Re: Which BSD?
From: David Douthitt (ssrat_at_mailbag.com)
Date: 11/07/03
- Previous message: Marco van de Voort: "Re: Which BSD?"
- In reply to: Rudolf Polzer: "Re: Which BSD?"
- Next in thread: Rudolf Polzer: "Re: Which BSD?"
- Reply: Rudolf Polzer: "Re: Which BSD?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 08:29:02 -0600
On 6 Nov 2003 17:51:44 GMT, Rudolf Polzer
<denshimeiru-sapmctacher@durchnull.de> wrote:
>BTW, is there a Gentoo-like (Any)BSD install process?
>Gentoo's installer is /bin/sh - it at least does
>what I want it to do.
Well, there's always the emergency holographic shell :-)
I'm not sure about NetBSD, but installing OpenBSD/mac68k was certainly
much similar to the described Gentoo install: format the drives
yourself, mkfs them, copy and undo the tarballs into the right
directories, then start the system up to finish configuring....
> Just because the mirror I chose was missing the package index
>file, it tried over twenty times to download that index file: five times
>for each package it wanted to install. If I had pressed ^C, I'd probably
>have had to start over.
>
>After a long long time, I was finally able to choose another mirror.
I found this to be a complete pain also. Not only that, but the ports
tree itself will try multiple mirrors.
Red Hat and SUSE installations will come back immediately if there is
no connectivity with the chosen mirror and ask for a new one.
Why not the BSD sysinstall? And why not let skip the network
configuration if its already configured? And why "unconfigure" the
network if its already configured and functioning?
Seemed like if there was any problem with the network one had to start
over.
I might add I've installed numerous FreeBSD and OpenBSD releases - and
the probllems with FreeBSD networking during installation stands out.
>I'm running Linux on my 486 notebook with 8MB RAM (Linux kernel 2.2.25,
>no fat 2.4.x or even 2.6 kernel). I am not running a BSD there because
>the notebook only has a 500MB hard drive which is already completely
>filled up with the world, world sources and ports tree.
I'm running FreeBSD 4.8 on my 486 notebook with 20M RAM and 600M hard
drive because I know it fits. Don't load the ports tree or world
sources and it fits just fine.
I might add that the 2.2 kernel hasn't been used for years. Even so,
trying to run a floppy-based Linux 2.0 (even smaller) system on a 8M
486 I have was mostly impossible (I tried several). PicoBSD fired up
just fine in 8M and ran well.
>But I noticed that a BSD kernel is built much faster than a Linux kernel
>and does more seldomly fail to compile because of undocumented
>dependcies of kernel options; [...]
The whole BSD system is put together much better that way - Linux is
more of a hodge-podge. Nothing against Linux - just in BSD the entire
system (whether FreeBSD or NetBSD) is overseen by a group of people,
including all of the utilities and the libraries and the kernel and so
on.
In Linux, the only thing overseen by Linus is the kernel. Even the
major distributions: none oversee any bit a very little bit of the
code - it comes from many more sources and isn't subjected to strong
internal review such as FreeBSD or NetBSD.
David Douthitt (david@douthitt.net)
UNIX System Administrator
HP-UX, Unixware, Linux
Linux+, LPIC-1
- Previous message: Marco van de Voort: "Re: Which BSD?"
- In reply to: Rudolf Polzer: "Re: Which BSD?"
- Next in thread: Rudolf Polzer: "Re: Which BSD?"
- Reply: Rudolf Polzer: "Re: Which BSD?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
