NetBSD’s main claim to fame, so to speak, is its portability. Although ports of Linux are available for several platforms, NetBSD blows the penguin’s doors off when it comes to platform support. Read the article at NewsFactor.
Open Source Alternative: NetBSD
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Call me average but having an OS run on 50 platforms that no one uses doesn’t really have the impact that NetBSD thinks it does.
For 99% of users x86 and PPC are the only platforms that matter. Even then all most people care about is X86.
That’s not to say anything bad of NetBSD from a technical standpoint, its just that as a marketing tool the whole “runs on a billion platforms” line doesn’t mean much for normal people.
On a more general BSD note since this site loves to nitpick on desktop OS’s. Until someone comes along and makes a “Mandrake” version of one of the BSD’s for X86, I just don’t see them ever becoming useful for desktop computing for anyone but experts.
Its too bad because from a technical point of view there is nothing wrong with any of the BSD’s and it would be nice to see another option for desktop users who want to try something besides Windows or Linux for X86.
Most people would find that another free, easy to use OS for X86 is a lot more interesting then one that runs on obsolete hardware.
I didn’t find any information (on NetBSD homepage) about IEE1394…
What is with WebCAMs ?
Has NetBSD really a big amount of drivers?
I suppose the people you call “normal people” are the mythical Joes (User, Average, Sixpack, etc). NetBSD is definitely not for them. If your Joes are a little more technically savvy, they may be interested in a system with a proven portability, able to do about anything, on a server or embedded.
As for some Mandrake NetBSD, I hope it will never happen: it was Mandrake that made me switch from Linux to BSD (FreeBSD)! I prefer to take more time to configure my system, than have the bloated mess that is (was?) Mandrake.
Until someone comes along and makes a “Mandrake” version of one of the BSD’s for X86
Yikes, no thanks. BSDs are not meant for users who need their hands held, they are quite clear about this. Why does everybody want to turn the BSDs into linux clones? If you want something like Mandrake, get Mandrake.
I’m very glad all the desktop hype is not in BSDland. It seems to be really retarding the linux world, this idea that the entire open source community should unite around this impossible goal rather than just letting people do as they wish.
The longer linux hype stays away from the BSDs, the better. I for one don’t want a bunch of ignoramuses blabbering on about how the BSDs need to become destop ready, defeat Microsoft, and become a new hegemony. Yuk! I rather like the notion of having the BSDs around, with their greater commitment to freedom, rejections of coercive, restrcitive GNU-style licenses, and lack of hype, in addition to cohesive systems. Linux is just a kernel, but BSD is a whole, efficiently designed cohesive system for expert and grown up users who don’t want hype, desktop moaners, and all the rest from linux, but do want a powerful and flexible OS.
Judge a system by what it aims to do, I say, and judge it by how it fits your needs. If BSD doesn’t fit your needs, that’s too bad, it isn’t for everybody. But I think it fulfills its (specific) ambitions very well.
In fact, I think this attitude makes BSD more honest than many in the linux world, who lie by saying that linux is “ready for the desktop” and ready for Joe User when that claim is clearly laughable. Many linux kiddies and distributions in the fractured, split linux community are aiming linux at the desktop and making absurd claims on many fronts generally. I think that, as things stands, linux is failing to live up to what its advocates promise it can do – replace windows seamlessly on the desktop.
NetBSD: no hype.
It’s claim to fame ought to be it’s stability, elegance, package system, usability.
Yes, it supports firewire.
There is no installer in the UNIX world that is as easy as NetBSDs (well, OpenBSDs).
There is a NetBSD live CD, similar to Knoppix. It was the first OS with the liveCD idea (I think).
A “mandraked” BSD? I hope you are just referring to the installer…
I guess this is the wrong time to mention http://www.desktopbsd.org then ;o)
NetBSD may run on more stuff “officially” but linux runs on smaller and bigger stuff. useful to us because we use them, like (recently) some big iron and on the other side PDAs and PVRs and even 8086s (which NetBSD will never run on! mark my words!)
Linux is chaos, beauty and uncertainty, we’re just along for the ride. the *BSDs are, by comparison, very conventional, very cautious and aren’t as brave 🙂
“linux” doesnt run on 8086…. elks does
nitpick maybe… but still… seperate source tree maintained in a seperate project
Two topics on NetBSD in two days!! I totally agree with Aki’s statement “NetBSD: no hype” Althought NetBSD doesn’t garner as much attention as OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and Linux, it does have a very strong following and a very friendly and knowledgeable user base.
I happen to love the NetBSD installer just the way it is. It is clean, simple, and works, a lot like NetBSD itself. As far as having to be an expert to use NetBSD (or other BSDs) as a desktop, that is not true at all. I don’t consider myself an expert, but yet, I am perfectly comfortable with using NetBSD as a desktop workstation. The documentation ( http://www.netbsd.org/Documentation/#netbsd-guide ) is top-notched for anyone who is willing to invest a little time in reading it to get a clean stable OS up and running.
ELKS isn’t a LINUX kernel subset? i’m confuzzled. 🙂
I ran OpenBSD exclusively on my main machine (then a SPARCstation) for over a year and had very positive results. Everything was clean and worked. Surprisingly, it was *easier* to compile Linux code on the machine than it was on my Mandrake/x86 box. If something didn’t compile, it was generally just a matter of fixing something in the program itself (generally assumed values in header files, like endian-ness or somesuch), compared to the mess of symlinks you had to bandage the problem with in Mandrake (or RedHat, or the desktop-friendly GNU/Linux distros). Installation was trivially simple (just hit return a few times, unless you want to modify the partitions, which was over with in half a minute), and updates always worked. pkg_* was a God-send compared to the dependency hell of rpms and urpmi (though I also found apt acceptable when I ran Debian for a couple months). NetBSD seems to have even better package management, which is almost absurd — how much better could it possibly be?
I’d go for OpenBSD on my “new” K6-2 machine if GCC 3.X was supported, but I’m probably going to settle on FreeBSD 5.2 when it’s released. NetBSD is also a great choice. Yes, I’m currently running Mandrake 9.1 (and living off pre-compiled packages, since I don’t want to go through the hassle of symlinking everything), but only until FreeBSD 5.x hits stable.
Question: Is there really any reason to choose NetBSD over FreeBSD or OpenBSD on an x86 machine?
not linux kernel
go to sourceforge and have a look :oP
Call me average but having an OS run on 50 platforms that no one uses doesn’t really have the impact that NetBSD thinks it does.
For 99% of users x86 and PPC are the only platforms that matter. Even then all most people care about is X86.
99% of computer users, or 99% of NetBSD users?
I like how something that doesn’t meet the specific needs of the mass market therefore somehow doesn’t meet a specific markets needs at all.
Whenever I hear of NetBSD, it’s almost always in the context of one of these platforms that no one uses. FreeBSD or OpenBSD tends to vastly overshadow NetBSD on the Intel platform.
It may very well be popular on Intel, but I always hear of it someplace else.
d00d, i’ve seen it, i love embedded stuff!
i run linux on athlon-xps and dreamcast 🙂 trying to do something useful with the dreamcast VMU ^_^
hehe
linux on dreamcast is fun stuff :oD
Emagius:
All BSDs are great, you will be extremely happy with all of them.
FreeBSD 5.x shares a fair number of things with NetBSD 1.6. Yet, NetBSD 1.6 is stable, FreeBSD 5.2 will be.
FreeBSD has more ports (~8,000 – most of them you won’t need), NetBSD has ~3,000. NetBSD package management is best, FreeBSDs portupgrade is next, OpenBSD has openbechede (which is inofficial) and the least number of ports. FreeBSD has the most binary packages most often (update).
NetBSD and OpenBSD have “stable” ports as well as current.
OpenBSD will not follow NetBSDs modular boot that also has been implemented in FreeBSD 5.x.
They are all extremely stable, very easy to customize. They are all very secure, no difference. PF is very slick and has been ported to all BSDs, but works best on OpenBSD due to some kernel hooks.
OpenBSDs installer is superb like NetBSDs. You will need to configure a few things in NetBSD after the install (e.g. network unless you do a ftp install). FreeBSDs installer requires the most interaction. OpenBSDs installer requires some thinking for disklabel/partitioning.
FreeBSD has sysinstall for managing your system, NetBSD sushi, OpenBSD all manual.
With all of them you can easily compile all packages with gcc-3.22 of whatever.
I like NetBSD > FreeBSD > OpenBSD.
FreeBSD has probably the best x86 hardware support of the three (bluetooth etc.), NetBSD has the best community and package system, OpenBSD probably the best quality assurance.
Very brief, hacked together summary.
What you choose depends on what you want to do with your x86 box, character and many other variables.
Once you have tried any of them you will not go back to Linux.
Read bsdforums.org for more info.
aki
I prefer to take more time to configure my system, than have the bloated mess that is (was?) Mandrake.
My bloated mess is running extremely well, thankyouverymuch. Fast, efficient, and purdy!
I guess this is the wrong time to mention http://www.desktopbsd.org then ;o)
Rather than spamming this url in a handful of BSD posts over the past several months, HOW ABOUT PUTTING SOME ACTUAL INFORMATION ON THE PAGE! Seriously, the 6 month old “we’re doing something” crap that’s at desktopbsd.org is old. I would say thanks for doing something for users, but all your doing is spamming a url to a vaporware project. Don’t we get enough of that already?
Certainly a fair point old chap.
I had to work quite intensively these last 2 months on some work, and didnt get much time to spend on Revolution. Just this last week I have been able to get back into things and am making progress again.
In fairness while I leave the URL in the odd post, I have specifically asked OSNews and some others not to make any mention of this until I consider it to be demonstratably past the “vapourware” stage. This is because I too get tired of vapourware rumers and know that what people want is something to play with.
I could have easily got onto some front pages with more information and screenshots etc. but I dont want to release anything until a real technology demonstration is available to accompany them, and then plan out a staged release of information and technologies so as to maximise exposure.
But, even with that said, fair point, i’ll make sure not to leave URL’s kicking about ;o)
BSD is even less stable and harder to use than Linux. I don’t know about you geeks, but I’m sticking to my trusty Windows XP. Sure it bluescreens once in a while, but its stable, easy to use, and setup.exe is a snap. I never have to use cmd.exe btw… tip to linux zealots: if you want the desktop, get rid of your crappy command line, only geeks use it.
Can you provide information on it being less stable? Less easy to configure or use?
If The command line is completely unnecessary, why is Microsoft completely redesigning their’s and enhancing scriptability?
Anonymous:
Thanks for outing yourself.
I guess it’s not too bad if PacMan bluescreens once in a while. If you don’t use your computer for anything important, XP works just fine.
I am glad that you are enjoying your TCP/IP stack brought to MS by BSD.
I am just as glad that you are enjoying your MSN mail brough to you by BSD, since MS found their own software insufficient to run it on it.
If you like XP stick with it and enjoy some advanced technology comming to your system from BSD. Happy gaming.
Just make sure you keep an eye on your credit card bills :-).
I will skip your comment about BSD not stable, you may want to check with yahoo, NASA, etc.
aki
What facts do you have that BSD is less stable and harder to use than Linux? Are you speaking from experience? Have you actually given both BSD and Linux a thorough test before making this claims?
Not to take anything from Windows 2K/XP, they are both very solid desktop OS’es, but there is definitely room for other OS’es for the desktop as well as the server. As far as getting rid of the cli goes, just because you don’t use it, doesn’t meant that everyone else is on your boat. I know a lot of regular computer users who use the cli (in windows) on a daily basis.
It’s even less comical and harder to understand than Tom…
Why does Anonymous need to exist? There are so many already.
*cough* troll *cough*
One thing I find pretty interesting is the atmosphere here.
BSD is supposed to be more elegant, speedy, excellent than Linux… and obviously by the comments from different people here, I must say that description would also fit the users.
I will seriously consider installing a BSD box, I’ve tried several Linux distros, but dependency hell has just kept me away and will allways do. So now it’s Windows and ofcourse BeOS (if GF4 ever get supported).
Dependency hell is a thing of the past, at least with FreeBSD. Use the ports system and you will indeed marvel. Not wanting to be too biased, I do believe Gentoo Linux has a similarly effective system.
original post:
BSD is even less stable and harder to use than Linux. I don’t know about you geeks, but I’m sticking to my trusty Windows XP.
i could not have said it better myself. winxp provides all the conveniences of modern os like unix-like task and memory management, preemptave multitasking, and journaling filesystem. meanwhile many linux and ALL BSD still have crappy ufs filesystem that requires long fsck if you shut your system off or it crashes without filesystem sync. look at xp it crashes or you shut it off it’s back up in less than 20 seconds. with bsd it can be up to 20 minutes!
i heard about background fsck and it is a HORRIBLE HACK
linux makes the most sence because ibm and sgi are good companies and ported their high quality commercial filesystems.
why don’t bsd developers just give up the silly petty linux versus bsd war and focus on the real war, windows versus linux.
i will continue using windows though, thanks. linux has a long long way to go.
winxp is by far the best os out there, better than crappy os x. you can even make winxp look exactly like os x, so don’t even tell me the gui is better.
I saw comments that dependency hell was one of the reasons some people switch to BSD. I am just curious as to how exactly does BSD solve the dependency problem? What is a typical process for installing or upgrading a package?
If I can find the time, I would like to try out FreeBSD since it seems to have more packages available than the other two, NetBSD and OpenBSD, which I have the impression they are built mainly for the server applications.
Thanks.
I don’t think there is a war. The *BSD camp doesn’t care about displacing anyone, they care about creating a secure, stable, usable server operating system. And they have succeeded. The linux zealots like to say that any of the *BSD sucks, but rarely, unless given reason to, will there be much published saying that BSD is better than linux. Yes, I have seen it a few times here, no OS is without it’s faithful following of trolls and zealots, but the BSD crew do NOT need nor want to displace anyone. There’s enough room for them and if they gain more market, great. If not, they’ll still continue doing what they do best.
aki you are a total liar
Hotmail is now 100% microsoft. it was running freebsd when they bought it and then they converted it. it was a big operation so it took some time. how long do you think it would take to convert ebay to linux or bsd from windows?
and don’t give me bullshit about windows being “unable to handle the load” ebay is all windows nt 4.0 systems and they handle the load just fine.
if u don’t believe me just check netcraft yourself. Hotmail is on Windows 2000 machines and ebay is nt 4.0
linux will never get ahead because of these sorts of disinformation campaigns being waged by morons who have a stupid and irrational hate of microsoft. just because u can’t found a software empire like bill gates did doesn’t mean u should be jealous of him.
You certainly need to check your facts. Most linux distributions nowadays are getting to run on top of Ext3, RaiserFS or XFS, all of which have journalling and very short (barely noticeable) restore time after a bad shutdown.
As for stability, Linux and BSD are the choices of computer experts everyday when uptime is of concern, be it at the NASA, White House, Yahoo and so many other corporations.
Windows is a very nice desktop OS, but when it comes into high gear, large servers, important information, it just doesn’t cut it.
btw, stop trolling.
The BSD’s solve the dependency problems in that, for the most part, you build the software on the system from source. If you are missing an essential dependancy, ./configure fails. If you stick to things in the ports collection, it tracks what’s installed and rebuilds things as necessary. But an app outside the ports collection (say, an irc app installed in /usr/local), if you do a major system upgrade, it’ll break, just like with Linux.
As for the article, NetBSD’s low-key demeanor I think holds it back a bit. To me, it kind of works like this. FreeBSD attracts people who hate Linux. OpenBSD attracts paranoid freaks (it’s not that much more secure, folks, and frankly, it sucks as an OS). NetBSD doesn’t get a look until you happen to get ahold of something like, well, a 68030 machine with an MMU that’s bascially useless to run MacOS on anymore. I’ve got a couple of those, and they work okay as boxes providing small unix services (DNS, LDAP, even light web serving), or as, essentially, X-Terminals.
I now run NetBSD on several of my machines. I like it quite a bit. I especially like it on new-world mac hardware — NetBSD shows just how good the hardware is, almost of sun quality with the framebuffer and openfirmware.
In FreeBSD you would do something like this to install the latest XFree86 (currently 4.3.0) and all related dependancies automatically:
# cd /usr/ports/X11/XFree4
# make
# make install
You want the Gimp? Just do this and it will do the work for you, including dependencies (GTK etc.):
# cd /usr/ports/graphics/gimp
# make
# make install
Very easy. If you want to see the multitude of applications available via ports, have a look around http://www.freebsd.org/ports/ .
Jamie.
PF is very slick and has been ported to all BSDs, but works best on OpenBSD due to some kernel hooks.
Sorry, what’s PF?
dependency issues, like installation issues are (yawn) old hat…
the value of an OS is not determined by how many clicks it took to install it. a controlled install is better than a one-click install that fails to start because it only supports graphics-mode. we don’t need more endless discussions about the installers… its been done.. its old… its solved… leave it.
and the same with dependencies… its been done… its old hat… if you don’t like things failing to install because of a dependency then go use something like portage, apt-get, urpmi, or whatever… its done … its old news…
ps.
and yes – there are people (like me) who WANT the OS to complain when a dependency isn’t met … its the OS’s job to tell me what the state of play is… i want to be kept informed of what requires what and what is a weak link and what isn;t essential anymore… remember teh windows installers an dthe mess they made and left beind?
t
I personally use NetBSD and find the pkgsrc system to be simple, elegant, and powerful. Simply download and install pkgsrc and then cd into the directory of the package you want to install and type “make install” and it will automagically download all the needed dependencies, compile them, and install them. It creates a nice db of all your installed packages and installs the libs and binaries in /usr/pkg. Suppose there is a new version of the package available, I’d simply goto the the directory of the package and cvs update the said package and then do a “make update” It will automagically fetch the latest source and the needed dependencies if they’ve changed and update them. Here is a link if you’re interested in learning more about the NetBSD pkgsrc system ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/packages/pkgsrc/Packages.txt Additionally NetBSD has a very nice menu based system administration tool, sushi, if you are so inclined to use it for package managemnet.
I have not used FreeBSD too much, but I did find their sysinstall to be extremely powerful as far as the ports installation goes. Here is the link to their ports documentation http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/ports.htm…
Good luck with your BSD experience, I am sure that you will find it to be a very pleasing one.
dude u didn’t read my post or u misunderstood or something.
i said linux has high quality commercial filesystems from sgi and ibm, jfs and xfs. i was badmouthing bsd antequated ufs filesystem
it’s not called trolling it’s called telling the truth. bsd does not have journaling filesystem and fsck takes a long long time
linux makes sense to me but bsd does not
It is OpenBSD’s Packet Filter.
http://www.benzedrine.cx/pf.html
This is sad and funny at the same time. Every time a *BSD story gets posted and gets over 10 comments, i always start browsing the comments, just to have a good laugh at the anti-BSD trolls
)
I will address just one point this time, the BSDs do not *NEED* a journaling filesystem, because ufs + softupdates eliminate the need for them. They just work in a different way. Also exactly what version of BSD does need a 20 minute fsck after a hard-reboot ? I’ve pulled the plug on a running FreeBSD 5.0 system several times during times of high disk activity. After the reboot, FreeBSD proceeded to load without ANY DELAY WHATSOEVER and ran backgroun fsck for maybe 20-30 seconds.
After this, everything proceeded as normal with no data loss at all. I think you must have ment Windows 2000 and XP when talking about 20 minute disk checks and they won’t even let you use your system before the disk check is complete
)
Ah, thanks
I’ve never had too many problems with fsck taking forever to finish because maybe my systems don’t crash and I don’t have to reboot unless I wanted to. I am not saying that Windows 2K/XP crashes a lot either, because they don’t. I happen to think they are solid desktop OS’es but their filesystem is no way better than ufs.
First of all, learn to spell. And second, check your facts, if you think WinXP *NEVER* needs to check NTFS filesystems, you’ve obviously never used it enough. Third, WinXP does bring a nice improvement in loading speed, although it still doesn’t beat FreeBSD. Forth, there are no “clean” and “unclean” ways to get rid of fsck, there are simple different approaches. I’d post some URLs for you to read up, but since you are an obvious troll you wouldn’t read them anyway.
Even background fsck is not *REALLY* needed, it’s only for those who must be absolutely, completely, positively sure of the consistency of their data. That’s why it is TURNED OFF BY DEFAULT. In 99.9% of cases, a hard reboot (plugging the power cord) won’t result in a “standard fsck” either.
They are all extremely stable
Considering how minute the exposure, both in terms of eyeballs and actual deployment, Net- and OpenBSD receives compared to even FreeBSD, not to mention Linux, I really cannot see how you can make such a claim.
tip to linux zealots: if you want the desktop, get rid of your crappy command line, only geeks use it.
This is a false dichotomy. We can have both. Check out the Knoppix Live-CD for a great example of a good desktop experience with minimum fuzz.
I am glad that you are enjoying your TCP/IP stack brought to MS by BSD.
This isn’t very accurate. The implementation of a TCP/IP stack for Windows 95 was contracted out to BSDi (or certain individuals connected to BSDi), because they needed such a stack, and they needed one fast. Now, neither do we know to what degree that implementation was based on the BSD stack, nor do we know if they have carried this particular implementation forward into their later systems. In any case, their current implementation probably doesn’t look a hell of lot like the original BSD stack.
I am just as glad that you are enjoying your MSN mail brough to you by BSD, since MS found their own software insufficient to run it on it.
It’s been a while since MS stopped using FreeBSD on the Hotmail frontend. The backend was always Solaris btw, so FreeBSD never delivered any mail for MS
These are typical examples of the kind of half truths that is being repeated again and again and again.
Rowel, XP is my main OS too, but I suggest YOU stop the trolling over here and be more open on other people and OSes. The default FreeBSD *does* load faster than XP (and also way faster than a Linux like mdk or rh or suse), so you just showed that you have no idea what you are talking about and that you have never used FreeBSD.
Mr. Rowel writes: Hotmail is now 100% microsoft
When did the switchover occur? I’d heard from someone at sun that much of the back-end was Solaris– subject came up while he was trouble-shooting an A1000 for me. This was in late 2001/early 2002.
Note that a) netcraft is not completely reliable. There are ways to disguise one’s operating system/web server, and b) it would be looking only at the frontend, anyway. For all netcraft knows, the backend of hotmail is a massive OS/390 parallel sysplex connecting to the frontline web boxes via SNA, controlled by ENIAC.
Yours truly,
Jeffrey Boulier
Yay, more BSD articles = more BSD vs. Linux fights! Plus, this is NetBSD so we get the bonus of ignorant comments suggesting portability doesn’t matter.
I use a desktop BSD. Its got a great UI, a breeze to install and is rock solid. Its called Mac OS X, which is based on Darwin, a BSD based on BSDLite 4.4 and FreeBSD.
Defrags. Disk Consistency Checks. Disk cleanups…
T R O L L!
Thanks to all who responded to my little inquiry. I will certainly give it a shot since I have read so many good things about it. Curiousity if nothing else.
NetBSD. TMRC sl
So because _you_ don’t like the command line, no one should? That’s ridiculous.
If _you_ don’t like how the BSD’s work, then don’t use them.
But there are people (s/people/geeks if you want) out there who prefer the CLI, and who don’t want graphical configuration tools, wizards, installation programs that hold your hand, but hide what’s really going on, …
These people do have the right to have an OS that fits their needs too, do they not?
Open source is all about choice. Choice is good. So why should the BSD’s aim to be more like Linux, when Linux already exists? IMHO, they should _not_ aim to be like Linux, but they should retain their own uniqueness.
And FYI: I use OpenBSD on my desktops, and I really like it.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcone/bsdversuslinux.html
Who would you rather be with?
Just because NetBSD ONCE ran on a platform doesn’t mean that it can CLAIM that it supports that platform. Just try to get the BeBox port of NetBSD going on an actual BeBox. It doesn’t work!
-fooks
shh, don’t ruin the pretty lies!
also, http://calypso.spaceports.com/~snak0r/images/linuxlover.jpg
i’m tired of seeing that beotch in the devil outfit! arrgh! at least put this one up as the linux one asshat!
cut + paste the URL :- damned spaceports
I like the old guy in the red bini hat…he’s kinda fun to look at.
One thing I noticed is that you can pay any model to dress up in a devil outfit or pretend you’re a photographer and pay someone to strip naked and hold a redhat box across her breasts…it doesn’t make you any better
Like I said…the old man in the red hat is awesome!
Not surprisingly I’ve seen a lot of the classic insecure flamemonger behavior: “I don’t like <topic of the instant>. In fact, I think it sucks. And because I think so, EVERYONE should think so.”
samb, the BSDi base for the Win95 TCP/IP stack is an interesting tidbit I didn’t know about before… I suspect the original poster was referring more to the “new wave” networking code that came with NT 5.x and Windows Millennium Edition. At the time it caused some controversy because it broke some networking apps, though I don’t know to what severity or extent.
In other news, every BSD has its strengths and weaknesses, and (with a few exceptions) operating system pissing contests are pointless subjectivism. Personal preference IS important, but there’s no sense in mindlessly decreeing that because someone’s preference doesn’t have a feature or two you want, it’s useless because it wouldn’t be ideal for you.
Look at this:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html
The BSDs come out on top there.
I suspect the original poster was referring more to the “new wave” networking code that came with NT 5.x and Windows Millennium Edition.
I am quite confident that the original poster was merely repeating a claim he had seen someone else make, with absolutely no clue as to it’s veracity.
And is there any evidence that this so-called “new wave” networking code is BSD based?
Look at this:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html
The BSDs come out on top there.
I don’t see neither Net- nor OpenBSD on that list and, according to the FAQ, you won’t, since neither provides the uptime information Netcraft needs. The obvious point is that one simply cannot claim that Net- and OpenBSD are ‘extremely stable’ because there are a bunch of old versions of BSD/OS and FreeBSD still going strong.
The FAQ also states:
“Additionally HP-UX, Linux, Solaris and recent releases of FreeBSD cycle back to zero after 497 days, exactly as if the machine had been rebooted at that precise point. Thus it is not possible to see a HP-UX, Linux or Solaris system with an uptime measurement above 497 days.”