Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!blackbush.xlink.net!ka.sub.net!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!not-for-mail From: uk1o@rzstud2.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Felix Schroeter) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc Subject: Re: What IS BSD?? Date: 9 Mar 1997 16:39:10 +0100 Organization: University of Karlsruhe, Germany Lines: 81 Message-ID: <5fuliu$rh2@rzstud2.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> References: <331E9CF0.3A49@adel.tafe.sa.edu.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: rzstud2.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.misc:2761 Hello! In article <331E9CF0.3A49@adel.tafe.sa.edu.au>, Staf <surge@adel.tafe.sa.edu.au> wrote: >G'Day all, >I just read the huge thread about Linux and BSD. I happen to be trying >to decide between the two at the moment. Do that at your gusto. IMO there are no objective reasons for one or the other being *better*. They do have differences though. Pro Linux: Strange hardware support, new hardware will be supported rather quickly. Linux might be a bit more efficient on Intel platforms (but I don't have benchmarked Linux vs FreeBSD and the latter also do work on inceasing the efficiency of the OS). Much userland software including commercial apps. Developed with POSIX (a portability standard) in mind, additionaly they try to be source code compatible to SysV and to BSD. Con Linux: (IMHO!) partly bad code quality wrt reading the source and/or kernel hacking. Diversity of distributions (could be a pro for some people). Pro 4.4BSD derivatives (FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD [free], BSDI [commercial]): Networking niceties (generic routing table, tun interface, a bit more general IP filter and address translation code [but that's post 4.4BSD]). Portability of systems software (NetBSD/OpenBSD run on many platforms. Low level tools are mostly portable between the platforms). *One* distribution per kernel (i.e. there's *the* FreeBSD distribution, *the* NetBSD distribution, *the* OpenBSD distribution). A consistent system source tree and build system. Con 4.4BSD derivatives: Less novice friendly (except perhaps FreeBSD, they have a rather nifty installation tool and an online handbook included with the system [HTML]). Less support for exotic hardware. No ISDN in the system distribution (though, there's ISDN code for BSD named bisdn). And perhaps many other things I have forgotten now. One recommendation is to look around what the people around you are using (ignoring Do$/Window$ :-] )... >I like Linux for all the usual reasons, but I heard a rumour that BSD >Unix systems can all use the same binaries. If this is true it would be >a great factor in my decision. FreeBSD can execute FreeBSD native, Linux, COFF. Dunno about NetBSD... NetBSD/OpenBSD can execute their native format, FreeBSD, Linux, COFF... Linux can execute Linux a.out, Linux ELF, and I think COFF. >Can anyone provide an answer please? >If this is not true, then what is BSD Unix as opposed to 'normal' Unix? There was once an UNIX version called Seventh Edition (that was released about 1978). From then, the UNIX development splitted into two main branches (and additional offsprings): AT&T/USG/USL/[chase their current name] and BSD. The former was developed for commercial use (and in fact, many commercial UNIX systems are based upon System V, the latest version from USG/USL). The latter was developed at the University of California at Berkeley (UCB), using Sixth Edition and Seventh Edition as basis. Some advancements in 3BSD convinced the DARPA to fund the Berkeley team for developing a standard system for DARPA's contractors to use. 4BSD was the first UNIX to incorporate networking in their UNIX and have also introduced many features to UNIX that are *now* common to the most UNIX versions, from either branch. Linux (opposed to the other UNIX branches) is *not* derived from any of AT&T UNIX, BSD UNIX or Seventh/Sixth Edition. Instead it was developed completely from scratch. So Linux is not a UNIX operating system, but a UNIX-like operating system. The completely independant development was done to insure that it can always be free, not encumbered by the USL/BSD lawsuit that wasn't resolved, when Linux was already in development (so they could not incorporate BSD code then). So hope that my gibberish helps a bit :-) Regards, Felix.