It is currently Wed, 22 May 2019 08:40:23 GMT



 
Author Message
 What does BSD stand for?
What does BSD stand for?  What does unix stand for?

What is the history of bsd?

Did it start before, after linux?  Did it branch out of linux?

Steve



 Mon, 05 Jan 2004 05:29:05 GMT   
 What does BSD stand for?
First, I will assume your message was not intended to draw flames.

You can find the complete history of BSD (FreeBSD) and other Unix flavors
related to it at http://www.freebsd.org .  There are other flavors of BSD
along with system such as Linux.  However, BSD has been around for quite a
bit longer than Linux, which in OS history terms, is a relative newcomer.

If anything, well wait a minute...  I will not say that Linux branched from
BSD, but BSD most certainly did not branch from Linux.  In fact, that is
where my first statement comes from.  While I personally do not get
emotionally attached to computer operating systems, I have no doubt that
your last question will most certainly draw a lot of heat from those who do.
Tp even suggest that BSD came from Linux qualifies you for hate mail! :-)

About the only thing BSD and Linux have in common is that they are both Unix
in nature.  Linux otherwise has a completely different heritage than BSD.

On a "personal note", I have played with Linux since its beginnings several
years ago, as well as having a long history with the FreeBSD project.
Despite the unexplainable acceptance of Linux with the "everyday Joe, I want
something other than Microsoft" computer type, I believe that with some hard
examination, you will find BSD/FreeBSD many more times stable and powerful.

Kinda like the dark side of the force in Star-Wars (not to sound like a
geek), It, Linux, is not stronger, just easier to get to square one.  There
are some things I do like about the latest flavors of Linux (please group do
not kill me), but again, in the long run, if you are really looking for a
stable, and yes supported, operating system, BSD is the way.

Linux sadly, has also fallen victim to the corporate types (not the
intention of its creator), and while the source will probably always remain
open, I think you will see many commercial interests eventually hampering
certain development with legal issues.  Hopefully, that will not happen to
FreeBSD.

Good Luck!
Bob

news:6f8cb8c9.0107181329.302242d1@posting.google.com...



 Mon, 05 Jan 2004 06:31:09 GMT   
 What does BSD stand for?

"Steve" <stevesuse...@yahoo.com>
[B]erkeley [S]oftware [D]istribution

Unix.

You might find some info here:
http://www.greasydaemon.com/directory/intro/

Linux was cloned from some form of Unix. I think it may
have been SVR4?

Al

www.omf.com



 Mon, 05 Jan 2004 19:07:29 GMT   
 What does BSD stand for?
news:3b56c38f@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

the Linux kernel is not a clone of *anything*
it was originaly a pure learning project by Linus Torvalds to learn about
his i386, and developed into a full-blown OS kernel, that Linus initialy
joined with the GNU OS (gcc, bash, etc.) to make a usable system

it's simply a POSIX-compatible UNIX-type kernel
it was originaly developed on MINIX
most Linux distributions are versions of GNU/Linux, the joining of the linux
kernel with the GNU OS



 Tue, 06 Jan 2004 04:42:22 GMT   
 What does BSD stand for?
In article <OCH57.378434$p33.7579...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>,

True.  Note, though, that to the sysadmin or end-user, Linux seems very
much like Unix SVr4.  I have little trouble moving to and from between
Solaris and Linux but somewhat more difficulty remembering my BSD when
it is required...

Mr Q. Z. D.
----
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"If chance supplied a loaf of white bread,
 Two casks of wine and a leg of mutton,
 In the corner of a garden with a tulip-cheeked girl
 There'd be enjoyment no Sultan could outdo." - Omar Khayyam.



 Tue, 06 Jan 2004 07:54:49 GMT   
 What does BSD stand for?
I have never tried SysV or anything... but the way things are explained, Slackware Linux seems to be a BSD-like version of Linux (is it why it doesn't suck like the other linux distributions?)

Mr Q. Z. Diablo <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote:



 Tue, 06 Jan 2004 11:38:01 GMT   
 What does BSD stand for?
In article <tIN57.8417$dC1.475...@wagner.videotron.net>, DaDeXTeR

It's what you're used to, I'd guess.  I cut my teeth on FreeBSD and will
be expected to maintain some FBSD and MacOS X in the near future but I'm
much more comfortable with SysV - especially the boot sequence and the
nature of run levels.

Probably unwise to enter into such an inflammable area but I find that
Linux somehow feels bloated.  I am not speaking from any real
experience, though.  I've not used Linux very much and have no real need
to do so.

Mr Q. Z. D.
----
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"If chance supplied a loaf of white bread,
 Two casks of wine and a leg of mutton,
 In the corner of a garden with a tulip-cheeked girl
 There'd be enjoyment no Sultan could outdo." - Omar Khayyam.



 Tue, 06 Jan 2004 13:14:37 GMT   
 What does BSD stand for?

Mr Q. Z. Diablo <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote:

I did... what I don't like about Linux is its users "stupidity"... they're brainwashed by the commercial face that some companies put on Linux...

For example: I used to run Slackware 4.x... people would ask me when I'd upgrade to Linux 6.2...

- Show quoted text -



 Tue, 06 Jan 2004 20:42:24 GMT   
 What does BSD stand for?
news:tIN57.8417$dC1.475083@wagner.videotron.net...

Slackware is the most BSD-like version of GNU/Linux, but that's mostly due
to the way the init scripts work and the way the "package management" works
(almost a lack of package management)
overall, moving from slack to BSD or vice-versa is easier than moving from
say, Red Hat to BSD and vice-versa



 Wed, 07 Jan 2004 04:58:19 GMT   
 What does BSD stand for?
In article <QGV57.9491$kS1.497...@weber.videotron.net>, DaDeXTeR

Understandable, though, amongst end users.  It is easy to forget that
Linux is a kernel whereas FreeBSD is an operating system.  Most Linux
flavours look pretty much the same to me (the same caveat of "limited
experience" applies) so an end user might talk about all distributions
as being the same product.

You could confuse them further by talking about kernel version numbers,
I suppose.  It's all too confusing and makes my brain hurt.  While I
still have a soft spot for FreeBSD I am rather grateful that I moved
into the proprietary world of Slowlaris.

Mr Q. Z. D.
----
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"If chance supplied a loaf of white bread,
 Two casks of wine and a leg of mutton,
 In the corner of a garden with a tulip-cheeked girl
 There'd be enjoyment no Sultan could outdo." - Omar Khayyam.



 Wed, 07 Jan 2004 11:51:58 GMT   
 What does BSD stand for?
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:diablo-3AD30F.13515821072001@newsroom.utas.edu.au...

unfortunitely they talk about the distributions as Linux version X.X for the
same reason you say they all look the same, limited experience with Linux
while all Linux distributions share commonalities, they're VERY different
from eachother
Slackware is, in some ways, similar to FreeBSD, in that it's more "do it
yourself" and shares BSD startup scripts
Mandrake on the other hand, is in stark contrast, it is the ultimate newbie
distribution, it essentialy combines the strengths of Windows with the
strengths of GNU/Linux, and is extremely easy to setup.
Red Hat is somewhere inbetween, prior to Mandrake it was recommended for
newbies, and is now popular among the corporate world for both servers and
desktops.
These are just a few examples, all Linux distributions differ from eachother
in substantial ways, if they didn't, there'd never be distribution holy
wars.

Personaly I don't think Solaris won't be around much longer, I feel it will
probably be replaced entirely by more nimble and open *BSD's and
GNU/Linuxes, or even another UNIXish/POSIXish OS within the next 3-5 years.
Solaris has its strengths, but it's slow and propriatory.



 Wed, 07 Jan 2004 12:03:35 GMT   
 What does BSD stand for?
In article <ra767.383905$p33.7712...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>,

They share the same kernel and they're *nix-like.  As far as an end user
with a Linux box on their desktop is concerned, they see Gnome or KDE or
whatever and it really doesn't matter what distribution they're using.

Does it use inittab and /etc/rcn.d (where n is 0 through 6 or S or
whatever)?

My guess is that there are distribution holy wars for the very same
reason that there are OS holy wars - the "my{*filter*} is bigger than yours"
syndrome.  Windoze weenies bag out Mac users because MacOS is simple and
non-technical while Mac users bag out Windoze weenies for exactly the
same reason.  Windoze weenies claim that Linux/*BSD is too hard and will
never work on the desktop while Linux/*BSD users call Windoze a toy
operating system.  "Real" Unix users sneer at Linux/*BSD because they
regard it as a kiddie-toy attempt at a Unix while Linux/*BSD users often
regard "real" Unices with contempt because they are generally
proprietary and run on proprietary hardware more often than not.

Everything has its place, though (yes, even Windoze!), which brings me
to:

Obvious flamebait but I will go waaaaay off-topic to disabuse you of a
few notions.  Firstly, Linux/*BSD is not really making much headway in
the data centre.  It generally doesn't scale particularly well compared
with proprietary Unices such as AIX, Solaris, Irix and HP-UX.  This is
important when you're using the hardware/software combo to run a site of
any real size.  Sure, Linux/*BSD _do_ scale but it's a royal pain in the
arse - people don't want a solution that is good but difficult to
implement - they want a solution that is good and can easily be
implemented and maintained.

Most "real" Unices also have a major advantage over Linux/*BSD -
support.  That's not to say that support isn't available for Linux/*BSD
but, in any medium to large organisation, support is easily obtainable
for any of the commercial Unices.

That's not to say that the free Unices are no use - they power plenty of
web sites, ISPs and any number of other internet applications.  It's
just that the datacentre usually requires scalable applications servers
on top of everything else.  This isn't a role that I see Linux/*BSD
fulfilling in the near future owing to the lack of development of
commercial solutions for these platforms (although Linux is getting
there).

All of this is quite sad, because it is leading management to veer
towards Win32 as a possible data centre solution.  Any kind of Unix
requires considerable expertise to drive properly.  Management is
suspicious of anything that is _free_ (boo!  Hiss!) and there isn't much
commercial software (Sybase, Oracle, various library cataloguing and
finance systems, you name it) available for the free platforms.  
Commercial Unices are more expensive by about an order of magnitude than
Win32 and the "expertise" required to drive the latter is considerably
cheaper.

Add it all together and I'd guess that most flavours of Unix are on the
way out but this is going to be a slow process owing to the fundamental
mediocrity of Win32.  Rest assured, though, for the reasons I outline
above, the commercial Unices are probably going to be the last ones in
there,{*filter*} on by the skins of their collective teeth.

I find this sad but there you go.

Mr Q. Z. D.
----
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"If chance supplied a loaf of white bread,
 Two casks of wine and a leg of mutton,
 In the corner of a garden with a tulip-cheeked girl
 There'd be enjoyment no Sultan could outdo." - Omar Khayyam.



 Wed, 07 Jan 2004 15:23:09 GMT   
 What does BSD stand for?
Mr Q. Z. Diablo <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote:

Nope
it uses /etc/rc.d/rc.*
where you have rc.[060 rc.S, rc.netdevices, rc.samba, rc.etc...

- Show quoted text -



 Wed, 07 Jan 2004 23:26:28 GMT   
 What does BSD stand for?
Absolutely right, I started off with Red Hat Linux 6.0 then played around
with Red Hat Linux 6.2 (which I think is the best Red Hat Version to date)
aftet that I put Slackware Linux in , learned some REAL linux with it and
still have it in my computer, and now my primary OS is FreeBSD.

news:LX067.382221$p33.7676567@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...



 Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:20:05 GMT   
 What does BSD stand for?
Jesus, all this descussion and no answer
BSD is Berkeley Software Design.

news:6f8cb8c9.0107181329.302242d1@posting.google.com...



 Fri, 09 Jan 2004 00:20:37 GMT   
 
   [ 27 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

Similar Threads

1. What does BSD stand for?

2. Has anyone done a termios interface for BSD?

3. BSD, BSD or BSD?

4. BSD, BSD or BSD?

5. BSD, BSD or BSD?

6. BSD, BSD or BSD?

7. To BSD or not 2 BSD?

8. kernel build 4.stable fails: bsd.init.mk, bsd.links.mk

9. Copy from one BSD to another BSD machine

10. Random Number Generation with Linux (using BSD) and BSD


 
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software