Return to BSD News archive
#! rnews 3314 bsd Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!chi-news.cic.net!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!blackbush.xlink.net!news.ppp.net!news.Hanse.DE!wavehh.hanse.de!cracauer From: cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de (Martin Cracauer) Subject: Re: FreeBSD or NetBSD Message-ID: <1995Dec18.085718.2388@wavehh.hanse.de> Organization: BSD User Group Hamburg References: <4ag00h$ckk_001@martis-d221.sierra.net> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 95 08:57:18 GMT Lines: 60 jiho@sunset.net (jiho@sunset.net) writes: >> I've been using linux for some time and I feel I'd like to try >> other unices and these two - FreeBSD and NetBSD - came to my mind >> first. I hope I'm not totally wrong when posting to this group... >> So, what are the diferences in getting them, copying policies, >> hardware requirements, comparing running them as net servers and >> as 'single' user workstations, ... thanks a LOT... >I had FreeBSD for about two years, but recently switched to NetBSD, so I can >compare the two somewhat for you, in certain respects. >As noted by others, these systems are very similar, but there are some stark >pros and cons on each side. >FreeBSD is much better supported than is NetBSD. There is more work going on >for FreeBSD, both in developing the kernel and in porting applications. The >main negative I found for FreeBSD was the uncontrolled growth of the kernel >code. In FreeBSD 2.1, the kernel I build for my hardware had ballooned to >well over 700K. Meanwhile, with all the code that had been piled into the >FreeBSD kernel, it really didn't do anything substantial that was new or >different, even--let alone better--to justify the added size. My impression is that NetBSD has less features of the "help-newcomes" sort like install tools and exotic device drivers. NetBSD has as much features as FreeBSD when it comes to features that are of use for professionals. The ccd driver is just one example. >The NetBSD kernel has remained much smaller, but the system is very poorly >supported. The 1.0 release was riddled with absurd little problems. On the Funny. For my needs, NetBSD-1.0 was a rock-solid product, much less problems than the FreeBSD versions of that time. It really depends on what exactly you are doing. >other hand, in NetBSD 1.0 the kernel I build (equivalent to the one for >FreeBSD 2.1 that was well over 700K) is less than 500K. But even though some >of 1.0's problems have been fixed for 1.1, my kernel in NetBSD 1.1 is about >35K larger than in 1.0, and already I am at a loss to find the reason; so the >same trend seems to be developing for NetBSD, as drove me away from FreeBSD! Here are my kernel sizes, for the same machine with comparable features: NetBSD-1.1: 716800 53248 58500 828548 ca484 FreeBSD-2.1: 704512 53248 67180 824940 c966c while my FreeBSD doesn't have Linux emulation. [...] As you see, everything depends on the viewpoint and your posting was oversimplified and therefore misleading. Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer <cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de> - Fax +49 40 522 85 36 BSD User Group Hamburg, Germany - No NeXTMail anymore, please. Copyright 1995. Redistribution via Microsoft Network is prohibited