*BSD News Article 67948


Return to BSD News archive

Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.wildstar.net!cancer.vividnet.com!hunter.premier.net!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!netnews2.nwnet.net!nwnet.net!not-for-mail
From: aad@nwnet.net (Anthony D'Atri)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc
Subject: Re: What post BSD/OS 2.1 needs
Date: 7 May 1996 17:00:59 -0700
Organization: NorthWestNet, Bellevue, WA, USA, Earth
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <4moo7r$ckf@olympus.nwnet.net>
References: <4mng0k$cb6@doctor.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca>
Reply-To: aad@nwnet.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: olympus.nwnet.net

>WU-FTd version 2.4(9)
>Apache 1.1
>Taylor UUCP 1.06.1
>Current version of INN
>Current Sendmail (8.7.5 I think) or a smail option.
>ircd for EFNet, DalNet et al on respective ports

All easily grabbed from the net and built, though the stock INN notes
are wrong for 2.x.

>All patches from 2.0 and 2.1 (obvious :-))
>Current NON-beta version of bash,ksh,tcsh and zsh.

2.1 ships with tcsh 6.05, which works perfectly well, though /usr/contrib/bin
isn't the right place for it.  It *would* be nice if BSDI would submit
the requisite changes to the maintainer so that 6.06+ could be built from
stock sources.  If I cared about bash I'd grab it from prep.ai.mit.edu and
build it myself.  ksh & zsh -- who cares?

>current Netscape (2.02 at this point) and Mosaic (2.7b4)

Beta 3.0 is the current netscape.  New incremental versions come out frequently
enough that by the time the CD ships it'd be out of date anyway -- especially
since at least some of their binaries are time-bombed anyway.

>A native GUI like SunOS and HP.

HUH? GUI to what?  Do you mean "window system"?  They supply an X11R6 build
that works fine for me.  Do you want a huge, buggy, memory-intensive set of
layered applications that break the normal resources mechanism, like VUE?

I'd rather that they concentrate on the OS itself and not on bundling in
lots of freeware that I'd want to recompile from current sources anyway.
They're a tiny company with limited development resources.  I'd rather that
those resources were spent fixing the glaring deficiencies in the OS
itself -- like the lack of a good striping driver (2.2 is purported to include
a written-from-scratch one that's better than the pitiful cd.c), support for
wide transfers on wide SCSI controllers, support for *ANY* differential SCSI
controllers, clean flags on filesystems, a kernel-tuning document, a merged
heap & buffer cache, and so forth.  Sun has had all of these things for
a while -- some of them for years.  I don't use this OS for turnkey desktops
or dialup customers.  I use it to provide serious, intensive services.