Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mira.net.au!news.vbc.net!vbcnet-west!knews.uk0.vbc.net!vbcnet-gb!azure.xara.net!xara.net!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!news.onramp.net!newshost.cyberramp.net!news1.cstone.net!not-for-mail From: Paul Nguyen <pauln@cstone.net> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: NetBSD vs FreeBSD, kernel networking code Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 11:02:58 -0500 Organization: Cornerstone Networks Message-ID: <333948B2.4E6E@cstone.net> References: <5h9a1g$ela@qnx.com> Reply-To: pauln@cstone.net NNTP-Posting-Host: gosub.cstone.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0b2 (Win95; I) To: Doug Santry <doug@qnx.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Lines: 31 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:5693 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:37762 Doug Santry wrote: I know that both NetBSD and FreeBSD are based on the Lite/1 tape. But both camps have been fixing bugs in the code. So while both have a common ancestor, I assume they have diverged a little by now. What are some of the differences between the two? I am interested in new features and bug fixes. For instance, FreeBSD has T/TCP support. Does NetBSD? Are there resource limits that have been fixed in one and not the other? Does one handle the SYN_RCVD attack better than the other? No detail is too trivial. DJS FreeBSD rules on Intel, IMO! I think if you are looking for multiplatform, you may want to look into NetBSD, but on Intel nothing comes close to the development team on FreeBSD, very clear and concise project. Also, in an article in Sun Expert not too long ago, they had an article on the BSDs, the author goes on to say that FreeBSD has the most robust and capable tcp/ip stack in existence, not only BSD but any other OSes! That's cause FreeBSD rocks! Now, go get yourself a 2.2.1 boot disk. -Paul