This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.
To: BALUG-TALK@balug.org From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> Subject: Re: [Balug-talk] Unix variants? Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:55:10 -0700 Quoting Wai-Yip Tung (wtung@cisco.com): > Given Linux' momentum, I think Linux would be the only choice for personal > use. Then I stumble upon some other words like OpenBSD and NetBSD. Can > anyone educate me what are they? FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD are our (the Linux community's) elder brethren among open-source Unixen. Here's one explanation: http://zork.net/seven-dollars/unix.html > Are they independant efforts in building similar Unix OS? Indeed. > What's the pros and cons between them? FreeBSD concentrates on giving maximum stability/performance (which of those you hear cited depends on whom you ask) on x86 -- although it now also runs on a couple of other CPU platforms. NetBSD concentrates on being as portable as possible to all possible CPU platforms. OpenBSD concentrates on security. Those descriptions are inevitably inadequate, and I have no doubt people can be found who will dispute them fervently. > And if anyone have opinion on Mac OS X? It's very pretty, albeit with a somewhat, um... overproduced look to it, by default. As a variant form of NeXTStep, it's a genuine albeit eccentric BSD variant. Apple Computer even took the trouble to open-soruce the foundation components (collectively known as Apple Darwin), which thus has become the fourth free-software / open-source variant of BSD. === To: BALUG-TALK@balug.org From: Nick Moffitt <nick@zork.net> Subject: Re: [Balug-talk] Unix variants? Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:14:33 -0700 begin Rick Moen Lives Three Hours from Nowhere quotation: > FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD are our (the Linux community's) elder > brethren among open-source Unixen. "Unices" === To: Wai-Yip Tung <wtung@cisco.com> From: Chris Waters <xtifr@debian.org> Subject: Re: [Balug-talk] Unix variants? Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:26:21 -0700 On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 11:27:29AM -0700, Wai-Yip Tung wrote: > Given Linux' momentum, I think Linux would be the only choice for personal > use. Then I stumble upon some other words like OpenBSD and NetBSD. There's also FreeBSD. > Can anyone educate me what are they? It's a long story. Bottom line, the BSDs are free Unix-like systems which originally derive from AT&T Unix, although the last of the AT&T code was removed back in the early nineties, in order to create a completely free system. (If it had happened slightly sooner, Linux might not exist.) Originally, the BSDs had a strong lead in quality and reliability, since much of the system had been around, and tested, for much longer than Linux. However, Linux has mostly caught up, and at this point, it's mostly a matter of taste. Linux probably has the widest selection of drivers, as well as the strongest third-party support. But it can still be flakey at times (e.g., avoid 2.4.15 at all costs). FreeBSD is probably the most generic (and most popular) of the BSDs. It includes an excellent package management system, good Linux emulation, and lots of software. Overall, it's probably on a par with most Linux distros; better in some areas, weaker in others, but mostly just similar-but-slightly-different. OpenBSD is designed for security. It's code is carefully audited. On the other hand, it doesn't include all the extra features that the Linux distros (and FreeBSD) come with, because they don't have enough people to audit everything. NetBSD is designed to be portable. I believe that they claim to support more CPUs than any other system out there. This isn't something that a lot of people care about, so NetBSD doesn't get much press. I've never tried it, but I'm sure it's a fine system. > And if anyone have opinion on Mac OS X? MacOSX is basically just FreeBSD with Apple's proprietary GUI layered on top, as far as I can tell. However, the proprietary GUI stuff only runs on Apple hardware. Again, it mostly comes down to matters of taste (and religion -- people get very fanatical about the minor differences between these systems). With the exception of MacOSX, all of these systems are free/libre software, and you can try them for yourself. The widespread acceptance of Linux may make it the safest choice, but FreeBSD is well worth a look IMO. And OpenBSD is a great option for firewalls or public servers. === To: BALUG-TALK@balug.org From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> Subject: Re: [Balug-talk] Unix variants? Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:39:36 -0700 Quoting Chris Waters (xtifr@debian.org): > MacOSX is basically just FreeBSD with Apple's proprietary GUI layered > on top, as far as I can tell. Although Apple now uses FreeBSD as its "reference Unix platform", and Apple Darwin / OS X is slowing reconverging towards FreeBSD -- more or less -- it's not literally based on FreeBSD: It's based on NeXTStep, which was a much earlier BSD fork. === To: BALUG-TALK@balug.org From: Nick Moffitt <nick@zork.net> Subject: Re: [Balug-talk] Unix variants? Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 13:46:36 -0700 begin Rick Moen Lives Three Hours from Nowhere quotation: > Although Apple now uses FreeBSD as its "reference Unix platform", > and Apple Darwin / OS X is slowing reconverging towards FreeBSD -- > more or less -- it's not literally based on FreeBSD: It's based on > NeXTStep, which was a much earlier BSD fork. Yeah. Apple marketing has really done a job on the FreeBSD folks. Jesux. === To: BALUG-TALK@balug.org From: davidw@dedasys.com (David N. Welton) Subject: Re: [Balug-talk] Unix variants? Date: 29 Aug 2002 16:14:39 -0700 Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> writes: > Although Apple now uses FreeBSD as its "reference Unix platform", > and Apple Darwin / OS X is slowing reconverging towards FreeBSD -- > more or less -- it's not literally based on FreeBSD: It's based on > NeXTStep, which was a much earlier BSD fork. The kernel is based on NeXT, and is infact a microkernel. A lot of the higher-level sources (the unix layer, basically) were pulled from FreeBSD. They actually hired Jordan K. Hubbard, former head of FreeBSD, to take over this work after Wilfredo Sanchez left. === To: Chris Waters <xtifr@debian.org> From: Marc MERLIN <marc_news@merlins.org> Subject: Re: [Balug-talk] Unix variants? Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 02:47:43 -0700 On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 01:26:21PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: > Linux probably has the widest selection of drivers, as well as the > strongest third-party support. But it can still be flakey at times > (e.g., avoid 2.4.15 at all costs). I'd be tempted to say the same thing of 2.4.17 :-) (and the list doesn't stop there) === To: BALUG-TALK@balug.org From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> Subject: Re: [Balug-talk] Unix variants? Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 20:48:07 -0700 Quoting David N. Welton (davidw@dedasys.com): > The kernel is based on NeXT, and is in fact a microkernel. /s/is in fact/was in fact/ Extensively discussed elsewhere: In the xnu code, the BSD layers long ago were so heavily interconnected to Mach that you can't legitimately call it a microkernel any more. The characteristic abstraction is not present. > A lot of the higher-level sources (the unix layer, basically) were > pulled from FreeBSD. This is what is meant by "reference Unix platform", I believe -- but they sure as heck didn't pull the netinfo subsystem from FreeBSD, among other things. ;-> ===