updating much more than if there's a vulnerability in one of the packages in, say, Debian's base system. This is what finally turned me away from OpenBSD." Not true, you can always download a specific patch and compile the affected binaries only. "It's mostly GNOME and KDE that look like they are Windows clones, and those exist equally well for GNU/Linux and NetBSD." It's not just the desktop environment that targets Windows; but the entire design philosophy and goals. Linux aims to be everything to everyone. Linus Torvalds himself states that he is content so long as things are good enough. The BSD's on the other hand strive for technical excellence in a focused area. "On the other hand, GNU/Linux may owe a lot of its mind share to the political cause that many people associate with it." Agreed. It's a shame that politics and not merit that drives the success of an operating system.

Re:I don't get it

[saider]

NetBSD runs on a number of different platforms (like around 50) without modifications to the source tree. All you do is select one of the targets when you run the build script. No patching or other hokey workarounds. Just a good cross-platform architecture. Building the whole system (kernel+basic userland) can be done with a few commands.

If you are only interested in running on PCs, then NetBSD is probably not what you are looking for. But for embedded develpers it is quite attractive.

Re:I don't get it

[turbidostato]

"I was merely pointing out that I find working on the CLI in BSD more comfortable than clicking widgets in Linux"

So you were merely comparing apples to oranges.

"compare /etc/rc.conf in BSD to all the runlevel config files in Linux" ...out of ignorance.

Good work!

"Here's a pretty interesting thread by a BSD user who had to learn to use Debian at work and shares his experiences. He sums up the differences between FreeBSD and Debian quite nicely. Makes for an interesting read."

That really good make a difference from the rest of your post; I'll have a look at it.

Re:I don't get it

[turbidostato]

"Here's a pretty interesting thread by a BSD user who had to learn to use Debian at work and shares his experiences. He sums up the differences between FreeBSD and Debian quite nicely. Makes for an interesting read."

Well, I already read the thread, and I can assure it doesn't "make for an intersting read", it doesn't "sum up the differences between FreeBSD and Debian" at any rate and probably the only interest in there is for a psychologist about the many ways the human mind manages to confuse itself.

Just a few points:
1) The author decides to give a try to Debian because FreeBSD doesn't support critical elements of his computer's hardware.
2) Then he populates the sources list with a nightmare of unofficial an unmatching repositories.
3) Then he concludes that Debian is not an "OS" but a bunch of unconnected packages, and that finding useful software is "a royal pain". ...but he absolutly "forgets" about what would had happen if he even tried to do something similar on FreeBSD:

What happens if you even try to mix the ports tree from 5.x with 6.x to mix-and-match software from both branches (not to talk if you try to install *binary* packages from 5.x and 6.x at the same time)?
What happens if you even try to mix the ports tree from official FreeBSD with three or four partial ports trees from unofficial origins?

I'll tell you the answer: even if you are a FreeBSD guru you will have quite a hard day toying with CVS and customizing Makefiles to acomplish such a daunting task, still he manages to do it on Debian on his first weeks of usage with only minor headheaches but, hey! Debian is the "royal pain".

It's quite ashtonishing how the FreeBSD folk would send you happily to RTFM (quite good quality resources, I recognize) but then, as in this example, won't follow their very counsel when experimenting with a (for them) new OS; it's obvious he didn't go through the (quite good quality too) documentation at debian.org.

Re:I don't get it

[turbidostato]

"that only drives home the notion that there is no Linux OS"

Well, you have learnt at least one lesson then. You are right: there's no more "a Linux OS" than there is "a BSD OS", it seems you finally grasped the concept.

"Why do I need to upgrade to Debian Etch in order to run KDE 3.5? (...) I can run KDE 3.5 on FreeBSD 4.11, 5.5, and 6.1"

Because Debian's concept of "stability" (pay attention to this: DEBIAN's concept, nothing to do with Linux) is different than that from FreeBSD (pay attention to this: FREEBSD's concept, nothing to do with BSD), that's why; take it or leave it.

Re:I don't get it

[iggymanz]

there's plenty of single command tools for throwing an /etc/init.d service into the runlevels all in one swoop for all the common Linux distros. And we can poke fun at some of the *bsd for spreading the startup into /usr/local/etc/rc.d too That said, I prefer the BSD for servers, most admin stuff is scripting and you can set up a SyS V type runlevel structure in any of the BSD if that's what floats your boat.

Woo woo

[BeeBeard]

Thank you both for the insights! No no, I'm not flaming (but given how moderation point lottery winners are, I'll probably be modded down for some reason nevertheless). I've read your post and the poster above you. I appreciate that the people behind the NetBSD Project aren't trying for a hard sell here, just to create a useful operating system.

My question should have been read like "I'm already a nerd, what would I find most appealing about NetBSD? What would I fall in love with if I installed it?"

As it stands, I think I'll do the classic turn-the-old-computer-into-a-firewall trick with it. NetBSD looks like it could run admirably on an old, 166 MHz Pentium that I still have. The short install time and better-than-iptables CLI tools have be sold.

Thanks again!

Re:Woo woo

[Anonymous Coward]

As it stands, I think I'll do the classic turn-the-old-computer-into-a-firewall trick with it. NetBSD looks like it could run admirably on an old, 166 MHz Pentium that I still have. The short install time and better-than-iptables CLI tools have be sold.

If you want to run an old Pentium as a firewall, I'd choose pf over ipf and OpenBSD over NetBSD.

Not wanting to start an BSD war here, since I enjoy using Free, Net and Open, but for BSD firewalls, OpenBSD is a big hub of active development. Development which NetBSD and FreeBSD are now tracking and soon (shh, don't tell anyone) Mac OSX. A fast, feature rich, easy to use packet filter, running on an over-the-top security focused OS.

OpenBSD also takes minutes to install, like NetBSD. However if you have never installed either of them, you will likely not be running one after minutes. Since you might re-install a few times before you get what you want.

Re:just one question

[kv9]

Has Netcraft confirmed this?

jason dixon confirmed the other one

BSD is Dying Presentation

[FullMetalAlchemist]

There was a hilarous presentation about "BSD is Dying" at NYCBSDCon 2006 about two weeks ago; you can get it here.

Nice

[Blackknight]

I'm running 3.0.1 as my desktop at work and it's great. Guess I'll have to look into updating.

For one, I'm not gonna bother

[RLiegh]

If even the founders of the project think it's dead and gone, then it's dead and gone in truth. Personally, I'll probably switch to OpenBSD; at least its' still maintained (not to mention the fact it's a full version ahead!)

Re:For one, I'm not gonna bother

[LizardKing]

Err, no one of the founders threw a hissy fit because he'd fucked up the administrative side of the NetBSD Foundation. An ill informed "debate" on Slashdot followed. NetBSD is still going strong, often providing new features like SMP support that then filter into the other BSDs (OpenBSD in the case of SMP). Recently, a new Bluetooth stack was integrated into the main codebase and dozens of new drivers - some ported from the other BSDs, others written specifically for NetBSD. NetBSD is also the first choice of BSDs for running Xen, and has also been used to set an Internet2 Land Speed Record (improving on the previous Linux entry by 50%, despite running on a considerably slower machine).

Re:For one, I'm not gonna bother

[laffer1]

Version numbers are irrelevant. NetBSD released everything as 1.x for so long they are "behind" FreeBSD and OpenBSD. Big deal. There is a huge jump between 1.x and 2.x in NetBSD just as FreeBSD 4.x and 5.x have some major differences. All the BSDs share with each other. There are imports from OpenBSD and NetBSD and vice versa. There are even a few changes from DragonFly in FreeBSD and possibly others. Where you don't see code sharing is with PC/Desktop BSD since they are just distros and MidnightBSD has not evolved far enough to offer anything significant yet.

From my perspective, OpenBSD and DragonFly are the innovators right now. FreeBSD is starting to track down the problems they created with 5.x and by FreeBSD 8.x I suspect it will be a very nice system assuming they don't change threading libraries AGAIN. Last I knew 7.x is going to libthr (1:1) and they may keep (M:N) threading as a backup for some apps.

OpenBSD has some momentum, but still they don't have adequate funding. Many of their developers have been interested in other projects too. Most of the people who contact me about committing to MidnightBSD are OpenBSD developers. I'm assuming the newer developers don't share the projects view on licensing as much considering my project goals conflict with OpenBSD philosophy. I'm willing to include GPL software in addition to binutils and gcc.

I think all the BSD projects are growing at different rates, and some are side tracked right now. DF and FreeBSD will eventually find their way back.

Speaking of new Releases...

[angrykeyboarder]

When will /. release correct logos to accompany stories on NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Fedora Core, Ubuntu.....