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 New incremental versions come out frequently enough that by the time the CD ships it'd be out of date anyway -- especially since at least some of their binaries are time-bombed anyway.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