Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
BSD Operating Systems

The NetBSD Organization 163

Posted by Hemos from the how-to-become-part-of-it-all dept.
A reader writes: "Stumbled across a nice article about how the NetBSD Project is organized and some interesting ways users can help out." Good stuff, for those who want to get involved.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The NetBSD Organization More

The NetBSD Organization

Comments Filter:

  • The great divide: (Score:4, Funny)

    by _Sambo ( 153114 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @06:41PM (#5010174)
    Those who hate windows use Linux.

    Those who love Unix use BSD.

    • Re:The great divide: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Yeah, well said. No wonder people see the BSD community as elitist pricks.

      I use Linux, not because I hate Windows (couldn't really care less about it), but for these reasons:

      1. Linux supports USB joypads. No BSD flavour does, it seems. May seem trivial, but I like to run console emulators.

      2. VMware. Kludgy support under FreeBSD at best.

      3. Can't seem to get multiple sound devices (/dev/dsp, /dev/dsp1 etc.) for my sound card, as I can in Linux.

      4. Easy updates. When there's a security issue on my RH box, I can just rpm -U the new package. Similar with Debian. With FreeBSD, I need all the source and compilers available, then do CVSup, rebuild etc. BSD really needs binary updates.

      That's just a few things which are easier under Linux, and that's why I use it -- not because I "hate Windows" or any such crap. Hey, I really like FreeBSD -- I love the solid and fast kernel, the well-structured userland and central organisation, but there are problems.

      Grow up and accept things.

      • Re:The great divide: (Score:5, Funny)

        by rutledjw ( 447990 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @07:40PM (#5010682) Homepage
        There are other differences as well:

        • SMP Support, FreeBSD is the ONLY one who has it
        • Commercial vendor support. Oracle, IBM, Sun, etc support Linux. BSD support is IMPROVING, but not near the support Linux recieves.
        • Let's face it, Linux IS easier. I use Slackware and so I'm in the configs (as opposed to wizards), but Linux still is easier for me. Do I just need to get off my @ss and learn BSD? Probably
        • Better java support in Linux. I know the "j" word is dirty around here. Even so...
        • This is going to sound TOTALLY dumb - Commercial vendor support. If my company can't buy support, the world will certianly end due to lack of it. Whatever...
        That being said, I'm proposing FreeBSD for our web servers as a replacement for (are you ready for this?) Apache on Windows. The fall back is actually Linux/Apache, but I think from a security standpoint, BSD is probably the way to go.

        It DOES mildly annoy me to see the original parent post. BSD folks seem usually mild-mannered towards others. But every now and then some jackass...

          • SMP support? Who cares? Not on the desktop at least. I'm deperately trying to get a dual system and no shop in my neighborhood is *willing* to deliver one!
          • I give you that one
          • Having both experience with Slackware and BSD (OpenBSD specifically), there is not much difference in configging the systems. Do some greps and you're on your way in no time. Don't forget that Slackware is the Linux that is closest to BSD (considering configuration).
          • Granted... as a Java developper I am disappointed. Yes, my Mac OS X (a BSD after all) doesn't seem to have Java problems.
          • Common problem with many companies... As if Windows support was great... Tsss... As you say "Whatever"
          Look, I am far from a BSD fanatic. What I think is that the original parent poster was going for a +5, Funny. Unfortunately he was modded to Interesting. I think that BSD people are most of the time quiet in the back, while Linux people are yelling at about anyone they can (including the harmless BSD people in the back).
        • Let's face it, Linux IS easier

          Two words: package system
          • FreeBSD does have the cvs system for managing source and ports source packages (as well as pkg_add etc) and it seems to me at least to be as effective than any other system (rpm, dpkg etc)
        • SMP is in NetBSD-current [netbsd.org]. And it's working quite nicely - I'm using it on several servers.
        • There are other differences as well:

          SMP Support, FreeBSD is the ONLY one who has it

          NetBSD has SMP support available or in development for i386, Sparc, Sparc64 VAX, and Alpha. I'm not sure if these are all in the stable branch, some may be in development. I haven't really kept track of this issue much lately.
          Commercial vendor support. Oracle, IBM, Sun, etc support Linux. BSD support is IMPROVING, but not near the support Linux recieves.
          Apache's own website runs under FreeBSD, and most Linux binaries run fine under *BSD at normal speed, not to mention source.
          Let's face it, Linux IS easier. I use Slackware and so I'm in the configs (as opposed to wizards), but Linux still is easier for me. Do I just need to get off my @ss and learn BSD? Probably
          BSD is very close to Linux, especially Slackware. The installers are more bare-bones than most Linux installers are nowadays (though I found the Debian installer worse) but running BSD is actually easier than running Linux in many ways. The pkgsrc/ports system of installing 3rd party software is excellent, the distribution getting the most buzz now, Gentoo, copied it and this is largely the reason for it's success. Recompiling kernels and upgrading to new versions are far smoother than Linux usually is as well.
          Better java support in Linux. I know the "j" word is dirty around here. Even so...
          Yeah, the Java support is lousy. FreeBSD supports jdk1.3, but only after a complicated installation process thanks to the fact that Sun et. al. haven't given them permission to distribute Java2 native binaries yet. Java 2 support for NetBSD of course is non-existent, though there are people who are working on getting it into pkgsrc...
          This is going to sound TOTALLY dumb - Commercial vendor support. If my company can't buy support, the world will certianly end due to lack of it. Whatever...
          NetBSD has Wasabi, which has hired many of the top developers of NetBSD.
        • SMP Support, FreeBSD is the ONLY one who has it

          Actually, OpenBSD is the only one which doesn't have it. As a matter of fact, NetBSD was the first to have SMP on the Alpha.

          Let's face it, Linux IS easier. I use Slackware and so I'm in the configs (as opposed to wizards), but Linux still is easier for me.

          I used Slackware until I found OpenBSD. Every last one of the BSDs are far easier than ANY Linux distro (I've used all the mainstream ones, and about a dozen of the obsecure ones).

          Better java support in Linux.

          "Better" is a pretty obsecure term. FreeBSD has very good java support... but I'm not into Java so I can't say it can take everything you can throw at it, but I haven't had any problems with it.

          I think from a security standpoint, BSD is probably the way to go.

          That's the understatement of the year.

          It DOES mildly annoy me to see the original parent post. BSD folks seem usually mild-mannered towards others. But every now and then some jackass...

          It does mildly annoy me to see your post. Slashdot folks seem to usually have a sense of humor. but every now and then...
      • 4. Easy updates.

        Funny that. I use FreeBSD over RH for exactly the same reason.

        BSD really needs binary updates.

        No, it doesn't. The installation program has an update option if you really insist. But you can't beat a CVSup and make world. And portupgrade is funky too.

        When there's a security issue on my RH box, I can just rpm -U the new package

        I do a portupgrade every week, and make world every month. So, when there is a security issue on my FreeBSD box, the chances are I've already fixed it without realising it.

        • But you can't beat a CVSup and make world.

          Sure you can. I just set up OpenBSD on a SPARCClassic (50MHz CPU, 48MB RAM, 2GB SCSI disk). This is a small webserver, DNS server and may take over from my DLInk router when I spend the time to learn the PF feature. I don't want to compile stuff on such an underpowered box. I would likely have to build the system on an NFS mount due to lack of disk space.

          BTW OpenBSD works much better on it than Debian did. It runs faster, takes up a little less disk space and seems to leave more RAM free.

    • Re:The great divide: (Score:5, Funny)

      by DaBj ( 168491 ) <dabj @ d a b j .net> on Friday January 03, 2003 @06:58PM (#5010309) Homepage Journal
      Or as my friend whom I introduced to BSD put it
      when looking into using Linux on his desktop:
      "GNU's not Unix....it's Linux"

      (I can hear RMS getting his panties in a twist already)

    • Re:The great divide: (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by rsidd ( 6328 )
      Yes, that's the best way to win friends and invite users of other systems to BSD -- by insulting them.
    • aaargh. how did this get +5 INTRESTING?
      oldest shit on the book...

      it's just variety.. and people who are well into linux generally know a bit of *bsd's..

      the 'problem' is people who aren't into neither linux nor bsd.. and overzealous idiots being the problem nr 2.

      ksuicide2k, problem nr3 is that slashdots karma system is just plain weak if you're frequent user.. personal karma has little meaning nowadays.

      • and people who are well into linux generally know a bit of *bsd's..

        Actually, they don't. I've run into many Linux people who have never tried *BSD.

        Also, most people who make the jump from Linux to *BSD, even after using Linux for years and years, rarely switch back.

    • Those who hate windows use Linux.

      Those who love Unix use BSD.

      Sorry, no.

      BSD !=UNIX. As an oldschool Next and SGI guy (yes those are my roots, long before I had a PC of my own, I had a NEXT account to a shell on a CRAY).

      The truth is, those who belive in "the Desktop" belive in Microsoft, or OSX, and those with HOPE for the Desktop being for the PEOPLE belive in Linux.

      But, those of us who live and breath "server has power, give the server more pwoer" and at the same time belive "I want to be a CLIENT to that POWER" believe in BSD. BSD can be ported to anything (NetBSD) and given the client to the server consept, will survive.

      I support the server, I have 1 server in my house and 4 x-terminals. The SERVER having all the power, and the low cost clients is the future. The future is UNIX.... Linux is sidtracked trying to make the Desktop the future. But in the Future, people what THIER INFO SECURE, HONEST, and EVERYWHERE, ON DEMAND, now, clear and clean... Who is leading the way to that? OpenBSD (secure server) and NetBSD (access to it from ANY DEVICE).

      Have faith, the Force is with the BSD's.....

      Linus has opened the door. But, the security and reality has always been in the BSD's.

      • BSD !=UNIX.

        You're kidding right? BSD IS Unix, with the exception that they can't use the brand name.

        Hey, if it wasn't, why would they have been sued in the first place? To be specific, BSD took Unix, and made it better.

    • Sometimes I think it's better written as:

      Those who love Unix use Linux.

      Those who hate Linux use BSD.

      Dinivin
  • Now that apple is beginning to behave badly, maybe it's time a free project showed what it can do with the BSD core. I'm all for this. I just wish I had more spare time!
  • ...the OpenBSD banner ad at the bottom of the page?
    • Daemon News banners ads are filled in randomly. I loaded the page in question then hit the 'reload' button five times and got the following ads on the page:

      bottom banner "Get BSD Stuff" box

      LinuxWorld NYC NetBSD 1.5.3
      NetBSD 1.6 OpenBSD
      DOSSIER Iron Systems
      Iron Systems FreeBSD book
      LinuxWorld Expo FreeBSD 4.7
      FreeBSD 4.6.2 update NetBSD 1.6

      As another reply pointed out, Daemon News supports all BSD derived operating systems, commercial or free. You might even come up with a Darwin or Mac OS X ad in the mix.
  • This article is formatted for the blind, right? Header size: 120px; text size: 80px; ... *g*

  • Knoppix-like distro for *BSD? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TheReckoning ( 638253 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @06:55PM (#5010294) Journal
    Are there any bootable-CD distributions of *BSD, like the Knoppix distro for Linux? It would be really cool to bring a couple of CDs with you in case you ran into some open-minded person willing to look at a free OS, and not have to worry about partitioning or overwriting anything.

  • netbsd ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SuperDuG ( 134989 ) <be AT eclec DOT tk> on Friday January 03, 2003 @07:09PM (#5010396) Homepage Journal
    Whoa ... back to the wonders of the open source world where one thing is obviously better than the other, they can't both be ... *gasp* equally great *gasp* ...

    Needless to say if anyone ever asks you a question of what runs NetBSD ... you can safely say more things than any other operating system. NetBSD runs on everything from a supercomputer to a dreamcast and everything in between. The most impressive things I've seen from NetBSD is the ability to get the OS running on anything that can process information and NFS ... second to none.

    There are ninches for everything ... portability ... netbsd wins hands down.

    • Is NetBSD really more portable than Linux? I know that NetBSD fans love to claim this but is it really true? What are some platforms that NetBSD runs on but Linux doesn't? There are many pieces of hardware where NetBSD won't run or is not practical, for example anything with more than 1 CPU (yeah, I know there is some rudimentary SMP support but it's not usable for real work) or my Sharp Zaurus.

      • Depends... As one person I know said: "Linux is easier to port to [our custom platform] than netBSD, but netBSD is much easier to maintain once to port is done". Linux has no interest in systems he doesn't own, thus even though support from non x86 platforms exists, they are always behind. NetBSD makes an effort to keep things in sync.

        There are platforms that linux supports that netBSD doesn't (netBSD requires 32 bits or more, linux has a 8086 16 bit port). If you did a strict count on that basis you would likely find that some form of linux runs on more platforms. However netBSD has official support for more platforms. That means the support is not out of date, and you are running with the latest modern netBSD features.

        • However netBSD has official support for more platforms.

          My understanding (mainly from reading debian mailing lists, so there's an obvious bias :-) is that it depends on how you count -- netbsd lists many `similar' platforms as being separate ports, whereas linux simply lumps many together under each architecture and has arch-specific ways of differentiating them (making them a bit hard to enumerate).

          BTW, there's one fairly unique class of systems that linux now supports and no other `mainstream' kernel does, to my knowledge: those without an MMU, since uClinux was merged into the mainline kernel. Granted, life is a bit (OK, a lot :-) rougher on these systems, but it's really nice seeing old familiar stuff running on a funky microcontroller, and gee, interrupts sure are cheap!

          That means the support is not out of date, and you are running with the latest modern netBSD features.

          This probably is very true; linux is a bit anarchic in comparison to the BSDs...

      • Re:netbsd ... (Score:2, Informative)

        by Gilmoure ( 18428 )
        What are some platforms that NetBSD runs on but Linux doesn't?

        Mac68k! My Quadra 650's been running as NAT for a couple of years. Took over from my old IIci.

        The closest thing to Linux on old Mac 68k hardware is MKLinux and that's really not being developed any more. NetBSD is current!

      • Re:netbsd ... (Score:2, Informative)

        by SN74S181 ( 581549 )
        NetBSD is much, much more portable than 'Linux' if you refer to an Operating System, and not just a Kernal. 'NetBSD' represents a kernal and a complete base userland, all under one unified seamless source tree. Linux, on the other hand, is a kernal, and any number of different utilities and packages lumped together. There are dozens of versions of 'Linux' just for the x86, let alone the variations when you move from one architecture to another, whereas there is one NetBSD port for each platform, and all the NetBSD ports consist of base userlands compiled from the same source tree.

        Hope this makes sense. What it means in the final analysis is that I can (almost) tar up the /etc directory from a NetBSD 1.6 Sparc machine and expand it into the /etc directory of any x86 or 68000 or MIPS or PPC NetBSD 1.6 machine and it will just work.
      • go to netbsd.org [netbsd.org] and they're all listed on the right. There are quite a few systems that linux does not run on.
      • I know at least one platform that netBSD runs on that Linux doesn't, and this one matters to me: DEC alphas running turbochannel busses. Yes, I know these things are old, and yes, I know my desktop runs rings around it, but gee it's cool to be able to say I have a DEC alpha (that I got for free...).

  • **New** BSD slogans (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    FreeBSD: "Drowning in red tape"
    NetBSD: "More Core than lines of commiters"
    OpenBSD: "Dictatorships kill"
    Darwin: "It takes a mighty corporation to turn out a tender BSD!"

  • From the article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by __past__ ( 542467 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @07:14PM (#5010447)
    For example, if a kernel developer makes a change that affects a utility then they normally just go ahead and make the change to the utility as well.
    This innocent little sentence sums up one of the most important reasons to prefer BSD over GNU/Linux (or make that RedHat/GNU/Linux, SuSE/GNU/Linux...). It is really nice to have a coordinated group responsible for a complete, working system, instead of a distributor that merely duct-tapes together unrelated, each on their own incomplete, parts.
    • Of course, if you're after multi-platform support, you could go to Sun for your SPARC support, etc, etc, etc ... that's *actual* support, not the (normally great) support you get from the F/OSS community.
    • It is really nice to have a coordinated group responsible for a complete, working system, instead of a distributor that merely duct-tapes together unrelated, each on their own incomplete, parts.
      What do you think the BSD ports collection is, if not unrelated, incomplete parts?

      This only applies to kernel hackers. To everyone else this just flies in the face of reality.

      • What do you think the BSD ports collection is,
        Clearly separated from the base system it is. Sure, it is still possible that my Apache and my mod_frobnicate won't play together, the ports are basically out of reach from a QA standpoint. But the kernel and the basic userland tools, basically the POSIX stuff and them some, can be expected to work fine together. Even with "imported" stuff actually developed elsewhere,like GCC or BIND, you get more safety, simply because the separation makes the whole much more manageable.

  • Why so many negative comments? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by core plexus ( 599119 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @07:21PM (#5010510) Homepage
    I help out on some sites, and they all use Apache and freeBSD, and I've never had a problem. I believe it makes it less expensive for people to host on non-Microsoft servers, and having and open mind is important to keeping open software. If a fraction of the users of Microsoft and other commercial software spent a fraction of their time and effort (instead of downloading pr0n) to projects...well, who knows what could happen. A movement, perhaps?
  • Can you imagine a beowulf cluster of that? Seriously though, I want to know if it is possible to cluster in *BSD (which I suppose it is). If anyone knows a site that shows benchmarks of identical Linux and *BSD clusters. If the *BSD cluster is faster, then I will search with all my might for >1GhZ used boxen and make a cluster myself!

    • Re:*BSD clusters? (Score:5, Informative)

      by questionlp ( 58365 ) on Friday January 03, 2003 @08:24PM (#5011041) Homepage
      Nik Clayton of the FreeBSD project has a page [freebsd.org] with links to resources on clustering FreeBSD. Some of the links are dead, but the ones that work should give you enough information about clustering FreeBSD (and possibly other BSD operating systems).

      It's probably not as elegant or as well known as Beowulf clustering, but it has been done :)

  • NetBSD! (Score:4, Informative)

    by mackstann ( 586043 ) on Saturday January 04, 2003 @03:41AM (#5013200) Homepage
    Damn, got here late, this story was posted while I was at work, and now probably no one will even see this comment :P

    Some random thoughts:

    I've run Linux for about a year and a few months, I've run Debian *only* for about a year, and recently I started running NetBSD on my desktop machine (yes, my desktop machine, not my server, router, or toaster). I don't see why people denounce the BSD's for desktop use. Mozilla runs, Xterm's run, irc clients run, Gaim runs, XMMS runs, MPlayer runs, damn, everything on my desktop runs :) For those that like KDE or Gnome, they run, in fact NetBSD had KDE 3 way before Debian ever did. So what's the fuss?

    I moved from Linux to BSD for many reasons, BSD is much more tightly integrated. You don't get the "oh, that's Jim Bob Developer's fault, email him", etc. You don't get manual pages that state "This manual page is old and incomplete - please read the GNU info manual". Of course opinions differ, but I _like_ man pages. I don't like info manuals.

    Another factor is the license and attitude of the community as far as licensing. I don't really like the GPL. Sure, in a perfect world, all software would be free, there would be no evil corporations, and everyone could sit around reading fine literature and hiking out in the mountains - BUT that's not going to happen. If people want to make a product and sell it, let them do it (as long as they're not breaking the law :)). If BSD wasn't around, alot of other operating systems would have gotten crappier TCP/IP stacks, OSX would probably be in much worse shape than it is (if it ever came to light at all), and many other things. So what if a vendor doesn't want to release their changes? They paid their people to write the code, let them have it. The original source will always be around.

    BSD init is alot cleaner than Sys V init - no piles of symlinks with funny names - and NetBSD's rc.d system takes care of Sys V init-style init scripts (/etc/rc.d/named restart). In fact, NetBSD's rc.d system is being ported to FreeBSD.

    ipf is, IMO, a hell of a lot nicer than IPTables.

    The whole base system is consistant, well documented, well thought out, and easy to use as long as you know how to read. The userbase is *much* more intelligent and experienced, on average, however it is quite a bit smaller, than Linux's.

    For software - there is pkgsrc, which is like Free/OpenBSD's ports system, or Gentoo's portage. pkgsrc is kept very up to date, I'm running Mozilla 1.2.1 from it right now.

    As far as being a server or firewall/router, NetBSD runs any OSS Server stuff great, and I'm sure most Linux-only stuff would run fine under emulation.

    Any other NetBSD users out there in the wasteland that is Slashdot? Speak up! :)

    • Re:NetBSD! (Score:3, Informative)

      by leoboiko ( 462141 )

      I did read it (-: and I have a similar story. I've been running Debian exclusively for two years and switched my home machine to NetBSD. I still use Debian in the university (it's not my decision anyway) and I like both [debian.org], but I prefer NetBSD.

      I agree with most of your points. I'd add these two:

      • Minimalism. This is the main reason I like NetBSD. It is more minimalist than any Linux distro and even FreeBSD.
      • Good code. Not only the documentation is great, the source is very clean, organized and commented. This is nice for a CS student like me. Section 9 of the manual (kernel internals) is so fun.

      But we disagree in the opinion about licensing. I really prefer copyleft. But I understand and respect the BSD point of view, and I agree that BSD licenses are better in certain cases - games, for example.

      • I'm still running Debian on my other machine, I would switch, but it's running Apache, MySQL, BIND, Exim (i'm gonna get to learning sendmail), and something else i swear (buzzword overkill, brain freezing up) - anyways I don't...IPTables! That's it :P So I'll have to learn some ipf.

        Anyways it'll be a while until I'm confident in doing all that with NetBSD, so Debian stays for a while - not that I all of a sudden don't like it, but I definitely prefer NetBSD now.

        And of course I agree with your two added points :)
      • Minimalism. This is the main reason I like NetBSD. It is more minimalist than any Linux distro and even FreeBSD.

        Hear, hear! My SE/30 runs NetBSD. I love the "unclutteredness" of the system and the package system.

        Regarding licenses, I haven't done much comparison of the two. But my gut feeling is that while GPL gives freedom to code, BSD gives freedom to people. Personally I think freeing people is a worthier goal.

Slashdot Top Deals

Byte your tongue.

Close