BSD Talk

[Nob]

if u use FreeSBIE, dont install it on hard drive, use it only as live distro..

[poofyhairguy]

if u use FreeSBIE, dont install it on hard drive, use it only as live distro..

Ok. What BSD is good for a harddrive install?

[HungSquirrel]

Any of them except FreeSBIE. The install to disc option on the live distro sucks.

[dataw0lf]

I'm a bit biased on this subject: I love FreeBSD with all of my heart. However, FreeBSD (and the other flavors of BSD) can be quite a change for Linux users. I certainly don't advocate using FreeBSD as a desktop (in the same vein that I don't advocate Ubuntu as a server base), but, if you're willing to put in the time, learning FreeBSD can be extremely beneficial and rewarding.

The Gentoo portage system was indeed inspired by FreeBSD, but they certainly don't do it nearly as efficiently, or achieve the other remarkable achievements of FreeBSD: incredible stability, maturity, and overall just some great tools (pf compared to iptables springs rapidly to mind, especially from a 'general user's' point of view). FreeBSD's robustness (especially under incredible pressure) speaks highly of the engineers who've designed it. If you've ever ran some enterprise Linux servers under heavy load, you'd probably appreciate BSD infinitely more.

A good thing to remember regarding Linux versus BSD discussions is this: Linux is on the cutting edge of hardware and software. The Linux kernel accepts patches and addons that even the wildest BSD developer wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole. This is one of the major reasons why Linux has gained such popularity in the desktop arena: it (generally) supports all your cool little toys you want to plug into your box.

One of the most confusing aspects is probably the switch from SysV based runlevels (which most Linux distros use) to BSD based runlevels. However, once you become acclimated to that, you see the enormous benefits (and increase in boot and shutdown processes) from the BSD based runlevel versus SysV.

As far as panickedthumb's endorsement of Solaris, all I can say is: DON'T DO IT! Seriously, I've worked both professionally and personally with a number of flavors of Unixes, but Solaris is probably the worst, by far, that I've ever used. Why does Sun always feel the need to break things?

You might be able to attribute that to my intense hatred of Sun though

[TravisNewman]

Heh. I didn't dislike Solaris, but it DEFINITELY wasn't what FreeBSD is. Hopefully in the coming years Solaris will improve greatly, since they're opening the project. I think Solaris has a LOT of good ideas, and they're implemented mostly well, but it could use some work. The thing that gets me about Solaris-- installation time: I don't THINK the installer is compiling everything, but you'd think it was. Took a good two and a half hours from inserting the first cd to removing the last.

[DJ_Max]

" BSD, Solaris and linux are all unix operating systems."

Depends on who you ask Solaris, and BSD, among others, are technically UNIX, but Linux is technically a UNIX clone. Splitting hairs I know. I've used a few other UNIX systems, and they all seem to function in close to the same way, but Linux is kinda the outlier that doesn't (as far as filesystem structure and device names go, anyway)

BSD shares code with the orginal Unix OS developed by AT&T/Bell. Linux is based on some Unix ideas.

All of the BSD's provide pre-built binaries as well as source.

I've read tons of BSD related docs, and will be installing NetBSD on my iMac in a few days, I fine the system more logical then most. Not only with the package system, but the way the kernel and most utilities are in the base system, which doesn't really exsist in a Linux environment.

Linux is on the cutting edge of hardware and software. The Linux kernel accepts patches and addons that even the wildest BSD developer wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.

BSD waiting for proper testing isn't necessarily a bad thing. Most common hardware works the same as Linux, only a few oddball hardware doesn't get support as quick as Linux, and for good reason..

[crazybill]

I want to try to end some confusion about UNIX/Linux/BSD and give you some of my experience... which is new to Ubuntu Linux .. but old with BSD... well, old from a modern computing sense.

The "Which is more UNIX: BSD or LINUX" Question
From a purely historic standpoint, both BSD and LINUX are derived from the Bell Lab's first UNICS (Sept 1969) which was soon renamed UNIX Time-sharing system). The "CS" (Computing Service) part of the acronym became "X"; CS=X! The UNIX operating system was designed to let a number of programmers access a computer at the same time and share its resources. It was made by programmers for programmers, allowing multi-tasking and multi-users, with portability. There was only one flavor of UNIX (UNIX Time-Sharing System) until around 1974, when it started to splinter into branches. BSD branched off in March 1978 when AT&T relinquished its UNIX copywrite to University of California Berkley who distributed it open source under "Berkley Software Distribution" : BSD.

To be a UNIX operating system, there must be a historical link in development .. which there is for the distributions that call themselves Linux, for those that call themselves BSD, and for some (like Solaris and Mac) that don't use that nomenclature at all. The UNIX system and any present day distribution that calls itself "UNIX" or "UNIX-like" must be functionally organized at three levels:
1. The kernel, scheduling tasks and managing storage;
2. The shell, connecting and interpreting users' commands, calling programs from memory, and executing them.
3. The tools and applications, usually simple and sweet, that offer greater function to the operating system

For these reasons Ubuntu Linux is indeed a UNIX operating system, as is OpenBSD, FreeBSD. These are all examples of open source operating system with kernel, shell, and applicable tools that fit the definition above. Too, historically, its kernel-shell-core tools were derived from the original UNIX and they still share many common shells, tools, and kernel characteristics.

The arguments that say BSD is more UNIX and Linux is less UNIX is, to my eyes, fairly bogus. First, the genetic tree from UNICs to BSD or LINUX is more of a spider web than a tree, due to sharing of ideas throughout concerning the kernel, sharing the same shells, and sharing most of the same tools. Secondly, whereas BSD separated from "UNIX Time-sharing system" (the base of the genetic tree) in March 1978. Linux branched from the same trunk in 1984, so in that regard is "more UNIX". There have been connects and disconnects since that time between BSD distributions and Linux distributions.

Ubuntu Linux, openBSD, FreeBSD are all UNIX operating sytems.

THE DERIVATIONS (Unix Family Tree/Web for Ubuntu and BSD)

There was one UNIX from 1969- 1973 (UNIX Time Sharing System). Around 1974 MERT and PWB UNIX broke off from "UNIX time sharing system". Thus, in 1974, there were 3 flavors. Eventually, AT&T gave up its rights to UNIX and University of California in Berkley started being the major guardian -- hense BSD (Berkley Software Distribution). BSD was born in March, 1978. There was 1BSD in '78, 2BSD in '79... until the 4BSD kernel was born around 1980 and they started naming it 4.0 and incrementing by tenths. Quite a few flavors of BSD started branching off the 4.x BSD kernels.

NetBSD is the oldest of the BSDs keeping their name. FreeBSD started in December 1993 from the 386BSD project. Open BSD branched off of NetBSD in October 1995. (I started using it in '97). One of the derivatives of UNIX came to be known as GNU. GNU started in the 70s. The Debian group branched off of that in 2000. Ubuntu/Kubuntu branched from that. With respect to the Linux 2.6.10 kernel of Ubuntu/Kubuntu... it actuall came from UNIX through Minix to Linux, with an infusion of BSD4.x to Irix to Linux. Actually if you tried to plot all of the UNIX/BSD/LINUX flavors, the genetic diagram would not really look like a genetic "tree" but more like a genetic "spiderweb". One branch would grow into another or at least share ideas, tools, shells with each other. In short UNIX, LINUX, and BSD are joined at the hip, shoulder and feet!

openBSD:
UNICS ('69) --> UNIX Time-sharing System (1st - 6th ed.) --> 1BSD -->2 BSD--- etc through BSD 4.x--> netBSD --> openBSD

freeBSD
UNICS ('69) --> UNIX Time-sharing System (1st - 6th ed.) --> 1BSD -->2 BSD--- etc through BSD 4.x--> 386tBSD --> freeBSD

Ubuntu/Kubuntu Linux (ref Debian)
UNICS ('69) --> UNIX Time-sharing System (1st - 9th ed.) -->GNU(Trix)GNU/Herd--> Debian GNU/Herd----------> Debian GNU--> Ubuntu Linux

Ubuntu/Kubuntu Linux (ref Linux 2.6.10 kernel)
UNICS ('69) --> UNIX Time-sharing System (1st - 7th ed.**) --> Minix -->Linux 0.1----------> Linux 2.6.10 --> Ubuntu Linux (** there is also a split off into BSD 4.x, then a branch to IRIX and then to Linux... so it is really a web rather than an nice tree)

My Background experience with BSD (large) AND LINUX (small)
First, I have been using FreeBSD since 1995 and openBSD since 1997. I run http://www.cvc.org, http://home.cvc.org and http://www.drennon.org and a couple more in those domains on openBSD since 1997 and through this year on the same circa 1995 hardware, with no problems, no crashes. Because we have over 7,000,000 visitors to the web servers now (compared to only 3000 the first year), and because a power supply failed, I upgraded the older servers this year to newer hardware. I mentioned that information to give you an idea of BSD's stability and security. I still run a couple of email servers with freeBSD, including one that has been running without crashing since 1995! Most of my LAN and private WAN servers (there are 18 of them) are openBSD. For servers, routers, etc, BSD is great. I am using some openBSD machines that are quite old but still doing a great job and they never never never stop ticking. I do use some Windows on my LANs but only because of software restrictions that require Windows. I have one NT server and two Win2000 servers -- but hope to eventually get rid of them. I have a couple of servers that are Linux: Ubuntu Linux.. and thus far, they have been trouble free.

I have tried performance tests of various flavors of BSD with Linux and openBSD has always come up the winner. OpenBSD is so darned easy to tweak. OpenBSD, too, is extremely secure. As a webserver. it just can't be beat... and the root of the apache webserver is different than the root of the computer. Packages and ports are not hard to deal with, once you get use to it. For a server, that is going to have multiple users logged on at a time, doing mulitple tasks, openBSD is wonderful.

FreeBSD is not bad, either. In truth, FreeBSD is downright awesome. However, with respect to how I tweak things, openBSD out performed FreeBSD in every test I have done since 1997, For public IP computers and even private LAN computers with confidential info on them, FreeBSD has given way to openBSD. I started with FreeBSD, mind you, so have a love for it, but it is giving way to open BSD.

I have tried x-windows type desktops with openBSD and freeBSD, but always rejected them. For servers, they are great, but not for workstations or standalone computers, in my estimation. There are presently three main open source UNIX branches that call themselves "BSD": netBSD, freeBSD (the largest), and openBSD. openBSD broke branched off from netBSD. To be fair, I have never tried netBSD.

Apple, by the way, is a commercial BSD.

Annually, I have been going through the ritutal of trying various flavors of Linux (there are about 300 flavors of Linux!) , but performance was never as good as the BSDs, even though the desktop was better... but I was still not willing to give up Windows for most desktop applications... until this year when I discovered Ubuntu and then Kubuntu.





My recommendation:

openBSD -- the best there is for security and tweaking a limited machine to behave like a powerful machine. The hardship here is the front-end setup... but after that, it is problem free. The packages and ports are not that hard to set up once you get use to it. I do not recommend it for a desktop. It is the best of the best for servers. I have always made my own CDs for setup and given them to friends with step by step directions. I know many folks that I initially set up using openBSD that still use it and love it.

freeBSD -- easier to setup than openBSD and the most popular and largest BSD. It also makes a good server. I am still using a machine that I have had since 1995 with freeBSD and it is still cooking. Though the perfomance always is killed by openBSD on a head to head test, it is almost as good. There are more packages and more people using it than openBSD, and thus more help available.


Ubuntu/Kubuntu Linux -- I have used Ubuntu Linux for less than a year and Kubuntu for less than a week. I have tested a lot of Linux flavors... but do not want to dish any... just to say I found Ubuntu/Kubuntu to be, by far the best. It makes the first really good workstation/home computer that I have seen. Although, I love Ubuntu, I think that I am going to like Kubuntu even better because of the KDE desktop over Gnome. However, I have not used it enough yet to really say... it is only my strong hunch at this point. I would and am using Ubuntu as servers as well as stand-alone machines... because it is, afterall, a UNIX machine and they are great as remote servers... MUCH MUCH MUCH better than Windows. The ease of setup and making quick changes is a big plus, even though the performance is not quite as good as the BSDs. Today's computers though are mcuh much better than when I started out.. so a Pentium IV with 512 MB of RAM is making a better server than an Open BSD on a Pentium II 200 MHz machine with 64 MB of RAM!... and it was quicker and easier to set up.

Over 90% of the tools I use on openBSD and freeBSD, I use in the remote terminal for Ubuntu and Kubuntu.... because after all, they are all UNIX.

I hope this helps.

[BWF89]

I heard that one of the BSD's is working on an apt-get like program for it.

If I knew more about computers I'd use BSD over Linux anyday. Especially since BSD can run and Linux program (or so I've heard).

[HungSquirrel]

I heard that one of the BSD's is working on an apt-get like program for it.

ME WANT

[TravisNewman]

I thought BDS stood for Berkely STANDARD Distribution. But that's a minor detail. Good history lesson bro!