Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!bsd.coe.montana.edu!nate From: nate@bsd.coe.montana.edu (Nate Williams) Subject: Re: To NetBSD or Not NetBSD Message-ID: <1993Jun15.053147.3689@coe.montana.edu> Sender: usenet@coe.montana.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Montana State University References: <1993Jun11.084954.2099@yvax.byu.edu> <1993Jun14.195650.444@nhqvax.hq.nasa.gov> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 05:31:47 GMT Lines: 228 In article <1993Jun14.195650.444@nhqvax.hq.nasa.gov> mnewell@lupine.nsi.nasa.gov. writes: > > >In article 2099@yvax.byu.edu, bkh@nephi-hbll.byu.edu (Brian K. Holman) writes: >>I have used every version of 386bsd from 0.0 to 0.1 with patch kits in between. >>A stable system that doesn't lock up and has a reasonable amount of connections >>is very important. I have compiled and used news servers, gopher servers, >>and other various stuff on my machine. However, 386bsd 0.1 has alot of bugs. >>However, the NetBSD group took all the good things in 386bsd 0.1 and tried >>to make a more stable system and in my estimation that is exactly what they >>did. However, if you pay attention to 386bsd news groups you'll know that >>Jolitz is going to be releasing 386bsd 0.2 later this summer which could be >>or could not be a viable contenter for a stable 386 UNIX. For now I would go >>with NetBSD and watch the net to see what people are saying about 386bsd 0.2. >>However you slice it 386BSD is a wonderful environment thanks to the work of >>many differing individuals like Bill Jolitz, Chris Demetriou, and others. >>-- > >I too tried NetBSD. Fortunately I have a Sydos 88Mb cartridge drive as my >boot device so I can swap OS's... > >I am currently running an unpatched 386bsd. I decided to try NetBSD because >it had all the patches and seemed to have a more active group releasing >stuff. And because it's supposed to be 100% 386bsd compatable. After >several tries I was able to get the NetBSD distribution to load on the >disk. > >Then I ran into a series of problems: > >[1] The slattach program kept hanging up the modem. I had to go back > and get the slattach from 386bsd, which worked fine. (I understand > this has been fixed in the latest release.) > >[2] The bus mouse driver, "mse", that I used on 386bsd wouldn't work > with XFree86 on NetBSD although it worked fine on 386bsd and > the test program worked OK under NetBSD. If you don't have a > mouse, X is kind of worthless... > >[3] To install the bus mouse I had to rebuild the kernel. To do that I > had to install the source kit. Unfortunately the source kit didn't > come with all the ".h" files I needed [I got them from 386bsd] and > the installation procedure didn't create the "compile" directory. > >[4] The "/bin/sh" shell kept doing core dumps. They appeared random; a > script that ran fine once would dump a couple of times and then run > fine again after a couple of tries. > >After fighting [4] for a day or so I gave up and went back to 386bsd. >It's sufficiently stable for me to be able to patch around the problems >that I have (and I've had a few interesting ones...) I still haven't >installed the patch kit; unfortunately the patch utility is really >nice if you want to install all the patches, but it doesn't provide an >easy way of listing the purpose of each patch and selecting wether >or not you want it [it is POSSIBLE to do this, just not easy]. And since >NetBSD is supposed to be 386bsd with the patches, and since life was >hell under NetBSD, I decided I didn't really need them anyway... > >Other people seem to have great success with NetBSD. I guess it depends >on what you are doing. Unfortunately there seems to be some sort of, uh, >personality conflict between the NetBSDers and 386bsders so it doesn't >look good for the products to remain compatable. That makes it harder >for end users like me to find out what works that I need from each package >and bring them together into one really stable system. Bummer. > >And now I hear rumor of a couple of other systems on the horizon. Sigh... > >But, as an old optimist I once knew used to say [*ALL*THE*TIME*], "At least >it's a good learning experience." > >Mike Newell >NASA Advanced Network Applications Group > Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions Subject: Re: To NetBSD or Not NetBSD Summary: Expires: References: <1993Jun11.084954.2099@yvax.byu.edu> <1993Jun14.195650.444@nhqvax.hq.nasa.gov> Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: world Organization: Montana State University Keywords: Cc: In article <1993Jun14.195650.444@nhqvax.hq.nasa.gov> mnewell@lupine.nsi.nasa.gov. writes: > > >In article 2099@yvax.byu.edu, bkh@nephi-hbll.byu.edu (Brian K. Holman) writes: >>I have used every version of 386bsd from 0.0 to 0.1 with patch kits in between. >>A stable system that doesn't lock up and has a reasonable amount of connections >>is very important. I have compiled and used news servers, gopher servers, >>and other various stuff on my machine. However, 386bsd 0.1 has alot of bugs. >>However, the NetBSD group took all the good things in 386bsd 0.1 and tried >>to make a more stable system and in my estimation that is exactly what they >>did. However, if you pay attention to 386bsd news groups you'll know that >>Jolitz is going to be releasing 386bsd 0.2 later this summer which could be >>or could not be a viable contenter for a stable 386 UNIX. For now I would go >>with NetBSD and watch the net to see what people are saying about 386bsd 0.2. >>However you slice it 386BSD is a wonderful environment thanks to the work of >>many differing individuals like Bill Jolitz, Chris Demetriou, and others. >>-- > >I too tried NetBSD. Fortunately I have a Sydos 88Mb cartridge drive as my >boot device so I can swap OS's... > >I am currently running an unpatched 386bsd. I decided to try NetBSD because >it had all the patches and seemed to have a more active group releasing >stuff. And because it's supposed to be 100% 386bsd compatable. After >several tries I was able to get the NetBSD distribution to load on the >disk. > >Then I ran into a series of problems: > >[1] The slattach program kept hanging up the modem. I had to go back > and get the slattach from 386bsd, which worked fine. (I understand > this has been fixed in the latest release.) > >[2] The bus mouse driver, "mse", that I used on 386bsd wouldn't work > with XFree86 on NetBSD although it worked fine on 386bsd and > the test program worked OK under NetBSD. If you don't have a > mouse, X is kind of worthless... > >[3] To install the bus mouse I had to rebuild the kernel. To do that I > had to install the source kit. Unfortunately the source kit didn't > come with all the ".h" files I needed [I got them from 386bsd] and > the installation procedure didn't create the "compile" directory. > >[4] The "/bin/sh" shell kept doing core dumps. They appeared random; a > script that ran fine once would dump a couple of times and then run > fine again after a couple of tries. > >After fighting [4] for a day or so I gave up and went back to 386bsd. >It's sufficiently stable for me to be able to patch around the problems >that I have (and I've had a few interesting ones...) I still haven't >installed the patch kit; unfortunately the patch utility is really >nice if you want to install all the patches, but it doesn't provide an >easy way of listing the purpose of each patch and selecting wether >or not you want it [it is POSSIBLE to do this, just not easy]. And since >NetBSD is supposed to be 386bsd with the patches, and since life was >hell under NetBSD, I decided I didn't really need them anyway... > >Other people seem to have great success with NetBSD. I guess it depends >on what you are doing. Unfortunately there seems to be some sort of, uh, >personality conflict between the NetBSDers and 386bsders so it doesn't >look good for the products to remain compatable. That makes it harder >for end users like me to find out what works that I need from each package >and bring them together into one really stable system. Bummer. > >And now I hear rumor of a couple of other systems on the horizon. Sigh... > >But, as an old optimist I once knew used to say [*ALL*THE*TIME*], "At least >it's a good learning experience." > >Mike Newell >NASA Advanced Network Applications Group > Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions Expires: References: <1993Jun11.084954.2099@yvax.byu.edu> <1993Jun14.195650.444@nhqvax.hq.nasa.gov> Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: world Organization: Montana State University Cc: Subject: Re: To NetBSD or Not NetBSD Summary: Keywords: In article <1993Jun14.195650.444@nhqvax.hq.nasa.gov> mnewell@lupine.nsi.nasa.gov. writes: >In article 2099@yvax.byu.edu, bkh@nephi-hbll.byu.edu (Brian K. Holman) writes: >>I have used every version of 386bsd from 0.0 to 0.1 with patch kits in between. >>A stable system that doesn't lock up and has a reasonable amount of connections >>is very important. I have compiled and used news servers, gopher servers, >>and other various stuff on my machine. However, 386bsd 0.1 has alot of bugs. >>However, the NetBSD group took all the good things in 386bsd 0.1 and tried >>to make a more stable system and in my estimation that is exactly what they >>did. No offense to Chris and crew, but there isn't much difference in the distributed NetBSD code and the patchkit regarding stability. (NetBSD current is way better is some areas) [ Weird, and in my mind unrelated to NetBSD problem ] >....back to 386bsd. >It's sufficiently stable for me to be able to patch around the problems >that I have (and I've had a few interesting ones...) I still haven't >installed the patch kit; unfortunately the patch utility is really >nice if you want to install all the patches, but it doesn't provide an >easy way of listing the purpose of each patch and selecting wether >or not you want it [it is POSSIBLE to do this, just not easy]. And since >NetBSD is supposed to be 386bsd with the patches, and since life was >hell under NetBSD, I decided I didn't really need them anyway... Every patch in the patchkit has been tested and is desirable, at least until the most recent patch-kits, where there have been 'testing' patches. >Other people seem to have great success with NetBSD. I guess it depends >on what you are doing. Unfortunately there seems to be some sort of, uh, >personality conflict between the NetBSDers and 386bsders so it doesn't >look good for the products to remain compatable. That makes it harder There are no, uh, personality conflicts between the NetBSD crew and the 386BSD crew. There is a difference of goals, but we all get along great. Both 386BSD/patchkit and NetBSD are both striving for a stable system to work from. Bill and his next release (I suspect 0.2 will not be the next name for it) are striving for *research*, and is less interested in stability than in new/interesting ideas to try out. Different goals do not mean that the end-users lose, rather in my opinion the end users win out, since different groups place different importance on parts of the system. While NetBSD maybe kernel hacking and fixing all the kernel bugs, 386BSD may be upgrading and fixing users utilities and vice-versa. Don't despair, all is not lost. :-) Nate -- osynw@terra.oscs.montana.edu | A hacker w/out a home. work: (406) 994-5991 | Keeper of the Unofficial 386BSD Bug Report home: (406) 586-0579 | Please send bugs and/or fixes you find.