BSD, BSD or BSD?

BSD, BSD or BSD?

Post by John » Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:53:15



I'm just trying to broaden my horizons.  What is the deal with BSD?  I have
yet another computer I want to put something different on...I have XP on
this one, and RH 7.3 on my other and the third I was thinking of looking at
FreeBSD or NetBSD (or OpenBSD)?  Any reason I should stay away from the
BSD's?  If not, which one for desktop/net use?  Obliviously I'm a noob.
Thanks guys for any input...I've read the web pages, but couldn't understand
the differences with Linux.  I do want a GUI with whatever I install.

--
john o
rh 7.3

 
 
 

BSD, BSD or BSD?

Post by Wenguang Wan » Thu, 12 Sep 2002 11:58:06


Please do not multi-post. This wastes other people's time.


Quote:> I'm just trying to broaden my horizons.  What is the deal with BSD?  I
have
> yet another computer I want to put something different on...I have XP on
> this one, and RH 7.3 on my other and the third I was thinking of looking
at
> FreeBSD or NetBSD (or OpenBSD)?  Any reason I should stay away from the
> BSD's?  If not, which one for desktop/net use?  Obliviously I'm a noob.
> Thanks guys for any input...I've read the web pages, but couldn't
understand
> the differences with Linux.  I do want a GUI with whatever I install.

> --
> john o
> rh 7.3


 
 
 

BSD, BSD or BSD?

Post by Rasputi » Fri, 13 Sep 2002 00:16:32



Quote:> I'm just trying to broaden my horizons.  What is the deal with BSD?  I have
> yet another computer I want to put something different on...I have XP on
> this one, and RH 7.3 on my other and the third I was thinking of looking at
> FreeBSD or NetBSD (or OpenBSD)?  Any reason I should stay away from the
> BSD's?  

You're some kind of Christian fundamentalist mutcase who finds a
daemon mascot offensive?

Quote:> If not, which one for desktop/net use?  

Doesn't make any difference - I'd go for Free if you're using i386,
as it's slightly faster than Net. Otherwise Net.
Don't see the point of Open these days, it used to be more secure
but doesn't seem to be any more. Runs on less platforms than Net, and
is slower than Free.

They all do KDE/GNOME, if that's what you mean by GUI - FreeBSd
will do DRI for some cards, Net doesn't yet.

If you have SMP then definitely Free.

--
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns

 
 
 

BSD, BSD or BSD?

Post by jp » Fri, 13 Sep 2002 02:16:00



> I'm just trying to broaden my horizons.  What is the deal with BSD?  I have
> yet another computer I want to put something different on...I have XP on
> this one, and RH 7.3 on my other and the third I was thinking of looking at
> FreeBSD or NetBSD (or OpenBSD)?  Any reason I should stay away from the
> BSD's?  If not, which one for desktop/net use?  Obliviously I'm a noob.

Get a book on unix. :-)

Pick any *bsd, try it for a while, then try another. Nothing wrong with that.
As with all unices, most of the differences (from a user point of view,
anyway) are small, so small that it boils down to what is commonly called
`flavour'. FreeBSD seems to be a good starter, NetBSD has a nice `multi-
platform' ring to it, and a bit of `smallish', something fbsd lost a while
ago. OpenBSD is loved by some, hated by others. Doesn't have much to do
with the OS, really, AFAIK it's kinda nice (but just not my cup of tea).

Quote:> Thanks guys for any input...I've read the web pages, but couldn't understand
> the differences with Linux.  I do want a GUI with whatever I install.

Well, you might want to try a different linux distribution first, like
debian (mandrake is too close to redhat to count in this) to get a taste
of the differences between `linux', since linux is only the kernel, the
rest is utilities and then some glue and polishing by the different
distributors. Not so with *bsd. No graphical ui for [fno]bsd, so if that's
a showstopper for you, too bad. Unix was never ment to be administrated
through a click-and-drool interface, tacking it on takes much of its power
away. However, learning about the command line interface(s)[0] is not
difficult, really. It just takes a bit of time, but boy does it pay off.

[0] There's, in a sense, more than one. Use the one(s) you like best.

--
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .

 
 
 

BSD, BSD or BSD?

Post by Jason Baughe » Fri, 13 Sep 2002 02:30:02



Quote:> No graphical ui for [fno]bsd, so if that's
> a showstopper for you, too bad. Unix was never ment to be
> administrated through a click-and-drool interface, tacking it on takes
> much of its power away. However, learning about the command line
> interface(s)[0] is not difficult, really. It just takes a bit of time,
> but boy does it pay off

No graphical ui for fno[bsd]?  What about Gnome, KDE, WindowMaker, twm,
etc... on top of Xfree86?

--
Jason Baugher
Virtual Adept Professional Consulting Services
1406 Adams Street, Quincy, IL 62301 - (217) 221-5406

 
 
 

BSD, BSD or BSD?

Post by jp » Fri, 13 Sep 2002 04:27:10


On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:30:02 GMT,


>> No graphical ui for [fno]bsd, so if that's
>> a showstopper for you, too bad. Unix was never ment to be
>> administrated through a click-and-drool interface, tacking it on takes
>> much of its power away. However, learning about the command line
>> interface(s)[0] is not difficult, really. It just takes a bit of time,
>> but boy does it pay off

> No graphical ui for fno[bsd]?  What about Gnome, KDE, WindowMaker, twm,

                <nit> ^^^^^^^^ watch your re^Wquoting </nit>

Quote:> etc... on top of Xfree86?

Bah. Pedant. I was talking about the installation procedure.

--
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .

 
 
 

BSD, BSD or BSD?

Post by Jason Baughe » Fri, 13 Sep 2002 07:17:11



Quote:> Bah. Pedant. I was talking about the installation procedure.

Ah, in that case, I agree.  The FreeBSD install procedure, although easy
enough for someone familiar with it, is a little rough the first time
through.  I had administered HP-UX and Solaris for 7 years when I first
encountered FreeBSD, and it took some mistakes and reading to get things
right.  OTOH, the RedHat install was fairly clear.

I don't necessarily think the FBSD install needs to be graphical, although
that would make some things easier, like choosing packages, but I do think
it could be clearer/simpler.

--
Jason Baugher
Virtual Adept Professional Consulting Services
1406 Adams Street, Quincy, IL 62301 - (217) 221-5406

 
 
 

BSD, BSD or BSD?

Post by Dave » Sat, 14 Sep 2002 18:38:40



> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 17:30:02 GMT,


>>> No graphical ui for [fno]bsd, so if that's
>>> a showstopper for you, too bad. Unix was never ment to be
>>> administrated through a click-and-drool interface, tacking it on takes
>>> much of its power away. However, learning about the command line
>>> interface(s)[0] is not difficult, really. It just takes a bit of time,
>>> but boy does it pay off

>> No graphical ui for fno[bsd]?  What about Gnome, KDE, WindowMaker, twm,
>                 <nit> ^^^^^^^^ watch your re^Wquoting </nit>
>> etc... on top of Xfree86?
> Bah. Pedant. I was talking about the installation procedure.

Does an installation procedure really need to be graphical?

--
David Griffith

 
 
 

BSD, BSD or BSD?

Post by jp » Sat, 14 Sep 2002 22:39:53



[snip]

Quote:> Does an installation procedure really need to be graphical?

Ofcourse not. It's just that lots of (uneducated/unexperienced) people
believe it should, ``because it's easier''. Methinks carefully reading
the Fine Manuals that (should) come with the OS removes the need for a
`graphical' installation procedure, while preventing various `stupid'
errors and faults that `gui-ifying everything' does not. Sadly, reading
the manuals is something many people sometimes even proudly refuse.

--
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .

 
 
 

BSD, BSD or BSD?

Post by Erkan Orhu » Wed, 18 Sep 2002 03:08:46


Quote:> I'm just trying to broaden my horizons.  What is the deal with BSD?  I
have
> yet another computer I want to put something different on...I have XP on
> this one, and RH 7.3 on my other and the third I was thinking of looking
at
> FreeBSD or NetBSD (or OpenBSD)?  Any reason I should stay away from the
> BSD's?  If not, which one for desktop/net use?  Obliviously I'm a noob.
> Thanks guys for any input...I've read the web pages, but couldn't
understand
> the differences with Linux.  I do want a GUI with whatever I install.

Wow thats an uniqe question :-)
 
 
 

BSD, BSD or BSD?

Post by Thomas Muelle » Thu, 19 Sep 2002 09:29:23


Quote:> Ah, in that case, I agree.  The FreeBSD install procedure, although easy

  enough for someone familiar with it, is a little rough the first time
  through.  I had administered HP-UX and Solaris for 7 years when I first
  encountered FreeBSD, and it took some mistakes and reading to get things
  right.  OTOH, the RedHat install was fairly clear.

Quote:> I don't necessarily think the FBSD install needs to be graphical, although

  that would make some things easier, like choosing packages, but I do think
  it could be clearer/simpler.

Quote:> Jason Baugher

I can install Linux Slackware 8.0 on the new computer, now have 8.1.  NetBSD
installed too (1.5.2), but wouldn't boot the generic kernel.  FreeBSD
installation diskettes hang at the point of probing hardware devices, so that
would prevent me from installing FreeBSD unless I could somehow do it manually,
getting around the installation program.  All I had with FreeBSD was
installation starter diskettes, written from images downloaded for testing
purposes before I would consider buying CDs.  Problem with OpenBSD is not being
able to boot from above 8 GB in a multi-OS i386 system, even with a BIOS
supporting int 13h extensions.

Linux Slackware has a fairly easy non-graphic installation.  It seems Linux is
easier to install than the BSDs.  Actually NetBSD 1.5.2 was not difficult to
install, but booting and running is a different story.

I intend to download NetBSD 1.6 installation and generic kernels when ready or
possibly a prerelease version just for testing with DOSBOOT before deciding
whether to buy the CDs.  At a modem speed of 56K, I don't wish to attempt to
download CD images unless I upgrade to DSL.

 
 
 

BSD, BSD or BSD?

Post by jp » Sun, 22 Sep 2002 21:42:59



[snip: really horribly quoted text]
Quote:

> I can install Linux Slackware 8.0 on the new computer, now have 8.1.  NetBSD
> installed too (1.5.2), but wouldn't boot the generic kernel. [...]

[snip: other problems]

You don't sound like you actually want to investigate what's wrong so it
can be fixed. You're talking to a froup with people that don't mind
helping you out given sufficient data to work with. Pity.

Quote:> Linux Slackware has a fairly easy non-graphic installation.  It seems Linux
> is
> easier to install than the BSDs.

Easily made observation, but misguided[0]. Apples and oranges and such.

Quote:>  Actually NetBSD 1.5.2 was not difficult to
> install, but booting and running is a different story.

> I intend to download NetBSD 1.6 installation and generic kernels when ready or
> possibly a prerelease version just for testing with DOSBOOT before deciding
> whether to buy the CDs.  At a modem speed of 56K, I don't wish to attempt to
> download CD images unless I upgrade to DSL.

Order the cds? I don't know how it is for you, but it just might actually
be cheaper to order the cds[1] than to download it. Unless you don't pay
for `local' ISP dialin, that is[2]. Even then, ordering might be worth it.

[0] I don't think you realised what you were actually comparing, at all.
[1] Those sets include a small donation to the NetBSD project, along with
    lots more than just the base system.
[2] There are lots of telcos that make you pay for `local' calls, too.

--
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .

 
 
 

BSD, BSD or BSD?

Post by Ted Spradle » Mon, 23 Sep 2002 11:29:27


On 13 Sep 2002 09:38:40 GMT


> Does an installation procedure really need to be graphical?

I submit it does not.  The easiest installation *to understand* that
I've ever done was NetBSD back about 1.2 on a DEC pmax.  Fortunately, I
had Ultrix running and a spare disk drive to install on.  I downloaded
the NetBSD disklabel program and compiled it under Ultrix and used that
to label the spare disk, then downloaded a "mini-root" that some guru
had prepared and dd'ed that onto a partition.  Then booted that, used it
to newfs more partitions, downloaded the installation tar-balls to a
spare partition, then un-tarred them to a new root partition.  By the
time I had gotten PPP working under Ultrix (with a 14.4K modem) and done
all that I was no longer a newbie.  ;-)

--
Remember, more computing power was thrown away last week than existed in
the world in 1982.  -- http://www.tom.womack.net/computing/prices.html

 
 
 

BSD, BSD or BSD?

Post by phil-news-nos.. » Tue, 24 Sep 2002 03:14:41




|> I intend to download NetBSD 1.6 installation and generic kernels when ready or
|> possibly a prerelease version just for testing with DOSBOOT before deciding
|> whether to buy the CDs.  At a modem speed of 56K, I don't wish to attempt to
|> download CD images unless I upgrade to DSL.
|
| Order the cds? I don't know how it is for you, but it just might actually
| be cheaper to order the cds[1] than to download it. Unless you don't pay
| for `local' ISP dialin, that is[2]. Even then, ordering might be worth it.

I'd personally rather order the CDs.  But I didn't see any vendors offering
to accept pre-orders for NetBSD 1.6 CDs to be shipped out as soon as they
arrive from manufacturing.  You'd think the more informed among them would
at least know 1.6 is a reality now and that the ISOs and CDs will be coming.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard - KA9WGN |   Dallas   | http://linuxhomepage.com/ |

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

BSD, BSD or BSD?

Post by jp » Tue, 24 Sep 2002 05:10:53


On 22 Sep 2002 18:14:41 GMT,
[snip]

Quote:

> I'd personally rather order the CDs.  But I didn't see any vendors offering
> to accept pre-orders for NetBSD 1.6 CDs to be shipped out as soon as they
> arrive from manufacturing.  You'd think the more informed among them would
> at least know 1.6 is a reality now and that the ISOs and CDs will be coming.

A quick look around tells me that wasabi does,

  http://www.wasabisystems.com/products/products.html

as does `bob',

  http://murphy.dyndns.org/NetBSD/

Looking around a bit more in, eg,

  http://www.netbsd.org/Sites/cdroms.html

may or may not reveal more sites at this time.

--
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .

 
 
 

1. BSD, BSD or BSD?

I'm just trying to broaden my horizons.  What is the deal with BSD?  I have
yet another computer I want to put something different on...I have XP on
this one, and RH 7.3 on my other and the third I was thinking of looking at
FreeBSD or NetBSD (or OpenBSD)?  Any reason I should stay away from the
BSD's?  If not, which one for desktop/net use?  Obliviously I'm a noob.
Thanks guys for any input...I've read the web pages, but couldn't understand
the differences with Linux.  I do want a GUI with whatever I install.

--
john o
rh 7.3

2. Matsushita/Panasonic CDROM on SB clone soundcard

3. test

4. can't connect kermit with modem

5. CFV: comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.announce,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc

6. International Programming under UN*X?

7. What about BSD? Anyone run Linux -AND- BSD?

8. CFV: comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.announce, comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc

9. Copy from one BSD to another BSD machine

10. Proposal for bsd.port.mk -- [really about bsd.java.mk which then gets included]

11. kernel build 4.stable fails: bsd.init.mk, bsd.links.mk