NetBSD 2.0 RC5 Tagged 74
ulib writes "NetBSD 2.0_RC5 has now been tagged. Changes since RC4 include fixes to various COMPAT_ emulations, IP Filter backward compatibility fixes, XFree86, pax(1), rsh(1), hp300 boot blocks, pthread fixes for amd64 and i386, documentation updates. Binary snapshots of NetBSD 2.0_RC5 are available in the daily builds directory on the main FTP site."
Still XFree86 and not X.Org? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:1 comment? (Score:2, Interesting)
- If you need top of the line security, use OpenBSD.
- If you need a small footprint, use NetBSD.
- If you need to run on an odd architecture, use NetBSD.
- If you need a great BSD operating system, and know that everything you'll use is in NetBSD's package system, use NetBSD.
- If none of the above meet your criteria, use FreeBSD.
Also, FreeBSD has better hardware support than the other BSDs as far as number of supported devices. FreeBSD works well, and ports is pretty good, but the cost of that is bloat (although it pales in comparison to what Linux users regard as bloat. A bloated FreeBSD is comparable to a modestly slimmed down Linux installation, although if you really bite down hard, Linux can be made a little smaller than FreeBSD, while still not being able to compare to NetBSD). Basically, if one of the other BSDs will work for you, use it instead of FreeBSDLastly, in time, DragonFlyBSD will edge out FreeBSD. Dfly is going to have far better SMP and clustering, and it's being done so well that performance on a UP machine isn't suffering.
Re:1 comment? (Score:2, Interesting)
I would recommend FreeBSD over Mandrake, if you're just looking for a non-Windows OS. FreeBSD's configuration takes place via direct manipulation of the text files that control the OS. It's generally not hard to find information on what to twiddle and how, and you end up learning more in the process. Mandrake (and Redhat, the last time I used it) uses GUI frontends to change these text files, and often uses its own nonstandard text files, so that anything you learn won't carry over to another Linux distribution. Furthermore, the last time I used Redhat, I had choices of several different GUI frontends to many different text files, some of which were changed in different ways for different purposes. Without X, I couldn't configure my system.
Is it more libraries, bigger binaries, more software package dependancies...? Or are you talking a default install of *BSD versus a typical default install of a modern Linux distro?
It's typical distribution size. Almost every Linux distribution has a large sprawl involved with what it's including these days. A default Linux From Scratch install contains expect and Perl, for example. The BSDs are built with a focus on taking away everything that isn't necessary. Linux distributions for the most part don't even try.
As for the system binaries, it depends on how they're built. You could build in the library routines they use, or compile them so that they need dynamic libraries, or you could use something like busybox to decrease the size dramatically. It's not a cut and dry situation, but most Linux distributions manage to be larger than the BSDs anyway.
As always, it comes down to what you personally need and what matches your skill level. For Linux, you're better off using Slackware or Debian or Gentoo because they're less likely to damage your ability to learn Linux deeply than something like Mandrake. Today, even though I have no trouble managing FreeBSD or Linux From Scratch, I'd probably have trouble managing a Redhat or Mandrake installation, but I could probably pick up Gentoo or Debian's way of doing things in a few days.
Re:How does NetBSD compare to OpenBSD? (Score:5, Interesting)
OpenBSD broke from the NetBSD base over 9 years ago, that is nine years of code divergence in small ways even in the most similar of parts of the codebases.
NetBSD has a great deal of platforms that are supported, including architectures untouched by most other operating systems. OpenBSD supports only 14 platforms, with several discontinued ones as well. NetBSD's supported platforms however are not up to the same standard as OpenBSD's; OpenBSD requires that the port be compilable on it's given platform and many of NetBSD's cannot. This makes the overall codebase of NetBSD more portable and stable at the price of properly supporting it's platforms.
OpenBSD has in the past audited the codebase for it's entire system in order to remove as many programming errors as possible, this has lead to increased security as well as stability.
OpenBSD has in the past removed system tools and ports that it deems to be too insecure or bug ridden. NetBSD does not have this policy. Such as rlogin.
OpenBSD has in the past fought over licenses which they do not believe in having within their system; trying to relicense or replace code which does not conform with their level liberal code. NetBSD does not find this to be a priority. Such things include SSH/OpenSSH, IPF/PF, XFree86/X.org and GnuTAR/TAR.
OpenBSD integrates security minded protection into it's system whenever possible. NetBSD does not. Stack protection; stackghost on Sparc and propolice on I386 as well as taking them to other platforms in the future.
I honestly see no major pros to using NetBSD over OpenBSD on any of the overlapping platforms, but NetBSD is on more platforms.
Re:How does NetBSD compare to OpenBSD? (Score:3, Interesting)