Craftwork/Be announcement

Craftwork/Be announcement

Post by G Sumner Haye » Thu, 05 Dec 1996 04:00:00



[Followups to comp.os.linux.advocacy, since this is way off-topic]


> I don't quite see what's so great about Linux anyway, that people never
> seem to find it necessary to mention the other free Unixen (NetBSD,
> FreeBSD, OpenBSD). Hype, hype, hype. On the whole, at least NetBSD and
> FreeBSD are more technically robust than Linux with its infinite
> variations of "distributions" and multitude of patches to "stable"
> kernels.

Actually, I find that both are quite stable in the stable versions but
that the development Linux kernels tend to be more stable than the
development NetBSD kernels (-current).  There are several
distributions, but that just gives you more choice.  It's somewhat
analagous to the difference between NetBSD, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD,
though all the Linux distributions use the same kernel.

I'm not sure what you mean by "more technically robust"; both NetBSD
and Linux are extremely robust and both have different strengths.  In
particular, NetBSD's NFS performance is much better than Linux's (for
writes; for reads they are pretty comparable).  Linux has better
thread support and slightly better TCP latency.  Otherwise, the
differences are non-technical.  Linux has more users, so there are
more device drivers for it; not a problem if you have hardware
supported under *BSD.  Linux is also starting to have better 3rd-party
support and more commercial apps, but BSDI keeps the BSDs competitive
here.  

I guess I think that Linux and NetBSD are technically equivalent, each
with its own strengths and weaknesses.  I haven't used FreeBSD or
OpenBSD enough to comment intelligently, but I suspect they're in a
similar situation.  I use both NetBSD and Linux regularly and usually
try to mention the BSDs and Linux both when I'm making a point that
applies to free Unix in general, but it's hard to remember every time.
I suspect for people who don't use BSD it's even harder.

Quote:

> And ELF format binaries have one very significant drawback compared with
> a.out, viz. the lack of an OS identification. You can't distinguish ELF
> format binaries for different OS variants or different processors...

This is partially untrue; the lack of OS identification is correct,
but there is a processor ID.  

% file /bin/ls
ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1, stripped
% telnet sun4
% file /bin/ls
ELF 32-bit MSB executable SPARC Version 1, dynamically linked, stripped

I think the technical advantages of ELF more than make up for this
drawback, though it's certainly something to push for in ELF version
2.  

Cordially,

  Sumner

--
Respond by post or email, but please don't CC: postings to me; my mailbox
is already quite full.

 
 
 

Craftwork/Be announcement

Post by David Mole » Thu, 05 Dec 1996 04:00:00


While we're on the subject, take note that Be has denied
the existence of any alliance with Craftwork.

AFAIK, the Linux/BeBox port was an idea some random individual
developer(s) had -- if they'd been NetBSD people themselves,
they probably would have had the idea to port NetBSD instead. :)

--D



> > I don't quite see what's so great about Linux anyway, that people never
> > seem to find it necessary to mention the other free Unixen (NetBSD,
> > FreeBSD, OpenBSD). Hype, hype, hype...

> It does seem that way, sometimes, but I think that the reason Linux
> gets so much hype is because developers tend to like its benefits
> over the other free UN*X variants.

> In particular, the Linux API is primarily a POSIX API.  The free
> UN*X systems that you mentioned have, primarily, BSD APIs, with
> POSIX compatibility adjunct to it.

> There is a reason that this is important to software developers:
> Once you have developed your application on Linux, it is easier
> to port it to other UN*X flavors than it would be if you had chosen
> another UN*X flavor to begin with, and painstakingly avoided the
> non-POSIX calls.

> I'm sure that the fact that Linux is easier to port *from* had
> nothing to do with Be's alliance with Craftwork, but it
> has a lot to do with the popularity of Linux among developers.

> [followups to comp.os.linux.advocacy]

> --

> http://www.veryComputer.com/; | in it, doesn't go away."  -- Philip K.*
> ------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
> Linux | NeXT | Be | Java| Friends don't let friends use windoze.


 
 
 

Craftwork/Be announcement

Post by Bryan Seigneu » Fri, 06 Dec 1996 04:00:00



> While we're on the subject, take note that Be has denied
> the existence of any alliance with Craftwork.

> AFAIK, the Linux/BeBox port was an idea some random individual
> developer(s) had -- if they'd been NetBSD people themselves,
> they probably would have had the idea to port NetBSD instead. :)

> --D

Hmmmmmm.
I seem to remember Be giving several BeBoxes to the party
working on porting Linux to the various PowerPC platforms.
That was quite a while ago.
Always give Linux the benefit of the doubt.

--
Bryan Seigneur
  / / inux  
 / /__ink  ==> http://www.sonetech.com/~bry/linmarks.html/____/ist

 
 
 

Craftwork/Be announcement

Post by Curt Samps » Fri, 06 Dec 1996 04:00:00




Quote:>Actually, I find that both are quite stable in the stable versions but
>that the development Linux kernels tend to be more stable than the
>development NetBSD kernels (-current).

This is not unlikely; unlike Linux devleopment kernels, NetBSD-current
kernels never have releases. You download the files on whatever
day feels good to you and you get what you get. If you can't deal
with a machine that might crash, don't run a development kernel.

That said, I run -current on a number of different machines (my
486 at work, my Sparcstation and my Alpha at home) and I find them
quite stable enough, for the most part.

Quote:>There are several
>distributions, but that just gives you more choice.  It's somewhat
>analagous to the difference between NetBSD, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD,
>though all the Linux distributions use the same kernel.

It's not really the same thing at all, actually, as far as I can
tell. Are there any distributions out there that maintain a full
source tree and merge imports into it? I don't generally hear about
someone running the latest Debian kernel, as opposed to the latest
Linux kernel.

With a NetBSD system, you have one source repository for your
official distribution. Obviously many of the programs are taken
from elsewhere, but if something breaks or seems broken, you can
go straight back to the NetBSD soruce tree, get it fixed, and you
know that it will stay fixed, even if the original source vendor
does not choose to pick up the fixes, or doesn't do so for some
time. Linux doesn't do this.

So, for example, if I walk up to a Linux system and I want to know
if it has the lpr buffer overflow bug fixed, how do I do this?
Well, the easiest way is to attempt the exploit and see if I become
root. The output of ident is not likely to tell me.

There were a couple of things you missed in terms of differences
between NetBSD and Linux. NetBSD will run Linux programs; the
reverse is not true. Also, NetBSD has a much better structured and
more reabable kernel, and I would highly recommend it over Linux
for those who are interested in reading kernel source code and
learning to hack on it. (I will happily admit that that is certainly
not very many people. Even though I run NetBSD myself, I usually
find myself recommending Linux to people who are just getting into
the Unix world, becuase of the much easier installation and the
greater amount of support available.)

Quote:>> And ELF format binaries have one very significant drawback compared with
>> a.out, viz. the lack of an OS identification. You can't distinguish ELF
>> format binaries for different OS variants or different processors...

>This is partially untrue; the lack of OS identification is correct,
>but there is a processor ID.  

>% file /bin/ls
>ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1, stripped
>% telnet sun4
>% file /bin/ls
>ELF 32-bit MSB executable SPARC Version 1, dynamically linked, stripped

Right. And was that an SCO 80386 binary, a UnixWare 80386 binary,
or a Linux 80386 binary? In the NetBSD world this causes us all
sorts of wonderful problems, since we actually we emulate for both
SysV and Linux binaries.

Quote:>I think the technical advantages of ELF more than make up for this
>drawback, though it's certainly something to push for in ELF version
>2.  

This will be a contentious point, I am sure, but from my readings
it seems that the main technical advantage for Linux moving to ELF
was that the a.out shared lib implementation was so screwed up it
just had to be ditched. Had Linux used SunOS style shared libs,
you'd probably still be happily using a.out today, just as NetBSD,
FreeBSD, OpenBSD and BSDI are.

cjs
--

Internet Portal Services, Inc.  
Vancouver, BC   (604) 257-9400          De gustibus, aut bene aut nihil.

 
 
 

Craftwork/Be announcement

Post by Sam Trenhol » Fri, 06 Dec 1996 04:00:00


[Mailed and posted]

Quote:>While we're on the subject, take note that Be has denied
>the existence of any alliance with Craftwork.

There is a Craftwork/Be Linux link on Be's home page, so it is clear that
Be is actually acknowledging the existence of an alliance with Craftwork.

        http://www.be.com/aboutbe/pressreleases/96-11-18_Craftwork.html

Take care,

- Sam

--
Note that my real address is: set [at] oath [dot] com

 
 
 

1. CraftWorks Linux?

Can someone give me a clue what "Craftworks Linux" is?
--
-------- Thomas Bullinger ------- Specializing in Linux systems --------
* Installation * Setup * Maintenance * Training * Software * Information

* WWW:   http://btoy1-gw.roc.servtech.com/users/consult

2. Are you looking for hardware or software?

3. Give Craftworks a try!

4. New cable modem means I have a lot to learn

5. COMMERCIAL: Craftwork Solutions and Be Inc. Development Alliance

6. Can't stop MySQL: /etc/init.d/mysqld stop [FAILED}

7. CraftWorks Linux?

8. Little known Adventure shell!

9. Announcing Craftworks(TM) Linux

10. craftworks any good?

11. say, what ever happened to craftwork?

12. Red Hat vs Craftworks Linux AXP

13. This clone thing...am I stupid, or am I right?