Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.syd.connect.com.au!phaedrus.kralizec.net.au!news.mel.aone.net.au!grumpy.fl.net.au!news.webspan.net!newsfeeds.sol.net!hammer.uoregon.edu!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!news.texas.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!192.94.214.100!shemesh.hq.tis.com!troma.rv.tis.com!not-for-mail From: mark@troma.rv.tis.com (Mark Sienkiewicz) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc Subject: Re: Linux vs BSD Date: 21 Jan 1997 15:45:08 -0500 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 40 Message-ID: <5c39sk$ddl@troma.rv.tis.com> References: <32DFFEAB.7704@usa.net> <5c155c$p6u@raven.eva.net> <5c19pg$rf6@lynx.dac.neu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: troma.rv.tis.com Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:152395 comp.os.linux.networking:65009 comp.os.linux.setup:92217 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:5596 comp.unix.bsd.misc:1910 In article <5c19pg$rf6@lynx.dac.neu.edu>, Michael Kagalenko <mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote: >J.C. Archambeau (jca@bighorn.accessnv.com) wrote: >]preferrential to BSD. It also seems the FreeBSD is more solid that >]Linux in the networking department. > > I see this claim now and then. Can you post some specific data, comparing > Linux and BSD networking ? The claim has been around for a while, and may no longer be as true as it once was. It used to be possible to totally crash a Linux machine by sending it "unusually formed" packets. I know there were some malformed packets in this category. I seem to remember there were some valid-but-unusual packets that could trigger problems, but I'm not sure. I haven't looked at it for a while. When I was looking at Linux kernels, I saw some pretty scary stuff in there and I wasn't surprised to see some of these reports of unreliability. It's been quite a while since then and it may well be that the Linux code is improved substantially. I think this state of affairs is a natural result of the history -- BSD networking was largely written and then released, where Linux networking was freely given to all comers as it was being developed. As a work in progress, the early releases of Linux were sure to be less stable than a system that had been polished for about 10 years. Ideally, someone would do an analysis and write-up describing if there is any evidence to support the claims, but I doubt anyone would do that. For example, I've taken to using BSD and have little interest in Linux; many people use Linux and have little interest in BSD. Who will do the comparison? Mark S. p.s. Of course, you've probably heard of a similar problem called "the ping of death". This resembles the problems I was describing in the early Linux, but I think it is telling that a problem that crashes a BSD system gets a name while Linux just gets a reputation.