[ Sauron @ 20.11.2002. 01:43 ] @
Zanimaju me i prednosti BSD-a u odnosu na Linux(ako ih i ima)

[ B o j a n @ 20.11.2002. 10:49 ] @
... Ummm, babe i zabe ? l;(
[ anon315 @ 20.11.2002. 12:08 ] @
BSD a better OS than Linux?
By Bob Sullivan, MSNBC
July 22, 1999 6:25 AM PT
URL: http://www.bsdtoday.com/resources/Advocacy/

BSD is the software behind the world's most popular Web site and the world's most popular FTP site -- but unless you're a geek, you've never heard of it.

An open-source operating system like Linux, BSD was developed in the 1970s at the University of California-Berkeley, well before Linus Torvalds ever took a computer course. So why was it Linux that captured mindshare and public imagination? BSD's obscurity is just part of the reason it is now considered cooler than Linux among the geekiest geeks. But the software some say is the most secure operating system in the world may be poised to make a Linux-like leap to the forefront.

The list of big-name companies and Web sites that use BSD is impressive. Yahoo, UUNet, Mindspring and Compuserve are on the list - in fact, perhaps 70 percent of all Internet service providers use BSD. Also on the list - Walnut Creek CDROM Inc. and its CD-ROM FTP download site, which the company says delivers more than 1 terabyte of data to visitors every day. Microsoft's free e-mail service Hotmail began its life on BSD servers, and Apple announced in June its next operating system will be based on BSD. (Microsoft is a partner in MSNBC.)

Enamored with Linux
So why is Linux on everyone's lips, and why are there about 10 times as many Linux users as BSD users? After all, they are both free operating systems that offer free source code - and BSD had quite a head start.

Legal troubles tell part of the story. Right as the Internal began to reach critical mass, in 1993, the BSD movement was hit by a copyright lawsuit from AT&T, which still owned the rights to Unix. At the same time, Torvalds was welcoming help from all comers, mainly young computer science students enamored of with the coming information explosion.

There are other reasons - much effort has been put into making Linux user-friendly enough for use as a desktop operating system. BSD groups have focused on servers, never putting much work into appealing to a mass market.

But that doesn't mean there's not some obvious jealousy that the new Unix on the block has gotten all the attention.

"In late 1991 there were 100 programmers on UseNet producing improvements for (BSD)," said Wes Peters, a BSD user from the beginning. "If not for the AT&T lawsuit at the worst moment.... Because of that, people said, 'I don't want to go with BSD now.' That was the time Linux was gaining functionality."

Class warfare?
Talk to BSD users, and a quiet but clear sense of superiority comes through. BSD users, they say, tend to have computer science degrees, hold management positions and have 10 years or more experience in the field. Linux users, on the other hand, are young hackers doing impressive work but motivated in part by having too much free time.

'BSD has been where it's happening in computer science research for 20 years...It still hasn't lost that cachet.'
-- Wes Peters, a BSD user

Do you doubt that this has all the makings of a good old-fashioned computer science religious war? Ask Peters, who wrote an article for online magazine daemonnews.com earlier this month. His even-tempered prose spurred a thread 600 messages long on geek news site Slashdot.org.

When the best, brightest and most suspicious minds from the computer industry gathered in Las Vegas for the DEF CON trade show earlier this month, Linux-taunting by BSD sophisticates wasn't at all subtle. And when one speaker announced that BSD CD-ROMs were being given away at the show, but Red Hat had declined to give away Linux CDs, there was outright jeering. Has Linux has become too mainstream and lost its appeal among "Ubergeeks"?

"That stuff will always be out there," said Red Hat spokeswoman Melissa London. "I like the old U2 albums, and after some of their newer stuff came out, I liked U2 less."

She was surprised to hear Red Hat declined the DEF CON opportunity, saying her company regularly distributes free CD-ROMs.

BSD's many flavors
BSD was already a mature operating system with four different flavors when Linus Torvalds wrote the first line of Linux code. A direct descendant of the Unix operating system, BSD (which stands for Berkeley Software Design) dates back to work done by Sun Microsystems co-founder Bill Joy to create the first free version of Unix when he was at Berkeley in the late 1970s. Later a group of Berkeley computer scientists added to his work, eventually beginning a project called 386BSD designed to rewrite Unix so it could be used on a PC with Intel chips. After Berkeley stopped funding the effort, BSD split off in several directions.

* The NetBSD group, which focused on creating an OS that could run on any hardware - PCs, Macs, HP servers, Ataris, etc.

* The FreeBSD group, which optimizes BSD for Intel chips.

* The OpenBSD group, which did a line-by-line security audit of BSD code, and now has what is widely regarded as the most secure OS available.

* And BSDi, the Red Hat of BSD. It's a commercial venture started by some of the original Berkeley crowd that sells BSD and supports the product.

Requirements for success
Despite its dominance in the niche ISP market and its attractiveness as a server product, BSD remains a silent member of the Internet's moving forces. Major PC vendors such as Dell will sell you a laptop with Linux; they won't sell you any PC with BSD. There are also precious few applications for BSD.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

All that will soon change, some say.

"Your readers will hear about it," said Stephen Diercouff, who publishes BSD.org. "The emphasis has been on servers, but BSDi is moving into desktops.... And if one of the database vendors released a database that ran on BSD, you'd see a huge market share jump. I know there have been discussions with Oracle, Informix and Sybase."

Oracle, for the moment, isn't interested. "We have not had sufficient demand," said Jeremy Burton, Oracle's vice president of server marketing.

No matter, says Diercouff. Soon, the various BSD distributions will be able to run Linux applications, including office productivity suites such as StarOffice.

Rose says BSD could make even a larger impact in so-called "Internet appliances" - function-specific devices such as TV set-top boxes or Internet routers, where simple, streamlined operating systems are required

Better than Linux?
There is one significant difference between Linux and the flavors of BSD, according to BSDi spokesman Kevin Rose. Linux development is restrained by the so-called "copyleft" general public license (GPL). Any programmer who modifies the Linux kernel must make the source code available to the Linux community. BSD is not bound by the agreement - therefore, entrepreneurial-minded developers will stay away from Linux, he predicts.

"You have to give up your intellectual property to your competitors," he said. "The OS itself is not going to see a great deal of innovation because there's just no economic incentive to do so."

Other BSD supporters make a quite different argument - it's the frenetic pace of innovation by Linux developers that makes the OS hard to pin down and hard for companies to use on mission-critical hardware. BSD is a much more mature OS with far fewer updates, they say. All that makes FreeBSD user Matthew Fuller shrug at the religious argument.

"There's a lot of things that Linux is 'better' at, and a lot of things FreeBSD is 'better' at, and a lot of those things can easily fluctuate on a daily or weekly basis," said Fuller, who maintains a Linux vs. BSD Web page. "Thus, any definitive narrow statement that can be made is usually obsolete before anyone hears it."
[ random @ 20.11.2002. 12:34 ] @
Ma to je jako individualno, sve zavisi za šta ti treba. Recimo ja volim sistemsku konzolu kako je odrađena u FreeBSD-u (modularna, a syscons drajver je super), dok ona u Linux-u ne valja ništa. Ports sistem je takođe nešto što nije imala nijedna Linux distribucija do skoro (doduše sad ih ima, recimo Gentoo). Takođe i mogućnost da se ceo osnovni sistem ažurira potpuno automatski. Suštinski, BSD sistemi su "upgradeable", što se ne može reći za većinu Linux distribucija. Takođe, razvojem sistema se upravlja tako da se kernel i userland razmatraju zajedno, a ne odvojeno jedno od drugog, za razliku od Linuxa, gde Linus i Alan rade na kernelu a GNU obezbeđuje aplikacije. Zatim, licenca je malo više business-friendly. Onda, NetBSD je portabilniji od Linuxa za red veličine. OpenBSD je sigurniji od većine mainstream Linux distribucija. I tako, ima toga dosta, ali opet kažem da je individualno, siguran sam da će neko smatrati da su ove stvari koje sam ja nabrojao nevažne.
[ stinger @ 20.11.2002. 15:46 ] @
Zavisi za sta zelis da koristis koji OS, svaki ima svoje prednosti i svoje mane, svaki od njih moze da bude los sa neke aplikacije a za druge pak savrsen. Svi oni su dobri (mislim na sve distribucije bsd i vecinu distro-a linux-a) ali sve se svodi na to koliko dobro mozes da podesis neki sistem da radi odredjeni posao sigurno, brzo i kvalitetno.

Izbor distribucije ovde moze imati presudnu ulogu, recimo primera radi ako uzmes da gradis squid (proxy) sistem i stavis ga na recimo openbsd imaces katastrofalne performance, dok ga recimo stavis na freebsd imaces prosecne performanse, a recimo ako stavis na linux os imaces odlicne performanse uz koriscenje odredjenih alata i FS (fajl sistema). Ima primera i za obrnuti redosled, kao npr ako pravis gateway/firewall masinu, onda su tu netbsd i openbsd neprikosloveni, dok linux tu nije u stanju da im konkurise.. itd itd.. moze ova prica da se razveze kol'ko volis.

Razlike, i same prednosti sistema su relativno velike, i o tome bi moglo da se dosta prica, licno smatram da su 2 najbolje distribucije za IT FreeBSD sa BSD strane i Slackware sa linux strane. Mada ovde opet moze da se uskoci sa pricom da ako neko ne zna da vozi auto dzaba mu lamborgini...

Poenta i sustina cele price je da neki tkz "alat" (u ovom slucaju OS) koristis za ono za sta je on najbolji, a male finese koje se javljaju u toj prici su samo stvar izbora i prilagodjavanja na neku distribuciju.

[ Pauli @ 21.11.2002. 02:15 ] @
Kada u Debianu izlistam /etc, imam osjecaj kao da se nalazim na razbacanoj pijaci. Tu se nalazi sve i svasta. Svaki konfiguracioni fajl koji postoji smjesten je u ovom jadnom i nepreglednom direktoriju. Vazni sistemski fajlovi pomijesani su sa manje vaznim i trivijalnim za rad sistema. Tu se po defaultu nalaze i mozilla i gnome i pine.conf i opera i xpdf ... Pravi horor, medjutim, nastaje kada se izlista /usr/bin. Tu se nalazi trenutno 1515 fajlova. Takvu neurednost vidio sam i u drugim distribucijama. No u Red Hatu vjerovatno vlada misljenje da niko nece zavirivati, jer za administraciju postoje graficki alati kojima je svejedno gdje se nalazi conf, a konzola je ionako za gurue.

Na FreeBSD-u sistem je uredno organiziran. Odvaja se temelj od opcionalnog, i odvajaju se graficke od konzolnih aplikacija. Vrlo jednostavno je prenapucen sistem ocistiti od svega instaliranog i dovesti ga u pocetno, osnovno stanje. /usr/local bi na ovom Debianu zjapio prazan da nisam nista manuelno instalirao.

Dakle, fajl sistem u Linux distribucijama, po ovome sto sam do sada vidio, zahtijeva masovno preuredjivanje.
[ stinger @ 21.11.2002. 10:27 ] @

Dakle, fajl sistem u Linux distribucijama, po ovome sto sam do sada vidio, zahtijeva masovno preuredjivanje.

probaj slackware... :)
[ Pauli @ 21.11.2002. 14:29 ] @
Mana Linuxa je sto moras imati dosta vremena da isprobas sve te distribucije i izaberes sta ti odgovara. :-))
[ stinger @ 21.11.2002. 16:12 ] @

Mana Linuxa je sto moras imati dosta vremena da isprobas sve te distribucije i izaberes sta ti odgovara. :-))

to nije mana to je prednost, veliki broj distribucija stvara konkurenciju, a konkurencija namece kvalitet.. razmisli malo bolje
[ Pauli @ 21.11.2002. 23:06 ] @
Medjusobni utjecaj Linux distribucija zanemariv je u odnosu na utjecaj Microsofta i velikih Unixa na komercijalne Linux distributere. Razlika medju ditribucijama nije kvalitativna, nego filozofska.
[ B o j a n @ 22.11.2002. 11:27 ] @
Dakle, fajl sistem u Linux distribucijama, po ovome sto sam do sada vidio, zahtijeva masovno preuredjivanje.

Verovatno si mislio na hijerarhiju fajlova. Svi linux sistemi koriste vise manje iste, i donekle iste fajl sisteme.


Ovoga bi trebali da se pridzavaju sve *nix distribucije i njihovi derivati.
[ stinger @ 22.11.2002. 12:12 ] @
Medjusobni utjecaj Linux distribucija zanemariv je u odnosu na utjecaj Microsofta i velikih Unixa na komercijalne Linux distributere. Razlika medju ditribucijama nije kvalitativna, nego filozofska.

samo delimicno si u pravu...
[ BORG @ 22.11.2002. 12:13 ] @
Kada u Debianu izlistam /etc, imam osjecaj kao da se nalazim na razbacanoj pijaci.

Koristim debian duze nego ti sigurno,i takvih problema nemam.
Pls. nemoj blatiti distribuciju koja je svojom kvalitetom daleko od vecine ostalih.

[ Dusan Marjanovic @ 22.11.2002. 12:48 ] @
bezveze...da koristiš kraće pa ajde i da ima smisla...ali ako koristiš duže od njega...bilo bi krajnje glupo da toliko dugo koristiš neki sistem a imaš tako neke veće probleme, tako da je ovo što si napisao očigledno...drugo...nisi naveo kako si ti rešio to što su svi konfiguracioni fajlovi nagurani direktno u /etc dir...nego čisto ono...ja koristim debian mnogo duže od tebe pa mi to nesmeta, kako ti smeš posle 3 dana korišćenja da se žališ na to...trebao si lepo da objasniš razlog za takvu strukturu fs-a....koje su prednosti tog načina (ukoliko ih ima)...to je pravi način za propagiranje omiljene distribucije...a ovako...ništa drugo do poprilično glupav post...
[ dr ZiDoo @ 22.11.2002. 13:03 ] @

Pls. nemoj blatiti distribuciju koja je svojom kvalitetom daleko od vecine ostalih.

Aj se nemoj grciti...
Mozes to reci sa velikm naglaskom na tvoje subjektivno misljenje.
[ BORG @ 22.11.2002. 13:42 ] @
/: is the beginning of the file system, better known as "root." This is where everything begins. This is the cornerstone upon which the rest of the structure is built.

/etc: System-wide configuration files are stored here.

/usr: User accessible programs, program source codes, and documents are here.

/bin: (for binary): The programs themselves are stored here. It's a bin of binaries, or more exactly, the applications themselves. /bin also contains stuff like bash, cat, cp, kill, pwd, rm, and truly core things, though until the LSB [Linux Standards Base] stabilizes and vendors actually implement it faithfully, this varies from system to system

/sbin: This contains server and administration programs. Kernel and hardware-related programs such as shutdown, reboot, etc. may be found here.

/home: All users who have an account on the PC have a directory in home. Home is also the "catch-all," where you stick stuff until you find out where the heck it belongs. You may also create many convenient directories here to hold texts, images, working files, junk, and miscellaneous goodies.

/tmp: All temporary files that need to be created are stored here. It's the dusty attic, and it should be cleaned each springtime. It must be purged from time to time. Never keep anything important here, or it may just get dumped by mistake.

/var: Process information, such as system history and access logs, and error logs are here. This is the "bad conscience" of your system.

/root: This is "root's" home. It's the administrator's hiding place.
/dev: This is the location of the "devices" the system uses: CD-ROMs, cards, anything "mounted" will be found here. In Linux, a device is equipment, or even device-emulating code, providing methods for performing input or output (I/O). For example, a keyboard and a mouse are input devices. In Linux, SCSI devices such as ZIP drives are often "emulated" with code. This directory is important, and entries may be edited with extreme caution from the root account. A word of caution: the slightest editing error here can easily make a system inoperable. You will need exact documentation and instructions before delving into this file for edition.

/proc: A file system for running processes

/mnt: Additional devices that need to be mounted are here.

/cdrom: Some distributions (such as Debian) give the CD-ROM device(s) this predetermined mount point.

/floppy: Same as above, but for the floppy drive. Other mount point files such as "zip" may also be added to the directory tree in certain Linux distributions.


Obrati paznju pls. na /etc.
Ako je direktorij namjenjem za konfiguracione fajlove,onda je logicno da tu i budu,koliko god da ih ima.

E sad,ako neko smatra da konfiguracioni fajlovi trebaju ici u /lib ili sl. taj bolje da se okrene drugim poslovima.

[ BORG @ 22.11.2002. 14:01 ] @
No,sa vama se ne moze fino pricati/raspravljati,vec sve prodje u svadji.

Mada,ljudi su mi pricali to prije jos ... ali izgleda da ih nisam bas slusao.

Gojko,trebao bi se poceti brinuti za ovaj forum.
Vjerovatno znas na sta mislim.

Poz svima.
[ Pauli @ 22.11.2002. 17:33 ] @
Niko se ovde ne svadja, barem se ja nemam namjeru svadjati, i zbilja nema potrebe da branis Debian od mene.

Ovde govorimo o razlikama (hint: vidi naslov) i ovo sto sam spomenuo je meni licno znacajna razlika ili ako hoces - prednost. Ti, kako vidim, vec dugo koristis Debian i nikada te to nije smetalo. To je OK, sa tim nemam apsolutno nikakvih problema, ali dozvoli i drugacije vidjenje.

[ BORG @ 22.11.2002. 18:20 ] @
Mogu ti reci da si me prijatno iznenadio.
Da je neko drugi odgovorio na ovo vjerovatno bi bilo flame-a jer vecinu poznajem i 97 % ljudi na ovom forumu su takvi,mozda zato vecina i odlaze sa njega.(?)

Sto se tice svadje,moj post iznad se odnosio na Zidoo-a,jer je njegov post stvarno bio iritirajuci,kad gledas sa moje strane.
A da ne govorim pored toga,potpuno ne potreban.

Ok,ali jesi vidio sta pise za /etc/ direktorij ?
Znaci tu se smjestaju konfiguracioni fajlovi.
Sad,debian ih mozda ima mnogo,ali .... kao sto pise :

/etc: System-wide configuration files are stored here.

I nisam bas razumio ono "Ne mogu se snaci" ili sta si vec napisao bio ..
Jer,ako instaliras bind npr. konf fajlovi ce se nalaziti u /etc/bind(9)/*
I sl.

I ne zaboravi,nije vazno koliko fajlova ima u dir-u.

Pozdrav Puli,
[ Pauli @ 22.11.2002. 19:09 ] @
Tu pise i za /etc/opt, koji je u mojoj instalaciji prazan, a rijesio bi "problem".
[ dr ZiDoo @ 26.11.2002. 19:52 ] @
vi,mozda zato vecina i odlaze sa njega.(?)
Sto se tice svadje,moj post iznad se odnosio na Zidoo-a,jer je njegov post stvarno bio iritirajuci,kad gledas sa moje strane.
A da ne govorim pored toga,potpuno ne potreban.

Pazo nije nepotreban(dobro ima malo provokacije:):), sorry) al sada mozemo postati 5mb i ja i ti jel bolje Debian i Slackware. Iz mog posta si trebo da shatis da bas postovi kao tvoj izazivaju svadje, svako gotivi distro koji korsti ja nikada nebi zamjeno slakc, ti vjerovatno ne debian, i cemu sada izjava Debian je the best???Svi znamo da to niko ne moze izjaviti i 100% stati ispred toga!
[ BORG @ 27.11.2002. 12:32 ] @
Nisam rekao da je best,nego sam rekao da je jedna medju najboljim distribucijama.
Kao sto i jeste.
Jer stvarno,ne vidim smisao da se svadjamo koji linux je bolji ...
[ MoHicAn @ 27.11.2002. 18:20 ] @
Eh ...
Ako vam smeta hierarhija fajlova probajte Rock Linux

znaci u /etc/ je ono sto i treba da bude i nista vise
/dev/ je devfs .. znaci nema milion nepostojecih deviceova tu nego samo ono sto postoji tako da ako nemas zvucnu nema /dev/dsp-a ako imas samo jedan hard onda ima samo hda i ako imas samo 2 particije ima samo hda1 i hda2 a ne od hda1 do hda15 itd itd sto je po meni licno nesto najbolje sto je u zadnje vreme izaslo u changelog-u na kernel.org-u
Da ne pominjem sto se device-ovi grupiraju po direktorijumima tako da su dsp dspW mixer itd itdnalaze u /dev/sound/ .. diskovi se nalaze u /dev/ide/ ... cdromovi u /dev/cdroms neke neodredjene stvari u /dev/misc/ ... seriski portovi u /dev/cua/ I sve u svemu ls /dev staje na jedan ekran pri vga=normal + sve sto vidis postoji na sistemu i podrzano je drajverima.

+ svi programi van bazicne instalacije idu u /usr/opt/ itd itd.

PS: BORG probao sam konacno taj famozni debian i debelo sam se razocarao .... znaci celokupan utisak ... vise mi se svideo rh 8.0 zbog onih silnih pacheva za kernel sa kojima bukvalno sve radi.
[ B o j a n @ 28.11.2002. 03:17 ] @
Debian korisnici se vecicom oslanjaju na vec gotove binarne pakete koji su zaista sjajno ukomponovani u apt-get, ali uzevsi u obzir da danas vecina modernih distribucija omogucava da se *kompletan* sistem re-kompajlira u par komandi, onda su stvarno distribucije kao sto je rock ili bratski mu gentoo, i generalno sve distribucije koje vuku ka *bsd-like instaliranju i odrzavanju sistema up-to-date, ono sto ce u buducnosti imati veci broj korisnika l;)
[ BORG @ 28.11.2002. 14:55 ] @
Debian ima svoje mane,naravno - kao i svaka druga distribucija.

Sta te konkretno razocaralo u njemu ?