Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.bsd:12542 comp.os.linux.misc:1219 comp.os.386bsd.misc:856 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!tulane!darwin.sura.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!igor.rutgers.edu!geneva.rutgers.edu!hedrick From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: BSD UNIX Message-ID: <Sep.4.00.23.43.1993.13720@geneva.rutgers.edu> Date: 4 Sep 93 04:23:44 GMT References: <newmanCCL33A.GBo@netcom.com> <GOWEN.93Aug30234233@apex.cs.tufts.edu> <1993Aug31.185019.22189@sophia.smith.edu> <MUTS.93Sep2205147@compi.hobby.nl> <michaelv.747084422@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu> Followup-To: comp.unix.bsd Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 49 michaelv@iastate.edu (Michael L. VanLoon) writes: >It's kernel structure is not as clean, having had things piled on top >to add functionality many times. Actually I think this is not true. Linus is quite good about doing rewrites and redesign where needed to introduce new functionality. >They have recently adopted Net/2, but it is >still somewhat buggy. I wish they had used a different name, because lots of people have the same impression. What Linux calls net-2 is simply the second release of the Linux networking code. It has nothing to do with the Berkeley net2. It is certainly the weak point of Linux. While I find SLIP quite usable, based on the reports I see in both the public newsgroup and the mailing list, it's clear that when you start putting Linux on a busy network and having lots of simultaneous network connections, you're likely to have trouble. Someone said they were planning to integrate the Berkeley net2, but I don't know whether that project is really going anywhere. There's a certain wariness in the Linux community about using BSD code. I don't know other people's reasoning, but I think the USL suit provides a good reason. I personally think the USL suit is completely absurd, but courts have made ruling that I think are absurd before. Thus until that suit is settled, I believe the community needs an alternative that is completely independent of Berkeley. If it weren't for that, I'd say Linux would be better off just adopting BSD net2. >libraries so uses much less memory and disk space. Also, its rumored >to co-exist with DOS better, but this may be more opinion than fact. Linux uses DOS partitions, including "logical" partitions in an "extended" partition. Linux file systems and swap space are simply created in a DOS partition or logical partition. Since the DOS structure allows for up to 26 partitions (using logical partitions -- only 4 primary partitions), I think there's enough flexibility. The advantage of using the DOS structure is that Linux can read and write from DOS partitions using mtools or directly using the DOS file system code that's been in the kernel for the last 6 months or so. Linux has a version of fdisk that can be used to manipulate partitions of other operating systems. The Linux structure lets me move partitions and logical partitions back and forth between Linux and other operating systems. As I understand the BSD setup, you pretty much have to pick a single DOS partition, and once you've done that you're stuck with that amount of space unless you want to reinstall. The Linux approach seems like it's a bit more flexible, though there can be situations where it might be more dangerous.