What IS BSD ? [Link}

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2216,00.asp

Quote:

It's hard to browse the Web or read a computer magazine without finding a reference to Linux, the operating-system wunderkind created by Linus Torvalds and developed by a host of others. But although Linux steals the headlines, ISPs and system administrators often choose one of the BSDs—a group of operating systems based on code polished during more than 20 years of research at one of America's leading academic institutions.

What are the BSDs? And why should you consider using them if you're looking for a non-Windows operating system?

Just browsing, found this.
It's a nicely written piece, that gives some details about the BSD options.
If you are thinking of investing time and effort into a different non-MS OS, or, if you are just curious as to what exactly BSD IS, then this is a good place to start.

Well, it's nice to use but Free BSD is probably the best of them all, as NetBSD is pretty much something for when you have old / exotic hardware, and Open BSD is for people who actually believe that ass Theodore that securitry can be had by just shutting off every service.

BSD does get VERY picky with hardware though. If you buy a new PC today, don't expect it to work on it at all. Linux does have better hardware support. ISPs choosing BSD are doing so because of servers. IT does well with these machines but for PCs, stick with Linux if you want stability AND hardware support.

This is personal experiance and stuff I'm putting in my paper on Free BSD VS Slackware Linux. Which I'm still writing on. I'm back in college so I can't finish it, but BSD and Slackware are VERY similar. Something I want is BSD/OS, which is sort of like Free BSD and was started by the guys at the CSRG which in turn was a group, and they worked on BSD / UNIX. BSD was the first OS with legal troubles, AT&T had a lawsuit..... I'm rambling badly now but buy the book "The Complete Free BSD" I have it and it has GREAT information and has a lot of history.

That was a great read.
Thanks very much for posting it.

I like how it takes an objective view of Linux. So many things i had read are about pushing the use of Linux over Windows but this provided a refreshing change.

It's providing a load for the deodorizer too. Some of the information in this is completely mis-leading.

"Linux distributors often make their distributions difficult to install across the Internet. Their businesses, after all, rely on sales of CDs. Not so with FreeBSD. All that's required is a pair of floppy disks (which can easily be created with utilities and image files on the FreeBSD Web site) and a reasonably fast Internet connection. Boot from the first disk, then insert the second. An installation program helps you choose configuration options, downloads the entire system from the Internet, and installs everything in the right place."

Yea because you can't go to any web page (http://www.linuxiso.org) and grab a copy?

"In short, FreeBSD is a strong challenger to Linux—and may offer superior stability, ease of installation, and convenience."

And Linux is STILL the only OS with a fully RFC complient TCP stack.

"OpenBSD, another no-cost BSD derivative, is reputed to be the most secure operating system in the world."

RIIIIIGHT.

"OpenBSD's home page (www.openbsd.org) reports that OpenBSD has gone "four years without a remote hole in the default install.""

Yea that's usually a common side effect when you package something with every service turned off by default....

"What this means is that—as far as anyone knows—no version of OpenBSD released in the past four years can be taken over from across the Internet. (You can, of course, make any operating system—including OpenBSD—vulnerable to a takeover if you configure the server badly or run insecure software that lets intruders in.)"

Right.....

"And no other operating system shares OpenBSD's sterling security track record. Several remote root vulnerabilities are typically discovered every month in Microsoft operating systems such as Windows 2000. And many recent Linux distributions have been vulnerable to exploits such as the Ramen worm."

That was like 4 years ago! And .... This guys is getting on my nerves....

"OpenBSD supports ten computer architectures—more than FreeBSD but not as many as NetBSD."

I bet that's because Open BSD is made FROM Net BSD.

"OpenBSD CD-ROMs are available from OpenBSD itself or from Cheap Bytes. An ISO image isn't available, however, because the group prefers to sell CDs as a way of supporting its efforts. You can install the OS over the Internet, though the installer's user interface is not as polished as that of FreeBSD."

Wasn't that just a downside to Linux a page ago?

"By contrast, the license used by Linux—the GNU General Public License or GPL—is much more restrictive and comes with many strings attached. For example, if you use any part of the source code from Linux in a program you write, you must give the program away. So being rewarded for your labors is difficult, if not impossible, even if you've made a brilliant technological advance or you've combined only a few lines from Linux with a much larger amount of your own code"

That's a load of ****. You can charge if you want too it just has to have source code.

"The GPL hurts standardization, too. Because commercial software developers can't, naturally enough, afford to give away their software, they can't start with code covered by the GPL. Developers must make a redundant effort, writing code from scratch to do the same thing as a GPL-governed OS. Finally, by undercutting commercial products and by deterring companies from using "GPLed" code to enhance existing software, this licensing scheme can destroy the market for entire categories of software, leaving consumers with few or no choices. For example, the GNU C Compiler (GCC), released under the GPL, has reduced the choice of C compilers. Developers—particularly those building embedded systems—have a strong incentive to use BSD-licensed code so they are not forced to give away their hard work to competitors."

I'm starting to wonder if he is using LSD as well as BSD.

"Mac OS X Released in 1984, the original Macintosh operating system, Mac OS, did not offer true, preemptive multitasking"

WHAT???????

"Aqua is light-years ahead of the primitive X Windows, KDE, and GNOME environments. The first cut of Mac OS X was a bit unsteady and was missing key features (for example, the ability to burn CD-Rs), but newer versions fix the problems and are probably the most user-friendly Unix desktops available."

Ummmm, a few pages ago KDE and Gnome were coold because Free BSD had them...