Re: Linux vs FreeBSD vs SCO
From: Bill Vermillion (bv_at_wjv.com)
Date: 05/28/05
- Previous message: Joe Dunning: "Re: Linux vs FreeBSD vs SCO"
- In reply to: Joe Dunning: "Re: Linux vs FreeBSD vs SCO"
- Next in thread: Jeff Hyman: "Re: Linux vs ... TEST ..."
- Reply: Jeff Hyman: "Re: Linux vs ... TEST ..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 03:45:01 GMT
In article <slrnd9fbs1.vcj.joe@localhost.localdomain>,
Joe Dunning <joedunning1234_NOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 2005-05-26, Bill Vermillion <bv@wjv.com> wrote:
>>
>> Another think I disliked was their 'better' way of firing off init
>> scripts. Instead of the text oriented inted.con with one line for
>> things they instituted the xinetd.conf file and xinetd.d diretory.
>>
>> Each file in xinetd.c has about 8 lines inside { and } with
>> all it's options.
>>
>> disable = no, or disable = yes certainly is more complex
>> than just commenting out, or adding a line in /etc/inetd.d
>
>I think you have missed that it is more than just "more complex": it is
>more flexible. You can choose which interface a specific service binds
>to, you can do other things such as limit the rate of incoming
>connections, redirect incoming TCP connections to another host,
>define the user under which the service runs, etc.
>
>All these combine to give more flexibility and, if used properly, more
>security.
>
>>
>> I looked at the logs and 18 services started, and then it found a
>> configuration error in the ftpd startup. What caused that error I
>> never found out. BUT - when it found that error, it bailed out and
>> took everything else with it.
>
>OK, this is pretty bad. But bugs happen. I doubt it was designed to do
>that.
>
>>
>> Then there is the rpm upgrade path. That also seems so MSish, as
>> often you install an upgrade, and you find it needs something else,
>> so you install that. And often you get library errors - just like
>> MS gets those DLL things.
>
>There are better package systems and apt-rpm, which manages
>dependencies. If you use Gentoo, it has tools to find and resolve
>library errors.
>
>>
>> In FreeBSD I almost always - with about 3 exceptions - build
>> everything on the machine. I got to /usr/ports/<category><pgm>
>> and type 'make'. These exceptions in case you are interested
>> are things such as installing cvsup, which I do from a pre-built
>> package, from packages otherwise it has to compile Ruby, and some
>> other programs, that are used only for the compile, and that can
>> take a long time.
>>
>> It goes to the net, gets the needed source code, sucks them in,
>> compiles them, checks for all needed dependencies, compiles them,
>> and then with make install it checks if there are other
>> dependencies and brings them in and installs them. Some of the
>> Linux dists are starting to adopt thins.
>
>Gentoo is the prime example.
>
>
>>
>> With this method you almost never worry about outdated libraries,
>> because we are compling on a running system. And often you get
>> new libraries in addition to old ones.
>But, because you get the newest version, there are more changes also.
>There will always be conflicts between the need to keep things stable
>and the need to update. Sometimes those updates require more changes
>than one would like. In the chase to provide a compelling platform to
>displace MS, one has to expect some bumps.
Jeff H. asked for my views. And NONE of my choices was ever
anything to replace MS, though that is what a great many Linux
advocates want.
My FreeBSD installs replaced two different versions of SGI's IRIX,
a couple of Sun systems, and one or two others somewhere along the
way.
I got frustrated with MS early on. The docs all looked like
PC-DOS 2.0 [that was before the MS-DOS names came along] and it
looked like MS had done some good things compared to the 1.0.
I played on the keyboard on the 1.0 a bit and it felt like it was
nothing more than a CP/M system with the BIG DISADVANTAGE that the
largest media available was a 160KB floppy disk. It took awhile
before they got to 180KB and then DS for 320K.
On my PC - which predated the AT bus - early 1983 - I finally put
in a Maynard Sandstar floppy controller and hung 8" DD floppies
that I had used in CP/M on the system. And the 8" floppies ran
faster than the HDs MS Introduced later - because they could only
get the interleave on the HDs running at 6:1. The 8" floppies
times out about 5 times faster than the PC HD - which when they
first came out were second party add-ons at $2500 for 5MB.
The stupid way MS handled the screen IO made it slower than my 5MHz
Z80B system, but on pure work with nothing going to the screen
they were about the same.
The vendor of my system used to show how much faster is was by
loading in a BASIC program that did nothing but print the numbers
1 to 1000 on the screen of the PC. That was loaded from a floppy.
They would start that program, walk to the other side of the room,
and TYPE in the BASIC program and then run it. That machine always
finished before the PC did. Users were impressed but didn't
realize the difference was just the memory mapped screen display on
the Z80 system. Salesmen never change.
After 6 months of working with the PC I moved to a Radio Shack
16, paid $750 for the develpment system, and have never used MS
for anything important since then.
If someone want's to replace the MS on the desktops they should
consider OS/X IMO. I don't use my OS/X that often as it's an older
machine - only 400MHz.
I do use my XP for a lot of video processing, and it's only
a 2.4Ghz P4 - but the program I use is HTT aware and was written to
take advantage of it's capabilities - but still a good conversion
with DVD quality can still take a long time. Longest I've hit
so far was 11 hours. So while that is running away, I'm on the net
with Unix type systems.
And like Jeff L - I have lots of old OSes floating around. I see
a Microport V.2 over there <---- and the manual and disks
for Exis 5.3 are over there ----> [I'm surrounded by books]
along with SCO's old Xenix manual, and several distributions of
those. The official IBM DOS 2.0 manuals and disks are there too.
It's about time I find something to do that doesn't accumulate so
much 'stuff'.
Bill
than a CPM s
-- Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
- Previous message: Joe Dunning: "Re: Linux vs FreeBSD vs SCO"
- In reply to: Joe Dunning: "Re: Linux vs FreeBSD vs SCO"
- Next in thread: Jeff Hyman: "Re: Linux vs ... TEST ..."
- Reply: Jeff Hyman: "Re: Linux vs ... TEST ..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
