Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.questions:13347 comp.os.386bsd.misc:3525 Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.os.386bsd.misc Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!gmi!zombie.ncsc.mil!news.duke.edu!convex!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!news.dell.com!tadpole.com!uunet!news.cygnus.com!jtc From: jtc@cygnus.com (J.T. Conklin) Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs NetBSD In-Reply-To: jmonroy@netcom.com's message of Fri, 23 Sep 1994 04:37:13 GMT Message-ID: <JTC.94Sep23104305@rtl.cygnus.com> Followup-To: comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.os.386bsd.misc Sender: news@cygnus.com Nntp-Posting-Host: rtl.cygnus.com Organization: Cygnus Support References: <358o3g$p95@umd5.umd.edu> <jmonroyCwKFI2.6C0@netcom.com> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 17:43:04 GMT Lines: 22 > : I have found compiling things for FreeBSD is sometimes a bit of a chore > : (as compared to Linux and NeXTStep, which I also run), especially > : since there is usually not a default config for it (for example, with > : gcc, pine, and misc others). Is netbsd in the same boat? > : > Since Bill Jolitz is the original author of 386bsd > and the basis for FreeBSD and NetBSD, it is safe > to assume that porting should be an easy task. No, it's not safe to assume that porting should be an easy task. Most of the problems that people have when porting programs are at the user, rather than kernel level. It was clear from the Jolitz' presentation at the SVNet meeting that the most of changes to 386BSD 1.0 have been in the kernel. I wanted to ask him about user level improvements, but didn't get a chance. In addition to important kernel improvements, both NetBSD and FreeBSD have made great progress in compatibility, standards conformance, and internationalization support in the user level libraries and programs. --jtc