Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.misc:2149 comp.os.linux.misc:11961
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!yeshua.marcam.com!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.intercon.com!news1.digex.net!news.iac.net!news.iac.net!not-for-mail
From: skyhook@iac.net (Chris Thompson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Followup-To: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Date: 29 Mar 1994 09:51:12 -0500
Organization: Internet Access Cincinnati 513-887-8877
Lines: 130
Message-ID: <2n9f90$9em@great-miami.iac.net>
References: <1994Mar18.084355.19503@atlas.com> <CMzw69.92K@tower.nullnet.fi> <2mmlhpINNc3s@bonnie.sax.de> <Cn3uq0.M15@tower.nullnet.fi> <michaelv.764484670@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: great-miami.iac.net
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
: >> >What do people mean with this (`looks and feels like a beta/not finished')?
: >> >What in Linux makes that unfinished look'n'feel?
: >> A:
: >> > (I have hard time trying to keep
: >> >up with updates - last time I got route-binary I noticed I'd better
: >> >update my libs, which lead to downloading about 7 megs, some installing,
: >> >some compiling, and cursing for not to having yet changed my system to
: >> >conform to FSSTND)...
Why 7 megs? there ARE binary versions of libc in the image-4.5.21.tar.gz
file. that's how I upgraded. I didnt put that in a FSSTND system and it
worked like a charm. (well except for the fact that I unlinke the old
libc and suddenly had NO libc and had to reboot from floppy to fix :) but
that was my fault) If not lic, what libs are youu speaking of?
: >> What you're describing there *is* the ``beta look'n feel''. Inacceptable
: >> for a release. Not that FreeBSD doesn't need beta's or development -
: >> but people getting a release are not suspected to run into those upgrade-
: >> by-the-patch-of-the-day troubles.
Linux, especially the v1.0 kernel, is a NEW piece of software that
doesnt have the several YEARS that BSD has. I upgrade my box to the
newest patchlevel (it's now at 1.0.5) whenever possible because...
A) My machine is NOT mission critical. I dont have and entire
development squad hanging on it as their only machine. Nor am I
running it to control life support for the space shuttle. I run it to
learn Unix and because it's a hell of alot of fun! There are machines
right now with 70+ day uptimes running 0.99pl14 without problem. Need
I point out that, by definition, that's a BETA version.
B) Linux is only improved by user interaction. If I dont run it
and give feedback on bugs, then I am not doing my part to help the
development. I can program in C, but not OS kernels. This is my
contribution, I TEST!
: >Oh yes, what's that ``one source distribution, juts make world and all
: >utilities You've ever wanted are built and installed'' thing? I know
: >I've eliminated things from the distribution I grabbed, added new, and
: >so on.. I don't want to have everything, and I know I want to have some
: >things that should never belong to normal distributions.. So, I rather
: >grab packages I want, compile them, install them, and am happy.
: You can do this under {Net,Free}BSD just as easily.
What, then, is the point? Never in the year and a half of running Linux
(since 0.99pl6) have I ever needed to make the WHOLE system again. I've
recompiled the kernel maybbe 100 times, but that once you have the
config to the way you want it (SCSI/NO SCSI, etc) it's
'make dep;make' if I need a new route binary, I get the new route
source and make it. It's not exactly brain surgery.
: >I know I _could_ write a Makefile to /usr/src that built and installed
: >everything, but I don't want to. I want to do it to each package at a
: >time, hack and slash here and there, and never install everything in one
: >session. And most packages can be forgotten, removed, gzipped, or
: >otherwise handled after they are installed once.
: The point is, you *can't* just type "make; make install" in /usr/src
: and come back the next day and have *everything* completely rebuilt
: and installed. I *can*. And I can be sure it was done correctly and
: completely.
: Sure, I can cd into /usr/src/usr.sbin/traceroute and type "make; make
: install" there, and a few minutes later I have a new traceroute and
: nothing more. The point is, I have a choice.
That's true. you have a choice. My car has a 36000 mile warranty. I
have a choice between just driving like everyone else, or I can drive
36000 miles nonstop until I get to the end.
I cant comprehend a situation where I would want to recompile EVERY
binary on my system. Please, tell me, unless I have upgraded the source
to every single program, what is the point of recompiling inetd if the
source hasnt changed? Even a lib upgrade isnt a good enough reason. I
have yet to see UPWARD compatibilty problem with libc.
Give me an hour and I'll write a make file that spools through the
/usr/src/[bin,sbin,usr.bin,usr.sbin,etc] directories and does a touch -R
* ; make install. The reason nobody has, IS BECAUSE NOBODY CARES!
: This is just one of the things he was referring to. NetBSD just
: "feels" to me like a genuine commercial "Unix" product. It is very
: well layed out with much careful thought and foresight. My friends
: linux boxes, while fine, reliable systems, simply didn't feel that way
: to me. They felt to me like something you'd expect to get for free.
: Please don't take this as a slam, I'm just trying to give you an idea
: of my impressions.
Please dont take this post as a flame, it wasnt meant that way at all,
like you I was just trying to state MY opinions. I guess FEEL is a
relative term. Let me give you an example.
A friend wanted Linux from me, but I was working 70hrs a week at that
time and couldnt get it to him. (He had no internet at that time and a
the only local board with linux has MCC 0.99.10+ :^| ) so he went out and
bought unixware. I believe that fits in your definition of 'a genuine
commercial "Unix" product.' After spending weeks trying to get it to work
(and being quoted $200 for an X driver for an ET4000 at 1024x768) he
chucked it all. I had a new job (read: I had time!) by then and last
weekend I took slackware 1.1.2 (2 days before 1.2.0 :^| ) to his house.
He told me that he couldnt believe how EASY the slack setup was and that
he was glad he had gotten rid of Unixware. slack setup is VERY easy and
straight forward. If I need to upgrade, say, the net binaries because I
want to run the news net3 instead of net2 (hush hush top secret, you
didnt hear it from me, but Linux with IPX! Coming soon) I will download
the slack n series again and re install.
Are there things in Linux that need to be changed? yes, FSSTND doesnt
thrill me. /usr/X11/lib/X11 is the stupides thing I've ever seen. And I
would like a SCO like sysadmsh. (actually, I'm thinking of writing one)
But tell me this about NetFreeBSD (Things I REALLY dont know)
Is there MS-DOG Emulation? ( until I see quicken for Linux, I need DOS apps)
Will WABI/WINE work there? (I'd love to see Word for Windows under X)
is there iBCS2 support? (In ALPHA for Linux, run SCO binaries)
Linux > BSD .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Thompson | Linux/fvwm/Emacs/ztalk ARE GOD! Ban MS-DOG/WinBlows
skyhook@iac.net | Ztalk 0.2a reception ready on skynet.iac.net
skynet.iac.net | (when my CSLIP is connected that is :) )
-----------------------------------------------------------------------