Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!concert!decwrl!usenet.coe.montana.edu!osyjm From: osyjm@cs.montana.edu (Jaye Mathisen) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions Subject: Re: What's "FreeBSD"? Date: 25 Jul 1993 21:14:59 GMT Organization: Computer Science, MSU, Bozeman MT, 59717 Lines: 132 Message-ID: <22ut4j$53o@pdq.coe.montana.edu> References: <22up8o$pvb@introl.introl.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: fubar.cs.montana.edu According to Tim Chase <tim@introl.com>: >What's this "FreeBSD" thing I've been reading about in >the comp.os.386bsd groups over the last week or so? >Do I gather it's another NetBSD-like effort? > (What FreeBSD is about is down a few paragraphs, the next few are just a brief history of time). In the beginning, there was the void. And then the void started to fill with manic Unixites running a semi-OK port of BSD Unix to the 386 architecture. Version 0.0 stunk. It ran, but stunk. Along came 0.1, which worked better, but still needed massaging. The solution? A joint effort between the developer of 386bsd and the user community to provide patches, updates, fixes to aforementioned user community. What really happened? The original developer battened down the hatches, and wandered off into developing something called "0.2", which would do everything you ever wanted in a Unix, and more. So a nice man started putting together something called "the patchkit", which was a semi-organized method of getting fixes to the community. This first pioneer passed the reigns to young Nate Williams, right here at Moo-U, a hyperactive Unix guru wannabee with nothing but time on his hands. However, the demands of classes took their toll, and the patchkit passed on to first one person, and then finally 1 more. At this time, with the original developer of 386bsd off in "0.2-land", refusing to help or participate in any way with making 0.1 any better, the idea to form the "interim" group came about. The Interim Group's stated goal was to provide a "solid" (if that term can be used) 0.1 + all the patchkit baseline release, hopefully getting ready for the promised (and promised and promised) rapidly approaching fabled release of 0.2. Somewhere in this time frame, a few other code wizards got fed up with Jolitz and his general bizarreness, and formed a group called NetBSD. NetBSD is based somewhat on 386bsd, but has several advantages to 386bsd, in that for one thing, you can actually talk to a developer, and they won't wow you with epics about the fabled 0.2 release which will solve all your problems. Source snapshots are readily available, and NetBSD is being ported to other architectures, although I don't know much more about it than that. With what little communication there was between the Interim Group and WFJ rapidly falling by the wayside, (Through no fault of the IG, hell, I was there for a lot of it, and you wouldn't believe some of it), the final straw had been reached. And thus FreeBSD was formed. FreeBSD is essentially: 1) 0.1 with all the patchkits through 0.2.4, and other patches that would've made it into the full 0.1.5 "interim" release. 2) Most, if not all the utilities have been updated to latest releases, including the GNU stuff. 3) Many enhancements to the 0.1 +pk0.2.4 kernel have been incorporated, some of those coming from NetBSD. RockRidge support, New NPX and INTR code from bde, and other stuff has been integrated. 4) Essentially, we tried to pick the best things from 386bsd, NetBSD, and whatever other work people did to provide a new stable baseline to work on 386bsd. In FreeBSD's case, the main goal is stability, and smooth transitions from release to release. 5) FreeBSD is being configured for ease of installation (ie, go to /usr/src, fire off make, and see the world unfold), and configuration. 6) Finally, FreeBSD is being laid out with an eye toward CDROM distribution. What FreeBSD is not: 1) Leading edge/bleeding edge. NetBSD is probably a better choice here if you want to walk the edge. NetBSD is hacked and bashed on quite a bit, and occasionally some major changes are made, and it takes a while to get the kinks worked out. Some of these changes are to support the port to other architectures. FreeBSD is not under this stricture, so we don't necessarily have to make the changes involved. (I am not interested in debating the merits good or bad of the changes, as that appears pointless). 2) Evolving quickly. ie, the FreeBSD group is trying to provide a stable base to work on. Which means that you're not likely to see major changes in any of the code so much as just enhancements, bug fixes, and updates. Things like utilities and stuff. 3) Direct competition to NetBSD. We are not trying to "ace" out NetBSd in any way. In fact there are members of FreeBSD that belong to NetBSD lists, and vice versa. We have NetBSD people looking over our shoulders as well. The goals of NetBSD and FreeBSD differ, and which one you use is entirely up to you. (Before you ask, yes, there was talk of merging the two efforts. I will not go into it any more than to say that there are some strong personalities involved that made the combination difficult. Perhaps in the future). -- Jaye Mathisen, COE Systems Manager (406) 994-4780 410 Roberts Hall,Dept. of Computer Science Montana State University,Bozeman MT 59717 osyjm@cs.montana.edu