Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!news.service.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway From: steve.mcmahon@lambada.oit.unc.edu Subject: Re: Which is better ? Message-ID: <9305290333.AA27150@marinara> In-Reply-To: <3528@bigfoot.first.gmd.de> Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions Lines: 65 Date: 29 May 93 03:33:14 GMT References: <1993May25.095207.25469@uxmail.ust.hk> <1u0jqg$9br@daffy.ldp.com> <1u0u1h$jt6@umcc.umcc.umich.edu> In article <3528@bigfoot.first.gmd.de> you write: > >Why i want a BSD lookalike system over a system V lookalike system: >1) I want long filenames, no fourteen character limit. Huh, all linux filesystems support long filenames. The minix fs can have filenames of length 14, 30, 62, ..etc. you chose the limit when you make the fs. The ext, ext2, and xia filesystems have a limit of 256 characters. FFS is great. however, I will admit that. >2) I want symlinks, if i have space problems on one partition, i use >a symlink and put it into another partition. No please install >the whole system new, if you didn't know your space requirements >first. All linux filesystems have symlinks. From day one. You know very little about linux, it would seem. >3) I want the filename completion in the C shell. If i type some >characters in a name and than press escape, it should beep:-). I've never used but tcsh in linux. It's by far the best interactive shell there is, in my opinion. Tcsh builds out of the box for linux, and has been there for a long long time. There's also all the others: bash, ash, ksh, plain csh, ..etc., even Plan 9 rc. Beeping on filename completion is the main reason I don't use bash. I use tcsh since I can disable beeping by `set nobeep'. You cannot disable the beep in the current version of bash, as fas as I know. >4) I want functional network code, i had not seen a crash >from the network code. And i use the network heavily on this >machine. 386BSD has the edge right now when it comes to networking, but as it's dying out slowly and developers are being scared away by ego wars and mutinies, it would seem that it won't be long before linux catches up. The latest version has a vastly improved networking support. >5) And yes, the familiarity with the other BSD systems is nice, >i can compile more things from the NET on the 386bsd box than >on the new SOLARIS2.1 system on the SUN. > The real mystery to me is that it's by far much easier to port things to linux than to 386BSD. In most cases no actual code modifications are required. Perhaps it has to do with POSIX slowly becoming the standard and people tired of supporting old BSD code quirks. >I have learned UNIX from Version 7, over System III and System V >Releases 1.0, 2.0, 2.1, 3.0 and SUNOS 3.3 ... 5.1. At one time >i had ported kernel parts and utilities on System V, and it >was nice to get the first SUN's and have a BSD system. If you >learned it, you miss it. >I don't know, how LINUX is, but i heard it is more the System >V direction, than the BSD direction, and thats the reason, >i had not tried it yet. > Well, it's apparent that you haven't tried it. Personally, I don't see any difference between using linux and ultrix, which is BSD-based. I routinely refer the ultrix man pages when writing code on linux, even for section 2 (system calls). - Steve