BSD

[Chromies]

I keep hearing about how instead of linux and all the other os's i should try out free bsd or net bsd. But then i hear from others that its a real pain to configure so can anyone tell me how bsd is?

[Tomas]

I have only tried it once, found the installer utter #### compared to ANY linux installers i have tried.

The installer is pretty much txt based, nothing wrong with that, but it did not say anything about how much space the packages/software used, neither did it check if i had infact enough hd space to install them.

In middle of the install, the installer crashed due to being out of space, this happened to me 3 times before i gave up  :-(

But the OS itself should be pretty damn stable, once everything is up running. But i still think linux is a better choice for as a desktop pc.

[mikeymike]

I've found FreeBSD (4x) the easiest UNIX derivative to install, the kernel is easy to reconfigure and apps are easy to install.

The sh*t hits the fan when things don't work as intended, but that's the same with every UNIX derivative.  You've got to be an expert if (and it's not uncommon) stuff goes wrong.

The partition managers in every UNIX derivative's installer I've found to be the worst of any operating system.  They allow stupid things like totally invalid partition tables to be set.  My experience of UNIX derivatives consists of quite a few Linux distros of varying versions, and FreeBSD.

[Floid]

mikeymike wrote:

The partition managers in every UNIX derivative's installer I've found to be the worst of any operating system.  They allow stupid things like totally invalid partition tables to be set.  My experience of UNIX derivatives consists of quite a few Linux distros of varying versions, and FreeBSD.

Quite true.

The BSD installer roundup:

-FreeBSD 'sysinstall:'  The prettiest one, though still in colored, ANSI-esque text.  Sometimes more broken than usual for particular releases. Gets the job done; try not to rely on it too much for post-install configuration or you'll go insane (and never learn the basics of maintaining your system - editing textfiles isn't *that* hard, and there's always 'ee' if you can't stomach 'vi.')  After a few dozen run-throughs, you become attuned to the quirks.  IIRC, does have automatic partitioning if you want to dedicate a machine to the system.

-OpenBSD boot set:  Sparse.  Wonderful if you know what you're doing.  Recommended *after* hours of struggling with sysinstall for the first dozen times.  Almost reminds me of - *snif* - good ol' MS-DOS.  Well, okay, PC-DOS.  Well, actually, it's probably more like trying to bootstrap a PDP-11 or something.

-NetBSD:  Last I tried may've been before 1.6; I can't remember.  My experience then was 'pretty,' yet unfeatured.  Hybrid of OpenBSD and FreeBSD approach without many redeeming qualities of either.  Not many options, no DHCP niceties for a net-install.  Still, three screens and one nslookup on another box later, the machine was installed.  Reminiscent of GNU software somehow.

-Darwin:  You're nuts.

-DragonFly BSD:  Doesn't really exist yet.

Basically, yes, all of them are crufty in one way or another, and indeed, so are most Linux installers, though the better ones of those do understand that you dudes can't deal with the options just yet, and offer the one-click newbie installs.

The thing to remember is - you only need to get it right *once.*  From there, it's source builds all the way!

Gah, now one of these days I have to dig up the NetBSD slice corruption thread and explain the concept of 'softupdates' and filesystems marked dirty.  He wants to switch to a journaled FS?  :-o  :-?  :-P

(You will get the 'joke' :-x if you know what 'Softupdates' are.)

[lorddef]

Hmm, never tried BSD, I heard it was very similar to Linux or used the Linux kernal, is this correct? I've just decided to try BeOS instead of BSD as I feel it will be the most different of the two from Linux, even though I don't know all the facts.

As a matter of fact I was intending to try the ill fated BeOS on a spare box tomorrow ;-)

[lorddef]

@mikeymike

I've always found the partition manager with the Mandrake distros excellent (I've only ever used 7.x to 9.1m 9.1 being my current install).

[N7VQM]

lorddef wrote:
Hmm, never tried BSD, I heard it was very similar to Linux or used the Linux kernal, is this correct?

No.  The current crop of BSD's are based on the 4.4-Lite  Berkeley Software Distributions.  The basic jist that Bell Labs (at on time a part of AT&T) sold UNIX source code licenses for small sums to educational organizations.   UC Berkeley bought one and began patching AT&T's code.

Over time, they wrote so many patches they had rewritten just about the whole OS.  So, they decided to make thier own distribution.  AT&T sued the Regents of Berkeley in 1992.  The judge determined that Berkeley had indeed written thier own code and it belonged to Berkely save for something like 17 files that still belonged to AT&T.  Those 17 files were removed from BSD and BSD became free in 1994.

Have a look at the graphic *HERE* to get an idea of the lineage of UNIX, BSD and Linux.

A brief history of BSD is *HERE*.

[iamaboringperson]

BSD is good, but it is probably more for hardcore computer users than is Linux.

The *BSD people will always tell you that BSD is better.
And the Linux people will tell you that Linux is better.

Both sides have their good reasons.

ATM I use Linux, since I couldn't be bothered to get my BSD to work perfectly the way I want it. (And I prefer Mandrake)

You should try it, and decide for yourself.

[fleg]

Freebsd 4.x with enlightenmet(e16) window manager. It's purty.
 :-D

[Jost80]

I run OpenBSD as a router/firewall for my home network and imho its excelent  :-)

The documentation is more complete on the BSD systems and more accurate. Its note like Linux when alot of things differ between the growing number of distributions and the docs you might find online must be adapted to you distrubution.

[mikeymike]

Hmm, never tried BSD, I heard it was very similar to Linux or used the Linux kernal, is this correct?

No and no :-)

It can do Linux app emulation.

[mikeymike]

@ iamaboringperson

BSD is good, but it is probably more for hardcore computer users than is Linux.

It would be useful if you justified what you're saying with something useful the original poster might be able to relate to.

[MrZammler]

The *BSD people will always tell you that BSD is better.
And the Linux people will tell you that Linux is better.

Not true. I use Linux on my x86 only, which I find more "complete" than BSD. However, on my 040 A3000, I use NetBSD 1.6. I used to have linux in there, but BSD feels more stable and fast. So, Linux is ok on a fast machine, while I found BSD better on under-powered CPU's.

True - installation is "weird", and getting X-surf and Picasso to work was tricky, but in the end, it's a very nice OS to play with. It's simpler than Linux, easier to get around in /etc and has a very wide range of apps.

My .2 Euros.

[Seehund]

Chromies wrote:
... so can anyone tell me how bsd is?

It's dying.

[Crispy_Beef]

FreeBSD is probably one of the most stable operating systems around, and as such is extremely well suited for server applications (web, email etc.).  I manage a few *BSD servers and once configured and running properly they don't cause any problems.

Setting them up is easy enough too (even for beginners), all you need to do is follow the install guide on freebsd.org and you won't go far wrong.  Really the only prerequisite for installing is the ability to read. ;-)

Also run a couple of Linux boxes too.  Even though both systems are different, the end user once up and running really won't notice too much difference unless they start to dig.  The major difference people will probably notice though is the different methods distros have of installing software.  Good examples are Portage (Gentoo) and apt-get on Debian.