VanLUG Email Archive
> And because Linux comes in propper and good distributions... *BSD comes in
> a couple of tarballs...
Well, that makes a difference for some. Actually, NetBSD comes in
a much nicer distribution now, with a full automated install and
all that stuff. Personally, I still just untar from tarballs when
I do an install because I find it faster and easier.
> I had to run NetBSD on my HP Apollo, since Linux isn't there yet, and those
> tarballs just sucks... I might not want everyhing...
It's never been the case that you couldn't avoid installing sections
you don't want, such as the compiler, manpages or games. If you
wanted it to the level of `I don't want awk' (to save 150K of disk
space), well, if you're advanced enough to make that decision and
understand the consequences, you're certainly advanced enough to
type `rm /usr/bin/awk'.
The base package extracts to only 30 MB of disk space, and there's
nothing in there I would not recommend that absolutely everyone
have on his system.
> ...and that I want, I have
> to compile and install all by my self... Not a difficult task, but a lengthy
> one... I don't have the time (nor will) to do that any more...
This to has been fixed to a great degree with our new package system.
These install and packaging systems systems are certainly not as
fancy as Linux, but they are there.
I will agree that Linux is usually easier for a novice to set up.
However, I've seen enough complaints and queries about what version
of libc to use (a problem that's entirely unknown on BSD systems,
unless they're running Linux executables) that I can see it's not
always as rosey as some claim.
> The Linux world have also recognized the fact about diverting it's resources..
> One group works with the OS (the kernel) and other grops work with the distribution
> (Debian, Redhat to name a few), and other groups work with documentation...
>
> In *BSD the same group do _ALL_ of the above, forcing people to accept this
> groups idea how things should be done... Very MS like... I hate that...
Huh? I could say the opposite: in Linux there's only one kernel,
and everyone has to accept that group's idea of how things should
be done, whereas with BSD you have three kernels. And the fact that
you have so many different distributions is a nightmare for people
trying to make pre-packaged software. It's much easier to make sure
it works under three BSD distributions than all the Linux distriubtions
out there.
> I just wished that Linux would use the *BSD device system... It _IS_ darn good :)
>From the outside, there appears to be a certain amount of NIH in
the Linux kernel developer community. The TCP stack was rewritten
from scratch, rather than using the working BSD one. Ext2fs is
essentially BSD FFS without some of the features.
cjs
Curt Sampson
Info at http://www.portal.ca/
Internet Portal Services, Inc. Through infinite mist, software reverberates
Vancouver, BC (604) 257-9400 In code possess'd of invisible folly.