BSD or linux?

[tyger_claw]

I must agree with Korp....

Linux has too many different distributions...

It's nice to have a choice, but having to choose between 16+ flavours is nuts!

[draziw]

Originally posted here by str34m3r
Seven Layers: Physical Layer, Data Link Layer, Network Layer, Transport Layer, Session Layer, Presentation Layer, Application Layer

Four Layers: Network Access Layer, Internet Layer, Host-to-Host Layer, Process Layer

I don't know about this whole three layer thing.

Ok, once again I may be dating myself here, but...

The three functional layers in the protocol architecture refer to the Application, Host-to-Host, and Network Access layers (the so-called "common three" I guess). This was referred to in some of the early (well, earlier) RFCs as the DOD Protocol Model in the DDN Protocol Handbook, Volume 1 - NIC & SRI International (I think that's the correct reference - at least close enough). The four layer model you refer to is the three layer model with the addition of a separate "Internet" layer.

I think Stevens, IIRC, was one of the first to outline four functional layers (Link, Network, Transport and Application) - at least of those that I remember. But it does not seem all that uncommon to see as many as five layers explained/outlined (as compared to OSI' seven).

But, as you said... it's probably all a matter of semantics, anyway.


My point about bypassing the three-part handshake with older versions of the Linux kernel and getting directly to the application layer is, well... probably a little bit better explained give the above perspective, I hope (and obviously "toned down" a little to try to better explain it; at least that is what I was trying to do at the time and even now, to some extent). Yes, you're right... it's not supposed to be possible to skip through the state table that handles the whole TCP handshake - but let me assure you that, with Linux, it was indeed quite possible. Call it "a feature" if you will... and, yes, it probably helped speed the whole thing up, too.

[ThePreacher]

Originally posted here by KorpDeath
Linux will have to mature significantly to reach the BSD level. I'm a firm believer in the 'stable' release. Linux has yet to overcome the "flavor of month" syndrome.

Im personally glad that the people work constantly to make linux compatible with more types of hardware and software, even if that means that occasionally it is less stable than bsd. Besides linux is more than stable enough for my needs, but does bsd really offer any true incentive for a linux user like me to switch, or is it not worth the hassle? Ive heard all sorts of stories about openbsd not supporting even the most basic types of hardware, like certain hard drives and nics.

[draziw]

I've personally had good experiences with OpenBSD - as long as you're not running some brand that no one's heard of, Theo seems to be pretty good about his project supporting it. If you want a cheap security box, OpenBSD is definitely the way to go... I'd just (personally) run it on pseudo name-brand hardware (not because of any personal bad experiences, mind you (I've been quite pleasantly surprised, on the other hand, most of the time)). Then again, I say almost the same thing about Winblowz...

"If you buy "Joe Blow's S00per Kewl TNT Video Card" and expect it to work, then you kind of deserve what you get, I think."

All in all I seem to find that things in either FreeBSD or OpenBSD work because some dedicated soul sat there and made sure the support for it was well-and-good... all too often my experience with Linux has been that it worked because someone hacked together a means to make it work or get it functional. I still tend to have random problems with applets or system processes randomly crashing on my Mandrake box when the machine's just sitting their idle with a terminal open (and the machine's been up for an hour) than I do on my old BSDi 2.x box or my OpenBSD box that's been protecting one of my networks for the past six months straight without a reboot.

[5amYan]

NetBSD runs on nearly every architecture out there.
From therre it's portable to OpenBSD with a little effort. Many have already been done.
I'm exited about the systrace functionality coming to the kernel.

Linux I think has a couple advantages. It may well be ahead of the game with smp.
In fact I don't know that openbsd supports it yet.
It also has a much larger user base. Along with cooperation from alot of large companies. I.e. $1 billion from IBM. I'd love to see what OBSD would do with that.

I run both FBSD and OBSD on boxes that standard linux distros won't fit on anymore.

Check these out:
http://www.lowendpc.com/dp/2002/0524.html

Or this one:
link

wow

[hogfly]

Preacher: actually, the older OpenBSD's were not so good at hardware detection. If you look at one of the current releases though...dating back to say 2.7 its support is excellent, not as good as say redhat, but then again its not for a workstation which have huge varities of hardware types in them. If you like, I can paste you the Obsd kernel to look at the hardware listed, especially the nics...trust me its a pain in the ass going through such a huge list to find your itty-bitty nic.
As for switching over to a bsd from linux....if you are comfortable with linux, then stay there. Unix is and always has been superior to linux in my opinion. Are there good things and bad things with both ? sure there are, choose what you like, try bsd.....you may love it, you may hate it......but the same could be said for anyone trying to jump into linux from windows....


5amyan: OpenBSD does not support SMP yet...its still in their 'project to-do list" but FreeBSD does support it.

[KorpDeath]

Originally posted here by ThePreacher


Im personally glad that the people work constantly to make linux compatible with more types of hardware and software, even if that means that occasionally it is less stable than bsd. Besides linux is more than stable enough for my needs, but does bsd really offer any true incentive for a linux user like me to switch, or is it not worth the hassle? Ive heard all sorts of stories about openbsd not supporting even the most basic types of hardware, like certain hard drives and nics.

Well if it suits your needs and taste, then i'd have to say stick with it. No need to change for end-user functionality, really. I like to know how systems work that's I why try them all.

Everything gets a fair shake with me. Hell, I still have an Amiga 500 running AmigaDos and Geos.

[iNViCTuS]

Originally posted here by KorpDeath


Everything gets a fair shake with me. Hell, I still have an Amiga 500 running AmigaDos and Geos.

That is why KD love Checkpoint so much. He has tried all the other firewalls and realizes they all suck.

[Quad]

I say we all hold hands, sing kum-ba-ya, and install beOS while roasting marshmellows over an open campfire.

[ThePreacher]

Originally posted here by Quad
I say we all hold hands, sing kum-ba-ya, and install beOS while roasting marshmellows over an open campfire.

The original BeOS is dead. However, we are blessed with OpenBeOS.
http://open-beos.sourceforge.net/news.php