Slashdot Mirror
*BSD News
Woody writes "There is tons of stuff happening on the BSD front. The NetBSD Foundation is scheduled to release version 1.4 of their multi-platform OS tomorrow, May 12. The OpenBSD group is scheduled to release version 2.5 of their super-secure multi-platform OS on May 19. Finally, those boys over at FreeBSD are scheduled to release version 3.2 of their i386 optimized OS on or around May 15. Lots of rumblings in the BSD world! "
Well, you can order the FreeBSD CD direct from Walnut Creek CDROM (the people who sponsor ftp.cdrom.com, maybe you've heard of them). Check out their homepage at http://www.cdrom.com
I read the internet for the articles.
Basicly, the difference is this:
...
...
...
- FreeBSD is the fastest (you can argue about this, but it is that way 85% of the time), and has better Hard and Software support (running WordPerfect or Doom or Quake (even the beta 3) for Linux is no prob
- NetBSD runs on a lot of different platforms
- OpenBSD has more encryption/security options
I would recommend FreeBSD in your case
By wrapping a pile of API calls (e.g., read(), write(), etc.) so that descriptors run in non-blocking mode (with the non-blocking mode that the API calls return being maintained by the threads library, rather than being the kernel's value for that mode), using an unwrapped select() in the thread scheduling loop, etc.. See the stuff in the lib/libc_r/uthread directory in the FreeBSD source tree.
No, it doesn't keep the entire process from blocking if, say, a file read() reading from a file server blocks because the file server isn't responding, but it catches the common case of reads or writes from serial ports, network connections, and the like.
I'd be running it on a P-150, 64MB. I have a copy of FreeBSD 3.0 but I was wondering if NetBSD or OpenBSD is better/more interesting for any purpose ...
support gun control: take guns from cops
There is currently support in FreeBSD (3.1->) for a native port of the LinuxThreads kernel threads package, but the need for kernel threads on FreeBSD is a lot lower than on Linux, because the userland threads (libc_r - which should be POSIX compilant) has a very quick context switch. The performance between the two is pretty much the same, and should perform very similarly to libpthread on Linux.
There has been a lot of talk about a lightweight kernel threads implementation, especially to use SMP effectively accross threads, but there is no code.
-Jeremy
Anyway, why is it that every time there appears a *BSD related message on
If you want to run Linux, fine. But don't flame people who don't.
Intosi
Intosi
NetBSD supports a wide range of binaries.
:)
Here's some of the kernel config file:
# Compatibility options
options COMPAT_NOMID # compatibility with 386BSD, BSDI, NetBSD 0.8,
options COMPAT_09 # NetBSD 0.9,
options COMPAT_10 # NetBSD 1.0,
options COMPAT_11 # NetBSD 1.1,
options COMPAT_12 # NetBSD 1.2,
options COMPAT_43 # and 4.3BSD
options COMPAT_SVR4 # binary compatibility with SVR4
options COMPAT_IBCS2 # binary compatibility with SCO and ISC
options COMPAT_LINUX # binary compatibility with Linux
options COMPAT_FREEBSD # binary compatibility with FreeBSD
# Executable format options
options EXEC_ELF32 # 32-bit ELF executables (SVR4, Linux)
Also, there are various packages in the NetBSD package system to automatically download and install the appropriate libraries for compatibility with these systems, and an ld.so to handle the magic.
I fully respect and honor people who find the BSD license preferable to the GPL, or who object to the GPL because they think its retrictions are unnecessary. I have no use for jerks who argue against it on the basis that it is "communist", especially from proponents of the BSD license.
After all, the BSD license is more communist in the sense of Marx than the GPL. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." If you tell me I should use the BSD, you're saying that I should contribute work to you to do whatever you want to do with, because I have the ability and you have the need.
The GPL is more market-oriented. The author who uses the GPL gives software to other developers to make derivative works from only if the other developers are willing to give back their changes. Many developers who use the GPL also sell proprietary software; in some cases (e.g. Aladdin Software, makers of Ghostscript) they use dual licensing: folks who don't like the GPL restrictions can pay $$$ to get other terms.
As Russ Nelson has said, the reason he uses the GPL is "When I write commercial software I want to get paid." Those who claim that developers must use BSD-like terms when they write free software are saying that they must give up their work without any compensation at all, to whover needs it, in accordance with Marx's dictum.
There's no question that RMS has a political agenda, but then so does the Daemon News, which has repeatedly demonstrated that its political agenda is to try to get people to release software on BSD-like rather than GPL-like terms.
There's a large difference between the Linux and the BSD model of development.
:) It's just a bit less accessible for newbies, which just means you can't feel like a hacker without *becoming* one.
In Linux-land there is about one kernel (with slight tweaks) and loads of distributions with lots of minute to large changes everywhere).
In BSD-land, you've got three distributions, which noticeable changes everywhere: kernel, user-land, ports.
If you look at BSD logs, you'll often see the same names, or stuff taken from one BSD to the next. I think there might even be a higher level of cooperation between BSD distros than Linux. I know for sure that we don't hesitate to pick useful stuff from Net/FreeBSD when it comes along... in some cases, we wait until stuff is stable enough to include.
Sure, you might miss some of the `bleeding edge' that's soooo keewl when running linux with a beta kernel, a beta glib, and beta stuff everywhere.
Not to say that this is impossible in BSD land, my laptop running full-tilt egcs-990502 and soon binutils-990427 is about as bleeding edge as it goes
Binaries are usually portable if you have to.
:)
:)
One point of the matter is to try to run from source when you can, which is why the ports systems of all three BSD are highly functional.
Just cd to the right directory, type make install, and magic starts: the box finds out what it needs, gets it thru ftp, and builds a brand new binary. Magic, or not ?
As far as emulation goes, let's see...
- I've been running Linux's quake.
- svgalib works as well, even though it's somewhat insecure.
- libggi is mostly working.
- my netscape is a bsdi binary, and I use Maple for linux every day.
Icky stuff such as OSSaudio calls works pretty well under OpenBSD (xanim runs, complete with sound)... it just becomes a question of how far you're willing to push linux support. One reason to run OpenBSD in the first place is so that you don't have to finnagle with all those libc5/libc6/glibc2.1/egcs fun that Linux seems to have these days.
Oh, and I also know that Mathematica runs, or that WordPerfect has a complete functional port... but I don't use these.
The thing that I don't get, is that the Linux people are always saying that BSD is a waste of time and that there's too many versions to make a difference.
This is coming from a community where there are approximately 12 different distributions of the same operating system. Not to mention, there is a new kernel patch released every other day, then Alan Cox makes his own patches of the same thing. Doesn't that sound a bit hypocritical?
As far as the different free BSD's go, they all have different goals for what they want their operating system to do, but they also cooperate with each other. The Linux kernel hackers have been known to borrow from the BSD's from time to time also.
So quit your quibbling over which is better. If you look in comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc and comp.os.linux.advocacy, almost all the threads are a BSD vs. Linux vs. Windows, or a GPL vs. BSD license argument. Both sides are trying to convince the other that they're better, while the other side isn't listening at all. It's like a catholic priest trying to convert a buddhist monk.
The moral of the story, kids, is use what you like, and don't worry about which is better.
Is there some sort of connection between Usenix and the BSD release dates?
All of the free BSD's are releasing just in time for Usenix it seems. Hmm.
The NetBSD folks will have NetBSD 1.4 running on an IMac at Usenix.
I have always been curious about portability between the various versions of FreeBSD versus the portability between distributions of Linux.
For example, the new game "Civilization: Call to Power" should be able to run on any distribution of Linux, as long as the kernel is 2.0.x or 2.2.x.
Are binaries usually portable from FreeBSD to NetBSD to OpenBSD?
-- UOZaphod
"The unicode stuff in the latest version is working fabulously well. My russian mafia friends are ecstatic."
An interesting, and to some developers, central point of the difference between Linux and the BSD unices is that BSD is not under the GPL. This can become a very political issue if pushed to the wall. There's an interesting article about these issues in the latest issue of Daemon News , which is a publication well worth reading if you're interested in BSD.
Some would say that the absence of the GPL is one of the features of BSD.
At the moment I run a SuSE-Linux at home. Since you can never learn enough, I'd like to try out one of the BSD-Clones on some DOS-infected Hardware.
Where can I buy a CD-ROM with all I need to setup a *BSD-System? I only have a 33'600 Baud dialup-connection to the internet and therefore do not want to download the whole stuff. Probably there would be two newer versions of each, before I finished downloading. =:-)
Does anyone know if there is some shop selling a distribution here in switzerland/europe?
--- If OS were buildings, then the first woodpecker to come around would erase 95 % of civilization.