best linux

[Steevo]

I love debian.


But for ease of setup? Lycoris even though it is bloated like XP, or Ark but you *might* have a few wrinkles to iron out.

 

[X-Istence]

bearing in mind that linux is a rip of an operating system called minix, which was written to assist in teaching people about operating systems, I would say that there is no good linux distribution, but thats me

Hrm. It was never a rip off. Minix was written by Andrew Tannenbaum, who wrote a L4 like micro kernel, whereas Linus wrote Linux with one huge kernel.

There was no code stole, nothing ripped off.

http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/appa.html for the discussion in short. Search google for "LINUX is obsolete".

http://blog.mises.org/blog/archives/002030.asp

http://www.tchpc.tcd.ie/Support/Training/User_Course/x208.html

Please get the facts right.

Besides the fact that no linux distribution is good, well, i agree. I prefer FreeBSD, and or DragonFlyBSD. But in that respect i am biased.

 

[X-Istence]

Considering the a lot of BSD apps is "ripped" was originally only available on Linux platforms, what does that say about BSD? What can BSD that Linux can't? What makes BSD more of an OS than Linux? Linux is merely the kernel ... but Linux is one kernel. With all the flak being thrown by NetBSD and FreeBSD at each other ... which BSD is better than Linux?

Many of the tools currently used on FreeBSD are indeed GNU apps, that is because it is useless to have two different groups of people developing two compilers, when they might as well combine resources, and work together.

Also, most of the tools were not first available for just Linux, they were available for Minix, and any other OS that bothered to port them, they were introduced by Stallman for unix. Unix was based on a system named Unics, and was written by Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson.

"The year 1969 has often been heralded as the peak of good times in the 20th Century (at least for America). The main significance that it has for hackers, however, is that 1969 was the year that Unix was born."
- http://www.crackmonkey.org/unix.html

BSD is known as the Berkeley System Distribution, which was based on code the schools licensed from AT&T.

"Enter UC Berkeley in the late 1970's. UCB was a licensee of the Unix source code, and they used it extensively for research projects and development. Pretty much the whole of the Cal CS department was hacking Unix at one time or another during the late 1970's and early 1980's. The Computer Systems Research Group had hacked virtual memory into it in order to make the Franz LISP system more useful. This attracted the attention of the Defense Department, and they were soon working on DARPA projects for things like networking."

http://www.crackmonkey.org/unix.html

A big legal battle later, and AT&T had to give the schools their code, and they could not sue for infringement because they used the BSD's code in their Unix. So now we have 4BSD-LITE which is empty of all the code AT&T said was theirs, so now most of the OS had to be rebuilt from scrap. This is when NetBSD (1994, two years earlier Linus showcased some of Linux) comes out. FreeBSD soon forked from NetBSD (Not sure about this, can't find info). FreeBSD soon becomes the main stream BSD.

"The BSD code-base can be traced back to the early 80s at UC Berkeley." - http://www.netbsd.org/Misc/features.html#stability

The BSD code base is mature because of the fact that it is so old. After Theo de Raadt got pissed off at NetBSD for not allowing him rights to the CVS, he spun off OpenBSD in 1996. DragonFlyBSD was created in 2004 as its creator was not happy with the way the FreeBSD-5 release line is going. And FreeBSD-4 would soon be gone.

Red-Hat 1.0 (Mother's Day), November 3, 1994. This is the first available Linux distribution i could find.

There some history for you people.

Now on to your questions. Once again, most apps were not ripped, the history says it all. They were rightfully used under the GPL.

The BSD's can't do anything more than Linux, other than the fact that they can emulate Linux, and have a Linux compatibility mode so that Linux programs work perfectly, also, they are more secure and mature because of their development methods, and the fact that most of them do stringent checks through the source for security issues, and have a longer release path, which means bugs get squashed quicker. This is a disadvantage as newer hardware can take longer to get fully supported, and there is never such a bleeding edge that it will not work, unless you follow -CURRENT, but even that is somewhat guaranteed to leave your system in tact.

What makes BSD more of an OS? Well linux is just the kernel like you say, an operating system needs more than just the kernel. It needs tools that are maintained by the programmers who maintain the kernel (Which is why the base distribution of any BSD, and the source you can download, always include all the tools that are needed to compile and install a fully working system, not just the kernel). Also, there is more consistency, the boot loader is written by the same people who maintain parts of the kernel, in linux you have grub, you have lilo, and several other small projects. There is only one. Distributions that use Linux have to bundle whatever applications they want, there are several versions of ls available, they have to pick one out, and distribute it with their stuff. In BSD ls is part of the base distribution, and is maintained by the BSD people, so there is more consistency.

The flak being thrown between FreeBSD and NetBSD should not be seen as a minus point, they are not competing, they share so much code, that probably half of FreeBSD is based on NetBSD in some way, and OpenBSD throws some stuff in as well, like pf, and FreeBSD throws in it's superior whatever, and you get OS's that are mixed, which is what creates such stable OS's. The flak being thrown around is the same as that being thrown between distributions of linux. It only gets more press, as in general the projects are nice to each other, and it is encouraged to share code. The more the code gets seen by all the BSD groups, the more bugs will get fixed, the more features will get added, and in general the more stable things get.

Personally I prefer FreeBSD, but i have used OpenBSD, NetBSd, and DragonFlyBSD, as well as millions of versions of different Linux distribution. I have also worked with Solaris 2.6 (version number might be off), and have worked with Unix from AT&T.

My history might be off a little, my first two quotes from the website http://www.crackmonkey.org/unix.html provides a really good explanation.

I hope that answers your questions. I am not saying Linux is bad at all, but i feel that it is inconsistent for my needs, does not have the maturity and stability that i have come to expect of an OS. There are many less security problems found in BSD than in Linux, and even if there are security problems, most of them are not kernel related, and are fixed relatively fast with another patch level. Recent slashdot articles showed that getting people to include a patch in some part of Linux is a pain, and the only way they could get it fixed according to them was to release where the code was broken.

 

[NetRyder]

X, they're distributions.

 

[X-Istence]

X, they're distributions.

I know. I was to lazy to right click and have OS X correct em for me I have spell check within Safari on, which is awesome.

Fixed it now. All just for you!

 

[FishBoy]

No, they are just different. They've been developed separately. Linux comes (originally) from Linus Thorvalds and BSD is from Berkley University (right?).

yea i know that but they do look a lot alike according to the screenshots i've seen, i tried installing freebsd for 64-bit cpus it didn't work didn't feel like downloading the normal version again

 

[NetRyder]

I know. I was to lazy to right click and have OS X correct em for me I have spell check within Safari on, which is awesome.

Fixed it now. All just for you!

What's the point of spellcheck if you don't actually use it?
Just pulling your leg, man.

 

[X-Istence]

What's the point of spellcheck if you don't actually use it?
Just pulling your leg, man.

It shows nice red lines underneath words . I use it to correct most words, but in long writings i can't be arsed to go back and change it. Second, i am so used to spelling distribution distrobution because of the fact that most people call them Linux distro's.

 

[NetRyder]

Linux is further ahead though, there's some stable 64Bit builds out there.

But are there really many apps that take advantage of it yet?

 

[FishBoy]

i dont think the 64-bit linus actually works coz each time i tried installing it it failled, i tried installing uBunute 64 it failled and i tried installing FreeBSD 64 that failled too

 

[Geffy]

Hrm. It was never a rip off. Minix was written by Andrew Tannenbaum, who wrote a L4 like micro kernel, whereas Linus wrote Linux with one huge kernel.

There was no code stole, nothing ripped off.

http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/appa.html for the discussion in short. Search google for "LINUX is obsolete".

http://blog.mises.org/blog/archives/002030.asp

http://www.tchpc.tcd.ie/Support/Training/User_Course/x208.html

Please get the facts right.

Besides the fact that no linux distribution is good, well, i agree. I prefer FreeBSD, and or DragonFlyBSD. But in that respect i am biased.

from that second link, it was a bad rip of minix

Ok, wasnt a "rip" of it, completely but in my mind anyways (and it is a twisted and disturbed place) I still dont realistically consider it ready for the environment which it is being pushed.

 

[Xie]

yea i know that but they do look a lot alike according to the screenshots i've seen...

Well screenshots don't really help in the *nix debate as unlike Windows (yeah you can mod Windows GUI) you can choose from tons of "desktops". So with a screenshot of just a desktop it's going to look like that GUI (most likely Gnome or KDE as they are the most mainstream). You can't see the actual OS from a screenshot.

 

[X-Istence]

But are there really many apps that take advantage of it yet?

In FreeBSD, any apps compiled on 64 bit will automatically take advantage of it, unless they changed the standard u_int to u_int32 or whatever, and just used a specific length.

Also, programs that are compiled will automatically get to use the bigger amount of ram they can use and all the other goodies which come with the system.

i dont think the 64-bit linus actually works coz each time i tried installing it it failled, i tried installing uBunute 64 it failled and i tried installing FreeBSD 64 that failled too

FreeBSD 5.3 works beautifally on the beast of a machine we have at school. There is no reason for it not to work. What did it fail on?

 

[X-Istence]

The fact is, it is not ready, people want it to be ready, but it is not.

It is a play around OS, not ready for any kind of production, especially with all the gaping holes that keep getting found, which cause people to go running for cover, especially in the hosting business.

 

[j79zlr]

I switched from Slackware to Gentoo a while ago now, and I have to say that I love it as a desktop, but it is far from practical for a "noob" to try and tackle a stage 1 install to start with. I would say to stay away from Fedora for right now, it seems to have a lot of wierd and difficult problems during the install, at least I've heard that, on the recent builds. So I would say Mandrake for the linux virgin, Slackware for the experienced, Gentoo for the linux whores, and LFS for the masochists.

As far as FreeBSD is concerned, FreeBSD is the greatest, but certain small things keep me from using it as my main desktop, e.g. a fully working flash plugin, I can't get my damn mouse side buttons to be recognized [I know how, but it just doesn't work in bsd], and a couple other small things that Gentoo does better as far as the desktop is concerned. I still use FreeBSD as my server and I don't think I would ever change that.

 

[X-Istence]

The only reason why the flash plugin does not work is because Macromedia does not want to compile a version for FreeBSD.

Also, getting the mouse buttons to work, i don't see how this is a problem, i got X.org to recognize mine just perfectly.

 

[vern]

@X-Istence ... that was a very interesting read and very informative indeed. I'm not at all religious about my operating systems. I think each OS should be given credence before stomped on. I guess my post was directed at this line ...

I just dont feel that its ready to be classed as an operating system yet

I am aware that ... that it was stated as a personal opinion, but as perris initially said ... it is unfair. Both BSD and Linux have a lot in common and really, the main difference between the two according to what you have posted, and I completely agree is the process, the ideology, and the maturity. Some of the very things that make Linux less attractive to some are also the very things that people love about Linux. The variety, the fast-paced development, the distributions, etc. All of this openness also doesn't mean that Linux can't compete with BSD in production environments because for years it has proven itself. Debian Woody has been stable (stale) for years and is considered very very stable. I like BSD, no doubt about that. But we shouldn't be so hasty on declaring this and that without credence. Linux might have started out as Minix, but today it is Linux. Windows might have started out as VMS ... but today ... it is far from VMS. Ironically the slogan of open VMS has become ... "OpenVMS.org - The OS with uptimes longer than MS Windows support policies."

 

[j79zlr]

X, I don't know why either, I know how to get it to work, it does in Linux just fine. I have the same mouse and setup as a few other people too, but X just won't see any events from my 2 extra buttons.

http://www.freebsdforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19383

 

[X-Istence]

I am aware that ... that it was stated as a personal opinion, but as perris initially said ... it is unfair. Both BSD and Linux have a lot in common and really, the main difference between the two according to what you have posted, and I completely agree is the process, the ideology, and the maturity. Some of the very things that make Linux less attractive to some are also the very things that people love about Linux. The variety, the fast-paced development, the distributions, etc. All of this openness also doesn't mean that Linux can't compete with BSD in production environments because for years it has proven itself. Debian Woody has been stable (stale) for years and is considered very very stable. I like BSD, no doubt about that. But we shouldn't be so hasty on declaring this and that without credence. Linux might have started out as Minix, but today it is Linux. Windows might have started out as VMS ... but today ... it is far from VMS. Ironically the slogan of open VMS has become ... "OpenVMS.org - The OS with uptimes longer than MS Windows support policies."

Linux can not compete in situations where high availability with stability is an issue. FreeBSD continues to be run on the worlds most used servers, because they are able to handle almost any network load thrown at them. They are rock solid.

Debian Woody is indeed stable, but what kernel is it at? Sorry, but i want a stable system, with a kernel that is not older than 1 year at most. That way i know new development went into it, and it will take full advantage of the new systems i throw at it. Also, i personally do not like package management systems, or installings things from packages, which is why i prefer FreeBSD's ports tree. Which BTW gentoo stole.

For a file server at a company Linux will do a great job, but for high network availability, stability, and speed FreeBSD is still the way to go, for security and firewalling, only OpenBSD is the way to go, and for your toaster, NetBSD is the way to go. Linux is making progress, but with Linus just a few days ago stating they are adding more branches to the entire process, i am only looking forward to more hell for me, the system administrator of several Linux servers.

 

[X-Istence]

Soon the Linux releases will be like this:

Okay, you've got your x.0 release. These are for major releases of the software. 1.0, 2.0, etc.

Then you've got your x.x.0 release. Basically, you subdivide your release schedule according to the major tasks needed to get there. So, for instance, if you're creating a video player, 0.1.0 would be to get something proof-of-concept running some basic video codec. 0.2.0 would be for major GUI additions, 0.3.0 would be for extra codeces, etc. These should adhere to a strict roadmap.

Next, you've got the x.x.x release. So, let's say that you're at the GUI stage above, if you've added the player buttons, you're at 0.1.1 (0.2.0 should be reserved for completion of the GUI stage -- are you writing this down?). A menu means 0.1.2, a status bar, 0.1.3 etc. Once more, this should also adhere strictly to the roadmap.

However, you might run into situations where a bug might creep up, and you want to do an extra release between x.x.x releases. This is where you incorporate the a/b/c etc. releases -- for minor changes that occur between the smallest parts of the roadmap. So, if you had an eject button that wasn't working, and you wanted to fix that before moving onto the menu bar, you release 0.1.1a. Small video glitch that arose because of this? 0.1.1b.

But then there are situations in which, well, if you're like myself and consider CVS use to be a waste of time, you'll need to upload release candidates on the above. Hence, the need for a "_rc" suffix. So, if you're checking to see if the fix you made to the eject button is working, you'll have to upload 0.1.1a_rc. If someone wants to add a small change, you get 0.1.1a_rc2, and so on. You might find it easier to add the initials of the developer just so you know who is doing what. So, a 0.1.1a_rc2_fg might not be out of the question.

(By the way, it's a good time to mention that it's best to have any project you're working on include the year that it was started. Why? Just because. Trust me. With all the projects out there right now anyway, we're starting to have to recycle names. So anyway, we're working on vid2004-0.1.1a_rc2_fg at this point.)

Now, and most developers will agree with me on this, every now and then you're going to get sick of the roadmap and want to deviate from it. Maybe add a feature or something ahead of time, just because you find that more motivating than doing extra testing on some module that's probably going to be obsolete by version 0.3.4a_rc3_fg_rt anyway. For these special instances, a descriptive "_plus" is in order.

If you want to see this versioning system in action, check out the latest release of my own project: dml2xml2004-0.4.12aq_plus_rc3.5_a_mdc_ls.tar.gz.

What? Too confusing you say? Just try it. I've found that all three users of my project have no trouble following this extremely clear numbering system.

-- aendeuryu

I have come across software named like that. For the most part, all it did, was confuse me .