[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Some Newbie Questions



Quoting Milhomem, Marcus (Marcus_Milhomem_(_at_)_bmc_(_dot_)_com):
> I will study more OpenBSD, it seems that this OS is very stable and we don?t
> have all the linux unsolved symbols when trying to compile new softwares :-)
> 
> My first impressions are that OpenBSD is more "static" them linux, I mean
> that it has less changes on the same period of time them linux and all the

That's not so true.  More "centralized" yes.

There is no "linux" OS.  It's a kernel and it's offered in a number
of ways with varying setups around it.
OpenBSD (all BSDs) come with source for the kernel and the whole
userland.  I build the whole thing from source.  Others use the
binaries on the CDs for userland.

Most linux distros are some Linux kernel, usually pretty much the
same, plus a variety of userland things from FSF and various other
sources.  And you get it from packages pre-compiled by someone you
are implicitely trusting.  And then you play the dependancy game
(oh, I need THIS version of GLIBC and THAT version of the gnome
libs to make this package install right).

BSDs have ports (called pkgsrc on netbsd).  It's built ON YOUR SYSTEM
with YOUR libraries.  Less pain.  (that said, pkgsrc runs, I'm told, on
MacOS, Linux and Solaris).

I can watch CVS updates and see the changes to the system as they are
made.  I know that lots of license work and ansification has been done.
I know that GNU greg and diff are gone from current. & so forth.


The original BSD group at Berkeley (CSRG) was greatly centralized.
Changes came in, were viewed and understood and may - or may not
- have been applied to the source.  And then it was redistributed.

They were a bit compulsive about docs. I don't find that in the
Linux distributions.


OpenBSD and Linux will feel 99% the same to most users.  To most coders,
the variations are subtle and annoying.  If you know 3-4 variations of
Unix, they you can adjust quickly.  Compared to VMS, Windows XXX(for 7 
versions of XXX), Plan 9/Inferno, and vm, they are close enough to the
same.  It's the details that will catch your notice.


init scripts versus rc?  OpenBSD still uses the monilithic rc scripts
and rc.conf to guide them.  It's just a different way.  When I dealt
with SunOS 4 a *lot*, I just rewrote the rc stuff into init scripts
for the things that admins would care about.

I needed jr admins to be able to stop and start nfs or CERN's httpd
or whatever.

NetBSD and now FreeBSD 5 use init scripts that decide their order
by dependencies rather than number (eg) S45name.

If you're intent on it, you can certainly make an init script for
apache or what have you.  It's often a good idea.   Then you just
remove it from rc (comment it out or wrap it with an "if [ 0 = 1 ] ; then"
loop).

It's handy and easy and a good way to learn.  And it won't be part
of OpenBSD soon if reactions remain the same (plenty of "nevers"
have been implemented over the last 5 years - esp if something clear
and documented and working is offered).

But it's a kit and you can make of it what you want.


> softwares have already by default the rigth place to be installed, and on
> linux is very common to change the place where you install the softwares.
> For example, the distribution that I use, SoL Linux has a design that every
> thing has one directory, so every software is installed on one diferent
> directory, and just the base software remaisn on /usr/bin, /bin, etc....



Visit your host, monkey.org