BSD

[KernelPanic]

I am just downloading freeBSD to put on a 486 alongside that old version of slackware that voidman helped me find.
Before I put it on, how do I need to se tit up so it does not run like a bag of proverbial Sh*t?
and also is it very similar to linux?

[voidmain]

At the OS level it is very much like Linux (or should I say, Linux is very much like BSD).  In fact you can run most of the same apps on BSD that you can run on Linux (X, KDE, Mozilla, etc, etc, etc).  The file systems are laid out pretty much the same (BSD is more favoring the BSD style obviously and most Linux favors more SysV style but very similar and now that I think about it, isn't Slackware more BSD like in it's initialization process? Been a long while with that one.).  

Some of the commands have slightly different parameters but for the most part you will be right at home.  The kernel is different and device names will be a little different (still under /dev).

Now I don't have much experience with dual booting BSD (I run BSD in a VMware session so it thinks it's the only OS in it's own little world) so I'm not quite sure if I can be of much help on the dual boot part.  Others here have done it and there should be plenty of documentation on the BSD web sites...  Also the web sites would probably be the best source for tuning down to a 486 (if necessary).

[Master of Reality]

i have done it. I have passed through the installation of redhat and FreeBSD on the same computer using GRUB. It will be easy for you to use, its pretty good. I am about to install OpenBSD on a test machine of mine.

[KernelPanic]

The download Failed near the end    
Also, I will be in Manchester tomorrow so it will have to wait till i get some time another day...

For the same reason, you will not have any of my funny, infomative and intelligent posts on the forum s tommorow  
God, I'm good at BS, I should change career path and become a politician    

Thats the story then, over and out.

Edit - Fixing the mess lynx made of that post.

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Tux ]

[Master of Reality]

were you using wget to download it? Maybe you should try again.

[lazygamer]

Ok I have a question about freeBSD. Is free BSD like Linux, but alot more of a bitch to configure, yet  has alot more raw speed?

[Master of Reality]

i am not finding it hard to configure. I havent found it any faster. I am using OpenBSD from the command-line with no packages installed yet.

[choasforages]

no winex for FreeBSD yet, or any native OpenOffice for it, i wonder if FreeBSD would support the crystal audiochip in my thinkpad better then linux does. cuase when FreeBSD comes out that has easy OpenOffice packages, im there

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by lazygamer:
Ok I have a question about freeBSD. Is free BSD like Linux, but alot more of a bitch to configure, yet  has alot more raw speed?

All *NIXs running on the same hardware should run at relatively the same "raw" speed as you say on the same set of lower end x86 (single CPU) hardware. You really shouldn't see much of a difference running application "X" under one vs running it on another on the same set of hardware. Whether it be Linux, BSD, Solaris x86, SCO, etc, etc.

Now hardware changes can make a "significant" difference.  And these rules pretty much apply only to low end x86 since it is a common platform that the largest number of *NIX varieties will run on.  Now another place where you begin to see a difference is when you get to SMP machines. Now when you start getting to larger SMP servers and especially beyond x86 then the rules change drastically.  It is very OS specific and usually only 1 or 2 different *NIX OSs can run on those other platforms.

Even on x86 on a quad Xeon processor Dell with 4GB of RAM I found that Solaris outperformed Linux for one application I was trying to migrate, so I stuck with Solaris x86.  And of course Solaris runs better on large Sparc servers because they are designed together, and the Solaris OS is a fairly insignificant part of the cost in that equation. And Linux is the only other OS that I know of that will run on Sparc hardware (possibly one of the BSDs will). But on lower end equipment (desktops) there really is minimal difference.

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

[lazygamer]

Oh I see, so FreeBSD(and those other things listed) are all *nix's. Is there any advantage to using FreeBSD or some other *nix over Linux?

[voidmain]

Heh heh, if you ask a BSD geek that question you will get a resounding "yes".  If you ask a Linux geek that question you will get a resounding "no".  I suppose there are advantages and disadvantages in both directions depending on what you need to accomplish. I am sort of partial to Linux and use it everywhere I can to replace both Windows and proprietary UNIX.  Mainly because of the philosophy behind it, and the cost savings, and it's better in many ways. However, BSD and Linux are probably much closer in many ways than any other OSs. Although hard core geeks from both sides with surely differ. But I am just as comfortable on just about any *NIX system technically.

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

[Master of Reality]

NetBSD will run on SPARC and quite a number of other platforms (i think).

[Neuro7]

I have tried FreeBSD before, but prefer Linux because I find it a little easier to use and I have used it more.A few of the pros that FreeBSD claims are that it doesn't use the copyleft license so you are at liberty to use it absolutely however you want, and that it supposedly will run most of the software for Linux. There are some other pros they claim, but it has been quite a while since I have read or used FreeBSD.
NetBSD is supposed to support the most variety of hardware, and OpenBSD is supposed to be the most secure out of the box install.

Neuro7

[beltorak0]

posted again for your amusement:
 

quote:
Other than the fact Linux has a cool
name, could someone explain why I
should use Linux over BSD?

No. That's it. The cool name, that is. We worked
very hard on creating a name that would appeal
to the majority of people, and it certainly paid off:
thousands of people are using linux just to be able
to say "OS/2? Hah. I've got Linux. What
a cool name". 386BSD made the mistake of
putting a lot of numbers and weird abbreviations
into the name, and is scaring away a lot of people
just because it sounds too technical.

[Master of Reality]

Linux is a cool name... so is Bob