Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!convex!convex!convex!news.oc.com!news.kei.com!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!usenet.coe.montana.edu!osyjm From: osyjm@cs.montana.edu (Jaye Mathisen) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions Subject: Re: ???BSD??? Date: 2 Sep 1993 18:37:58 GMT Organization: Computer Science, MSU, Bozeman MT, 59717 Lines: 207 Message-ID: <265ei6$7qs@pdq.coe.montana.edu> References: <263f2e$aod@eddie.mit.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: schizo.coe.montana.edu [I had no intention for this to get so long... But enjoy. Remember, these are just my opinions, and don't represent any of the groups or the company listed. I've tried to be fair about it, but of course, it's my opinion, and is inherently subjective. If somebody is interested in helping me faqify it, I would be willing to work on it.] In article <263f2e$aod@eddie.mit.edu>, Shawn F. Mckay <shawn@eddie.mit.edu> wrote: >Please forgive me if this has been asked, but I didnt find it in at >least the 386bsd faq, so here goes. Somebody should add it then, as you're right it's been asked. I think I can comment on this now, as I now have several different PC's at home all running a different version of *BSD*, and Linux, so I could do this kind of comparative analysis. My BSDI box is being returned, but I had one running for a fair amount of time. > >Could someone do a 1 liner or maybe a 2 liner of what each of following >ARE, and why you would/wouldnt use each: > > BSDI Commercial. $$$'s. Solid. Stable. Lacks things like PS/2 mouse support, lacks support for a variety of scsi boards. Slowly changes. Great tech support, very easy people to work with. You can't go wrong, if you have the $$$'s. > 386BSD The basis for a lot of the xyz*BSD*gobbledy's out there. Rumor central has it that the new version 0.2 runs in 512k, cooks, cleans, supports every possible peripheral either existing or in the future. Supposedly will be out this summer. (My bet is to coincide with the book). Oh yeah, sarcasm mode off. If you pick up 386bsd 0.1 and run it, good luck. You're better off if you add the patchkit, but you're even better off if you go to one of the others. Not much happening on the true 386bsd front. Mainly due to a complete and total disappearance of the author (the BSD triangle), and near-total lack of willingness to work with anybody on it. > FreeBSD What can I say? RSN. The gamma binaries, which should've been the last cut have been temporarily put on hold. FreeBSD is 386bsd 0.1 + patchkit + some stuff snarfed from NetBSD, + hopefully every utility in the world recompiled and updated. Will be released on cdrom courtesy of Walnut Creek. > NetBSD Probably the shining star out of all of 'em. Recipe: Take 1 dose of 386bsd. Rip out all the cruft, junk, and sludge. Add 1 healthy dose of rewrites, fixes, enhancements. Stir in support for more architectures than you can shake a stick at. Place on hard disk. Shake violently. (the disk, not yourself), and voila. What I perceive as the Free Unix of the future. Pretty solid. Lots of fun stuff in it. Most everything FreeBSD has, plus lots of other stuff. Active code base. Several egocentric people working on NetBSD make it hard to work with developers, but they make up for it by knowing their stuff. [For the sake of argument, I will toss in Linux, as I fired it up a few days ago:] Linux Interesting. Essentially some guy sits down and decides to write Unix from scratch, and does. My perception (please, no flames, it's my opinion only) is that the total of Linux (kernel + software) is a lot of glitz, maybe less substance. However, as kernels go, it's relatively immature from a life-span style of measurement. Several different packaging schemes out there make it very easy to install. I personally installed the Slackware release. Easy to follow install script, gets a lot more complicated when trying to make it coexist with other stuff, as the tools start falling apart. (not the individual tools, but the scripts and such). Runs well in 8MB's of RAM, 100 MB's of disk (I have oodles left). X runs fine. Bizarro shared library scheme has caused problems in the past, especially with upgrading, but may be fixed. (partial fix now, I think a complete fix is coming soon). Kernel configuration process is a disaster. Interactive yes, but a major pain in the butt compared to anybody that's configured a *bsd box. Uses gcc2 with the c++ typechcking turned on to compile kernel, so kernel rebuilds take 20 minutes from make clean to end of make, as compared to 3-4 for xxxBSD*. That could make it awkward for serious development. My understanding is that there are still some networking problems. Major Plus!!! It has /proc, which is more fun than any person should have a right to have. > >I gather they are all BSD like systems. In fact I have 386Bsd 0.1 up on >a machine here. But its difficult to figure out what I should try to >run as a normal platform for my systems. Just when I think I should >look at NetBSD, someone posts something making it seem like its not as >complete as 386bsd, etc so on. As I have posted previously, if you need something *NOW*, this instant, right this second, get NetBSD 0.9. You *may* want to look at FreeBSD when it's released, I give up on when. Keeps getting pushed back for reasons I'm not too clear on. Ignore 386bsd 0.1, maybe take a look at 386bsd 0.2 if it ever sees the light of day. For grins and giggles, I broke down the above mentioned list of Unices and categorized them as to intended use vs suitability. ------------------- Category 1. Dammit, I just want to see what a Unix looks like. I want it to be easy to install, and let me just hit the highpoints. The clear winner is Linux. Installs easily (if you get a distribution like MCC or Slackware or SLS). If you use FIPS, you can repartition your DOS disk into multiple partitions w/o having to back up and restore (warning, back it up anyway). and you can slap it in 40MB's or so, with parts of X. SLS/Slackware/MCC available on diskettes. The base series (A) is on 13, and X is on 11 diskettes. Not too bad. 2nd place by a hair is BSDI. The install program is nice, but a bit cumbersome. By far has the easiest to use partitioning setup of any of 'em, and will install a boot manager to let you boot anything you want. Not on diskette though (the boot disks are, but the rest is on CD or tape). Doesn't have shared libs (yet), so takes more disk. Also, the granularity of the installation packages is rather big, and I don't recall their being any easy way to un-install a set, other than rm'ing the files by hand. NetBSD, 386bsd, and FreeBSD (I haven't seen the latest FreeBSD install scripts, so take this with a grain of salt), are severely lacking in easy to use install tools. You kind of have to know what you're doing. (Specifically if you want to share partitions with DOS and xyzBSD, they're cumbersome. If you are going to use your whole disk for Unix, then they're fine, minus you having to do a little bit of math messing with geometries and multiples of your #'s of sectors per cylinder.). --------------------- Category 2. I've seen Unix, I don't want to do kernel hacking, but I need X, I want TeX, Emacs, and maybe the occasional telnet/SlIP/PPP access. The waters kind of muddy here. If you want to spend money, BSDI is rock solid, and if you get stuck, the tech support people can bail you out of pretty much any trouble you can get in. Other than that, you could probably go with any of NetBSD/FreeBSD/Linux, and not have made a bad choice. From my snooping around, upgrades of Linux to new releases are a pain in the butt, as opposed to the xyz*BSD's, but then again, I am far more familiar with xyz*BSD*Plugh's, than Linux, maybe I'm not doing it right in Linux. My understanding (repeated from above), is that Linux is still having some growing pains with the networking stuff, so SLIP and PPP may be more problematic. FreeBSD does make use of Bruce Evan's new sio drivers, which when they work (I've never had problems), they work very well. But other people have said they have had trouble, and the old com driver sux rocks. SLIP with sio is very nice. I don't have PPP running yet. NetBSD doesn't think the sio stuff is solid enough yet, they use a modified com driver which seems to be OK as well. ------------------ Category 3: OK Jaye, tell me something I don't know. I WANNA HACK. I wanna get in to the guts of this thing, rip it to shreds, and port it to my TI 99/4 in the process. Plus I want it to run my stereo. I think NetBSD takes the prize here. An easily accessible current code base, (sup is great), ports to several architectures in progress or done, Terry's LKM (Loadable Kernel Modules) stuff is a godsend for serious hacking, and constant upgrades make it nice. The system builds easily once you get it all installed. Use cvs to maintain your code tree, and you're cruising. Upgrades haven't been too bad. Rabid consumers of new code too. If you come up with nifty keeno (that meets their specs for clarity, KNF, and some other stuff, it will probably make it in, and thousands of people will snarf up your stuff). FreeBSD would work as well, but NetBSD's kernel is more advanced, with many new changes that make your life easier. FreeBSD does not have LKM embedded in it yet (that I recall, I could be wrong). Linux is a tough one to call. Actively developed, readily accessible, but there doesn't seem to be anything really *NEW* being fixed, it seems to be focused on stability and such. --------------------------- Category 4: Well, actually, I want to run my business with this stuff. Hands down, BSDI. If only for the tech support. I think it's in their literature, they are working on supporting Xenix or somebody's binaries, so you can use that. I can't really recommend any of the others, unless you're in a programming type situation, in which case you probably can make a better choice than I can recommend. -- 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