Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!doc.ic.ac.uk!swan.doc.ic.ac.uk!ajt From: a...@swan.doc.ic.ac.uk (Tony Travis) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux Subject: Linux or 386BSD: neither or both ?? Message-ID: <19lkanINN40s@frigate.doc.ic.ac.uk> Date: 21 Sep 92 23:02:47 GMT Reply-To: a...@rri.sari.ac.uk Organization: Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, University of London, UK. Lines: 37 NNTP-Posting-Host: swan.doc.ic.ac.uk X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6] Like many people reading this newsgroup I also read comp.unix.bsd and I am finding it difficult to decide between Linux or 386BSD ... There is no doubt that Linux performs better than 386bsd on my 20 MHz 386SX with 4Mb RAM and it is a real pleasure to use in comparison with the lumbering giant of 386bsd (even with a small 386bsd kernel containing only the devices actually present on my PC). It is almost impossible to use 386bsd when running a compilaton in the background but Linux performs the same task without any problem at all. On the face of it, Linux is the obvious choice but the organisation of the 386bsd distribution is in a different league to the fragmented and disorganised anarchy of Linux. The manifests used in 386bsd contain crc's and it is simple to verify a distribution. I find it exasperating that there seem to be many different versions of the same Linux distribution at different archive sites and it is quite difficult to know where you are and what version is current. The progress of Minix was helped by regular publication of crc lists that 'defined' a release. This made it possible to check an installation and verify that all the necessary files were present. Were it not for the slow response and long compilation times on my system when it is running 386bsd I would probably choose 386bsd because it is so well organised and the major (gnu + X11R5) software is the same as Linux. However, the performance of Linux on the same hardware is so much better!! Is anyone else dithering like this, or am I alone in my indecision? Tony. -- Dr. A.J.Travis, | Tony Travis Rowett Research Institute, | JANET: <a...@uk.ac.sari.rri> Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, | other: <a...@rri.sari.ac.uk> Aberdeen, AB2 9SB. UK. | phone: 0224-712751
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!wupost!spool.mu.edu!tulane!butler From: but...@cs.tulane.edu (Larry Butler) Subject: Re: Linux or 386BSD: neither or both ?? Message-ID: <1992Sep22.013248.25972@cs.tulane.edu> Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-25916]: jupiter Sender: n...@cs.tulane.edu Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA References: <19lkanINN40s@frigate.doc.ic.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 01:32:48 GMT Lines: 15 I have been using Linux for a while and I must say I have been *very* pleased. Recently, I bought a new and larger hard disk, and I decided to give 386BSD v0.1 a try. I did this mostly because I liked the idea that most packages that I might want to compile would have instructions for compiling on BSD (and ftp sites that carry 386BSD stuff seem to be *much* more organized). But, I found that I was getting more than I was bargaining for. 386BSD is ENORMOUS. And the performance didn't seem to be any better or worse than Linux. Some things were much nicer than on Linux (i.e.shutdown/startup procedures). Overall Linux seems much more practicle for what it was designed to do. I'm sure when Linux v1.0 is released all of those little inconviences will be taken care of. The long and short of it is I'm going back to linux. BTW, could someone explain to me why 386BSD has to be so BIG and COMPLEX. Larry
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!uwm.edu!ogicse!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!bloom-picayune.mit.edu! daemon From: ty...@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Theodore Ts'o) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux Subject: Re: Linux or 386BSD: neither or both ?? Message-ID: <1992Sep22.042523.13873@athena.mit.edu> Date: 22 Sep 92 04:25:23 GMT Article-I.D.: athena.1992Sep22.042523.13873 Sender: dae...@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background) Reply-To: ty...@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Theodore Ts'o) Organization: The Internet Lines: 44 From: a...@swan.doc.ic.ac.uk (Tony Travis) Date: 21 Sep 92 23:02:47 GMT Reply-To: a...@rri.sari.ac.uk There is no doubt that Linux performs better than 386bsd on my 20 MHz 386SX with 4Mb RAM and it is a real pleasure to use in comparison with the lumbering giant of 386bsd (even with a small 386bsd kernel containing only the devices actually present on my PC). On the face of it, Linux is the obvious choice but the organisation of the 386bsd distribution is in a different league to the fragmented and disorganised anarchy of Linux. The manifests used in 386bsd contain crc's and it is simple to verify a distribution. I think a lot of this is due to the relative speeds at which Linux development and 386bsd development is happening. Linux kernel releases have been happening roughly once a week for quite a while now; people waited a *long* time between 386BSD 0.1 and 386BSD 0.2. One way of partially solving this problem is to stick with either the MCC Interim releases or the SLS releases. Both of these releases now are quite obsolete --- which is to say a few weeks old --- but at least they contain a fairly stable system. They won't contain the latest features, but you won't have to recompile "ps" every week, either. And despite the fact that are a bit behind at this point, the MCC Interim releases was *still* issueing new releases faster that 386BSD was. I can't say anything about the SLS release, since it's only been out one releases so far. One thing that might help is "Intro to Linux" document that explains how linux development works, and has a section about how to deal with Linux FTP sites for someone who wants to bring up Linux: Step 1: Run, don't walk, to either the MCC Interim releases or the SLS release; IGNORE ALL OTHER FILES. Step 2: Use the distribution mechanism to install Linux on your disk. Step 3: If you want to be adventuresome and upgrade to a new kernel, follow the following steps: .... Do we have any volunteers to write such a document? Also, I suspect things will get much better once Linux 1.0 comes out and we start seeing stable releases which are based on 1.0. At least, I hope so. Let's keep our fingers crossed! - Ted
Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!goanna!minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au!rcskb From: rc...@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Kendall Bennett) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux Subject: Re: Linux or 386BSD: neither or both ?? Message-ID: <1992Sep22.174343.10655@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au> Date: 22 Sep 92 22:43:43 GMT References: <19lkanINN40s@frigate.doc.ic.ac.uk> <1992Sep22.013248.25972@cs.tulane.edu> Organization: RMIT Computer Centre, Melbourne Australia. Lines: 40 but...@cs.tulane.edu (Larry Butler) writes: >BTW, could someone explain to me why 386BSD has to be so BIG and COMPLEX. Simply because it is a complete 4.3BSD (or is it 4.2?) implmentation. It has everything in it, including sockets, internetworking, networked file systems etc. A lot of this stuff is not present in Linux, and if it is it is a simplified implementation (sometimes more efficient). Porting code to Linux is not so easy as porting to 386BSD, simply because 386BSD has all the standard BSD stuff in it. I think one of the reasons that 386BSD is so enormous is that it is still in it's infancy. I wouldn't bother to use it unless you are prepared to put in a lot of time and effort getting the thing to run on your machine and setting it up the way you want it - and then installing all necessary patches (which are needed since the 0.1 distribution has numerous bugs in it). Maybe when version 1.0 of 386BSD comes out it will be better and will be a lot simpler to install. I am another one sitting on the fence at the moment. I installed Linux on my machine a while back (has a few problems and still could not get it to boot off my hard disk), but was rather impressed with it's performance and size. X11 was nice too. However, I have since installed 386BSD and am currently trying this out. I do believe that I will stick with 386BSD simply because it is BSD and UNIX apps will compile for it more easily (but I will give Linux 1.0 a try when it is released). Ciao. +------------------------------------------+-------------------------------+ | Kendall Bennett, | Internet: | | Advanced Computer Graphics Centre, | k...@godzilla.cgl.citri.edu.au | | Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, | rc...@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au | | Victoria, AUSTRALIA. | | +------------------------------------------+-------------------------------+ | CoSysop (Bossman), PC Connection Australia: +61 3 688 0909 | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux Path: sparky!uunet!caen!destroyer!ubc-cs!upham From: up...@cs.ubc.ca (Derek Upham) Subject: Re: Linux or 386BSD: neither or both ?? Message-ID: <1992Sep22.170419.21738@cs.ubc.ca> Sender: use...@cs.ubc.ca (Usenet News) Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada References: <19lkanINN40s@frigate.doc.ic.ac.uk> <1992Sep22.013248.25972@cs.tulane.edu> <1992Sep22.174343.10655@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 92 17:04:19 GMT Lines: 50 rc...@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Kendall Bennett) writes: >I am another one sitting on the fence at the moment. I installed Linux >on my machine a while back (has a few problems and still could not get it >to boot off my hard disk), but was rather impressed with it's performance >and size. X11 was nice too. >However, I have since installed 386BSD and am currently trying this out. >I do believe that I will stick with 386BSD simply because it is BSD >and UNIX apps will compile for it more easily (but I will give Linux 1.0 >a try when it is released). I installed Linux (mcc-interim 0.95c, I think) when I got my current 386 box. 386BSD 0.0 wasn't an option, because I don't have a math coprocessor. I moved to 386BSD when 0.1 came out, but over this past weekend, I moved back to Linux. Why? First, I could _not_ get reliable high-speed connections with my V.32bis, 16550A UART modem under 386BSD. There was a patch that helped a little, but it didn't solve the problem. Linux's device driver seems to be bulletproof---I'm transferring 1600 cps without errors. Since I use my home box primarily for dialing up campus machines, this was a major issue. Second, I kept on getting hit by incompatibilites between the GNU software I was trying to install, and the existing BSD development environment (strange, but true). I'm betting that Linux, which uses GNU tools all over, will not suffer from these problems (and having the GNU C library available Real Soon Now should help a lot). Also, the GNU developers have begun specifically targeting Linux systems, which is nice. Third, 386BSD took up too much disk space. I had 180 megs and was running at 75% capacity (this after deleting a bunch of stuff I knew I wouldn't need). Compiling large packages would push me over the top. Linux doesn't have that problem (of course, it doesn't have half of the utilities either, but those can be installed). Two things I do regret losing when I dropped 386BSD are the Berkeley file system and the working TCP/IP code. The extended file system is promising, but it still shows problems, and I can't seem to get ka9q to run SLIP at all. We'll see what happens. Derek -- Derek Lynn Upham University of British Columbia up...@cs.ubc.ca Computer Science Department ============================================================================= "Ha! Your Leaping Tiger Kung Fu is no match for my Frightened Piglet Style!"
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!agate!soda.berkeley.edu!wjolitz From: wjol...@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Jolitz) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux Subject: Re: Linux or 386BSD: neither or both ?? Date: 22 Sep 1992 18:23:05 GMT Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association Lines: 43 Message-ID: <19noa9INNldr@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <19lkanINN40s@frigate.doc.ic.ac.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu In article <19lkanINN...@frigate.doc.ic.ac.uk> a...@rri.sari.ac.uk writes: >Like many people reading this newsgroup I also read comp.unix.bsd and I >am finding it difficult to decide between Linux or 386BSD ... Well, you can use both if you like. Both 386BSD and Linux work within partitions, so you can use them for different tasks (study, new work). >There is no doubt that Linux performs better than 386bsd on my 20 MHz >386SX with 4Mb RAM and it is a real pleasure to use in comparison with >the lumbering giant of 386bsd (even with a small 386bsd kernel >containing only the devices actually present on my PC). I don't believe it. I have a 16 MHz 386SX that the original version was done on. It works great. In fact, 386BSD can work on even smaller systems than linux. This is untrue. >It is almost impossible to use 386bsd when running a compilaton in the >background but Linux performs the same task without any problem at all. Oh? I've run 8 compilations in the background (recompiling the system, X-windows, a database program, the whole user command set of 386BSD -- how else do you test a compiler) with no problem. You obviously don't know what your doing. I can make any system look good or bad if I so choose, by choosing specious or biased benchmarks, but that is not sensible, practical or relevent. If people are happy with linux, that's great. If people like 386BSD, that's great. If people like both, wonderful. Linus put a lot of work into this system, just as I did with 386BSD, and I'm glad they're both being used. But the point of research systems is to get more people working on new solutions and exploring new topics. This kind of petty discussion is more appropriate to a elementary schoolyard and not the software development arena. Bill.
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux Path: sparky!uunet!unislc!erc From: e...@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp) Subject: Re: Linux or 386BSD: neither or both ?? X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5 References: <19noa9INNldr@agate.berkeley.edu> Message-ID: <1992Sep22.204435.7374@unislc.uucp> Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 20:44:35 GMT Lines: 62 William F. Jolitz (wjol...@soda.berkeley.edu) wrote: : >There is no doubt that Linux performs better than 386bsd on my 20 MHz : >386SX with 4Mb RAM and it is a real pleasure to use in comparison with : >the lumbering giant of 386bsd (even with a small 386bsd kernel : >containing only the devices actually present on my PC). : : I don't believe it. I have a 16 MHz 386SX that the original version was : done on. It works great. Different hardware *can* make a difference, Bill. It makes a difference in how drivers and such are written. 386BSD and Linux were designed from the ground up with different design goals in mind. : In fact, 386BSD can work on even smaller systems than linux. : : This is untrue. What is untrue? : >It is almost impossible to use 386bsd when running a compilaton in the : >background but Linux performs the same task without any problem at all. : : Oh? I've run 8 compilations in the background (recompiling the system, : X-windows, a database program, the whole user command set of 386BSD -- how : else do you test a compiler) with no problem. And how much memory were you using? What machine, how much swap, etc.? : You obviously don't know what your doing. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. I've seen it before - someone writes some software, and lets it go to their head. Next thing you know, Bill Jolitz has another sacred cow to defend. Why are you so angry if someone posts that 386BSD didn't work for them as well as Linux? I, too, can design a scenario that would make 386BSD look like shit compared to Linux - or vice versa. Grow up. Bill Jolitz - God of 386BSD. <sigh> :( : If people are happy with linux, that's great. If people like 386BSD, that's : great. If people like both, wonderful. Linus put a lot of work into : this system, just as I did with 386BSD, and I'm glad they're both being used. As am I. People email me all the time, asking me which they should use. I ask them, "well, what do you want it to do?" Linux is good at some things, bad at others. 386BSD (also) is good at some things, bad at others. I personally feel that a head-to-head comparison of 386BSD and Linux is really meaningless - it's like comparing apples and oranges. : But the point of research systems is to get more people working on new : solutions and exploring new topics. : : This kind of petty discussion is more appropriate to a elementary schoolyard : and not the software development arena. Then why did you start it with insults? -- Ed Carp, N7EKG e...@apple.com 801/538-0177 "This is the final task I will ever give you, and it goes on forever. Act happy, feel happy, be happy, without a reason in the world. Then you can love, and do what you will." -- Dan Millman, "Way Of The Peaceful Warrior"
Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!soda.berkeley.edu!wjolitz From: wjol...@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Jolitz) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux Subject: Re: Linux or 386BSD: neither or both ?? Message-ID: <19od16INNq9v@agate.berkeley.edu> Date: 23 Sep 92 00:16:38 GMT References: <19noa9INNldr@agate.berkeley.edu> <1992Sep22.204435.7374@unislc.uucp> Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association Lines: 72 NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu In article <1992Sep22.204435.7...@unislc.uucp> e...@unislc.uucp (Ed Carp) writes: >...[lots of very strange things -- comp.unix.bsd people should catch this > thread to find out what's being talked about behind their backs...] >... >Bill Jolitz - God of 386BSD. <sigh> :( >... What? Wait a moment -- where did this come from? Ah well, since Bill has gone off to work (and, unlike some people, doesn't treat a corporation as a welfare system by whiling away away hours at a work desk playing with readnews instead of working), I suppose I should respond. Otherwise, someone might really believe this. Anyways, I must admit that I haven't laughed like this since the time I got accused of withholding 386BSD because I was trying to make it "perfect". I can just hear the music now, from one of those old children's cartoons: "The God of Thunder, oops, UNIX, nope, UNIX-like, Mighty Bill"? Oh, yes, and I can see the hammer hurled down on high from Valhalla, wreaking havoc wherever he chooses. Of course, it must be most confusing, to be called a "God" in one sentence and be told that one knows nothing of hardware or software in other paragraphs. Amusing, given who we're talking about here. (Early BSD work, PDP-11 2.8 release, several subsequent releases for different architectures, four years on 386BSD, and lots and lots of writings on various topics of UNIX and networking). And also amusing, being cited for writing a "little software", given the number of other people who have worked very hard on 386BSD and BSD in general over the years. Perhaps when Mr. Carp (a truely well-chosen name if I ever heard one) comes back to reality, he'll find that linux and 386bsd, while both not perfect, can stand on their merits without ridiculous and false comparisions. In sum, I claim his statements were poorly constructed and totally unsupported. However, as both systems are not yet perfect (and we strive for perfection, do we not? :-) ), and as we find problems, we should take advantage of our ability to stand up and CHALLANGE each other to solve and/or explain these problems in a methodical and appropriate manner. One such approach is to cross-post items relating to both groups (I note Mr. Carp did not dare to try that). This way, one can get responses from all over the world on small configuration systems, benchmarks, problems, and solutions, and would present the opportunity for claims to be methodically dissected. This would allow people to really discover the problems and force out better solutions. (However, this approach won't salve the ego of the self-annointed and dedicated chauvinist.) So I propose the following: That we start having CHALLANGED AND PROFESSIONAL COMPETITIONS, the goal of which is to better both systems! This is akin to taking two jazzed-up sports cars and racing them under all kinds of conditions. We set up groups all over the world and see how we do. Tinker, improve, race again. Who knows, before you know it, we might even attract attention from the big guys, by setting undreamed of records. Any Takers? I am sure that we can find able and willing racers from the 386BSD side in the comp.unix.bsd newsgroup. Competition, if professional, will breed great things. Carpers only breed failure. Let's go for it! Lynne Jolitz.
Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu! agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiitac From: iii...@cybaswan.UUCP (Alan Cox) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux Subject: Re: Linux or 386BSD: neither or both ?? Keywords: linux posix porting sys5 Message-ID: <1019@cybaswan.UUCP> Date: 23 Sep 92 09:18:37 GMT References: <1992Sep22.013248.25972@cs.tulane.edu> <1992Sep22.174343.10655@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au> <1992Sep22.173618.5896@serval.net.wsu.edu> Organization: Swansea University Computer Society Lines: 6 Coming from the System5 world I've found porting to linux much easier than to BSD, because Linux is more posix like. It's certainly not been much harder than the sun I have to try and run, and its both faster and more secure. Alan
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!news2me.ebay.sun.com! exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!slovax.Eng.Sun.COM!lm From: l...@slovax.Eng.Sun.COM (Larry McVoy) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux Subject: Re: Linux or 386BSD: neither or both ?? Date: 29 Sep 1992 06:27:12 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Mt. View, Ca. Lines: 13 Message-ID: <lcftq0INNlvu@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <1992Sep22.170419.21738@cs.ubc.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: slovax up...@cs.ubc.ca (Derek Upham) writes: : Two things I do regret losing when I dropped 386BSD are the Berkeley : file system and the working TCP/IP code. I'm not a networking expert but I have worked extensively in the BSD FFS mentioned. I could probably port it to Linux in a week or two but I haven't bit the bullet and bought a development system. If someone else picks up the code and gives it a wack, I can provide help (like what does func so and so do?) if that would be interesting (probably not, but it's what I can do right now). --- Larry McVoy (415) 336-7627 l...@sun.com