Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.misc:2857 comp.os.linux.misc:20405 Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!news.widomaker.com!escape!shendrix From: shendrix@escape.widomaker.com (Shannon Hendrix) Subject: Re: Usefulness of BSD/Linux Source Knowledge (was BSD vs. LINUX) Message-ID: <1994Jul28.025818.6937@escape.widomaker.com> Organization: HNN UNIX Network Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 02:58:18 GMT References: <30jqp1$ees@grex.cyberspace.org> <1994Jul21.182603.15882@belvedere.sbay.org> <2NsBkiCqLiLU068yn@cs.odu.edu> <30pn0a$9rf@hermes.unt.edu> <CtEuyA.En1@world.std.com> <1994Jul24.185248.5906@escape.widomaker.com> <michaelv.775258838@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu> X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Followup-To: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc Lines: 189 Michael L. VanLoon (michaelv@iastate.edu) wrote: : In <1994Jul24.185248.5906@escape.widomaker.com> shendrix@escape.widomaker.com (Shannon Hendrix) writes: : >Lee E Parsons (lparsons@world.std.com) wrote: : Linux is applicable to the future of unix because it's somewhat POSIX : compliant? That's quite a far stretch, in my opinion. : There are many more POSIX-compliant systems than Linux. Granted, they : aren't free. Somewhat? It's pretty close. So is BSD. Never said it wasn't. The original poster seemed to be saying that BSD was better for learning to program UNIX and it is not. Now, from a system level, yeah, it is because it's the real thing, not a re-write. Of course, reading Linux kernel source is certainly a good way to learn about OS's. Any POSIX OS is a help for learning to write portable code, even for non-UNIX OS (excuse the blasphemy). : You also assume that just because NetBSD is based on BSD unix, that : this precludes any POSIX compliance, and this simply is not true. Huh? I don't think so. I never said BSD wasn't. I squirt programs I write between Linux and SunOS all the time with no problems (except for some stupid Sun-isms here and there that aren't BSD's fault). : NetBSD-1.0 has excellent POSIX-1 extensions in many areas, such as : termios, signal handling, headers, etc., not to mention sysV shared : memory support, /proc, /kern, and /dev/fd filesystems. NetBSD is : probably not much farther from a certifiable POSIX "unix" than Linux : is. I know, I write software for it all the time. I use a POSIX book instead of Sun, BSD, or Linux manuals and most everything works just fine on all three. I have had BSD's make vomit on my makefiles but since I've never had my own BSD machine to use that's because I'm so used to GNU (I've tried very hard to test all my makefiles with SunOS's make). : I would say "not". In fact, most everyone who has been with Sun for : awhile only went to Solaris 2 after clawing and scratching, and being : forced to by lack of new hardware support in their older BSD SunOS. I agree that it seems forced. But I still think it is going to happen. Sun and a lot of other vendors seem hell-bent to change to SysV. That and Motif. : Many sites would still be running SunOS (BSD) rather than upgrading to : Solaris if their hardware permitted it. At least that's the : impression I've gained from most of my associates where Suns are used. We run 4.1.1 at work because we have a lot of 4/xxx systems and Solaris 2.x causes a huge performance hit. Also, we don't like the idea of $700 compilers when we used to get them for nothing. But, we need some new machines and they only come with Solaris. I don't like it but we really have no choice. We have to build systems to customer specs and most of them want Solaris, Motif, and hi-powered Suns. When my SunOS machine is taken away from me I probably won't like it but I don't have a choice in the matter. : I think SysV Solaris is really going to kill off a lot of Sun's : established market base in the long run. I think it already is. Then again, once the bugs are worked out of Solaris and more and more systems are running SysV4.x it may actually help them. Think about the scenario where Sun does *NOT* go SysV and everyone else does. That could be just as bad for them. I would never have made a SysV prediction like I did except there is so much momentum toward SysV. A good case for what I said is how many proposals now specify SVR4, not BSD or it's derivatives. Same for Motif. We have to do all our stuff in Motif because that is what everyone is going to. Doesn't mean the other toolkits are going away, but the market place has declared them "dead". : >He wrote it following POSIX and standard UNIX so it's mostly the same. : Not internally. And not in the general feel of administering the : system, setting it up, maintaining it, etc. But POSIX doesn't deal with internals. That's what you read within ten pages of the documents on Posix.1 and the POSIX book by O'Reilly. It's almost like an API. The very fact that you can run POSIX apps on OS/2 and the VAX illustrate this (the VAX POSIX is really just wrapper functions). As far as administration... I can run BSD admin tools or SysV. My choice. Most of the time, I do admin by hand. The tools that I do have on the system are a mix of BSD, SysV, and unique stuff from various sources. I never really liked any of it. I use SysV init because it seemed to work smoother than other init's I tried. Linux really doesn't have a standard in this regard. You pretty much choose whatever you want. Of course, there is the heavy smell of GNU... : >Because BSD is dead. I wish it were not so because I prefer BSD but : >SVR4.2 is the future of UNIX, not BSD. You actually made a wrong : >choice by your own critieria. : Oh, please stop spreading such lies. Geez... what lies? When all these companies are dropping their BSD ports and moving to SysV (and OSF) I'm lying to point that out? How exactly is that a lie? It's happening right now. : How can BSD be dead if it's : still being developed and evolving? Maybe it's not the "market's" : choice for the mass OS. But then again, neither is SVR4... can you : say Windoze? By dead I mean (and I thought it was obvious) the new UNIX boxes being sold are going to be running SysV UNIX. UNIXWorld, UNIX Review, Sun newsletters, SysAdmin, etc all are full of all these companies moving to SysV. Haven't you read about IBM's plans? HP? Even Apple is saying no more AUX and reports than any future UNIX for Apple's PowerPC's will be SysV, not BSD. Of course, there is OSF so nothing is assured but everything I've read says "SYSV" all over it. Where I work we have no choice but to move to SysV. Well, it's possible we'll be running OSF on DEC's but I don't believe so. Get this: we have NO CHOICE. Neither do many others. You want the new machines, you WILL run SysV. Often that is your only option. Of course, you could always get a port of BSD I guess. How many exist? Could we rely on that for our customer sites? Would they be comfortable with that? Now, as far as BSD being around and being used... of course it isn't dead in that respect. It will be a around in the next century. Maybe the tables will even reverse and the world will decide (I hope) that BSD was the right way to go after all and everyone will be back tracking. But right now, most vendors appear to be going to SysV. : But, for real systems programming, BSD is much more like what I use at : work (Ultrix) than Linux will ever be. And, Linux simply would not : give me any real applicable experience at the level I'm working. It : would be like rebuilding Chevy engines at home, so I could go work on : Volvos at work. Most of it, beyond the basics (and even some of : them), simply wouldn't apply. Agreed. But for UNIX programming there is little difference when you stay close to POSIX guidelines and write good C code. I can't see an advantage for BSD there... or Linux. : >: Am I not putting enough faith in Linux? Too much in FreeBSD? : >No, you just argued against yourself a lot. : And you just made a lot of personal opinions into false general : assertions. No, I just repeated what you can read in magazines and what you'll hear if you give some of those companies a call or receive information from them in the mail. It isn't personal opinion. In fact, if you'll read my post I stated my personal opinion which was NOT in favor of SysV. : I'm not saying Linux is bad here. But you are obviously not listening : to what the original poster was saying. Linux is not the ideal : operating system for every single application, no matter what the : world of Linux bigots* would like to believe. I never said that, implied it, or endorsed it. The original poster said BSD was better because of X,Y,Z and that wasn't true except what you just said about the internals. Most UNIX programming is done from an API point of view, not systems programming and neither BSD or Linux are all that different from that point of view. If you write good C and follow POSIX wherever you can most of your code will port easily. I do it all the time. Now, I do see the point about UNIX internals and I was aware of that. In fact, I'm going to install BSD on my system simply to I can get at the internals and see that instead of Linux and because I want to play with BSD on my home system (never have had it run on an Intel before). : * I don't refer to the entire community of Linux users as Linux : bigots. I think we all know who the offenders are. Just as not all BSD users are bigots, despite many of the most vocal BSD users being fire-breathing BSD bigots. Anytime any UNIX user feels like bashing another UNIX instead of sticking together (like we should) they should just picture themselves running a DLL through a debugger under Win/32s. Of course, the above is NULL if the UNIX OS is really crappy and un-UNIXish. Of COurse tHerE is no Reason to mENtion which ones thaT are reAlly so Insanely eXcruciating to run. -- csh --------------------------------------------------------------------------- shendrix@escape.widomaker.com (UUCP) | Amd486/40 Linux system shendrix@pcs.cnu.edu (Internet) | Christopher Newport University