Re: Is Linux BSD or System V ?
- From: floyd@xxxxxxxxxx (Floyd L. Davidson)
- Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:39:09 -0900
Dances With Crows <danSPANceswitTRAPhcrows@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 02:16:34 +0900, Wad staggered into the Black Sun and
said:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 18:10:53 -0900, floyd@xxxxxxxxxx (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
"Roka" <Roka100@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I wonder how to know a linux is BSD or System V ?Linux cannot actually be either BSD or SysV.
Floyd is right here, but I don't think that's what Roka meant. Roka,
remember that when you're dealing with technical people, they take great
delight in answering the question that you *asked*, not the question you
*meant*. I believe that Roka meant "How do I tell whether a Linux
distro uses SysV-style init scripts or BSD-style init scripts?". ICBW
though.
But, I thought I answered that!
"Linux cannot actually be either BSD or SysV. It is possible
to configure a Linux to be more similar to one than the
other, but it's unusual that anyone actually gets very close
to either."
I don't think using a few characteristics of one or the other
means it is significantly like SysV or BSD.
Anyway, just about every Linux distro uses SysV-style init scripts
except Slackware. You can check for the presence or absence of
/etc/rc[0-6].d/ or /etc/runlevels/ ; if those are there, you've got SysV
style (or Gentoo style for /etc/runlevels/) init scripts.
True, but that doesn't make it enough like SysV to say it is the
same.
For example, Patrick Volkerding made a comment way back in the
beginnings of his Slackware release that it used BSD style init
scripts, and everyone since then has said that it is BSD like.
That simply is *not* true! It uses SysV R2 init scripts, not
BSD init scripts. It has runlevels. It isn't anything like BSD
unless you've never seen what SysV R2 looked like!
Any take on why FreeBSD is not more popular? I find it extremely rare
to read much about it in the forums. It doesn't even appear to have an
alt. group. And with distros like DesktopBSD and PC-BSD you'd think
they would get much more exposure then they do!
It's been almost 4 years since I tried FreeBSD, but at that time, its
install process on the x86 was a user-unfriendly PITA.[0] And it couldn't
read or write ReiserFS at that time. So I didn't get that much use out
of it. Right... well, they've probably improved the install somewhat by
now. Maybe I could take that old 2.5" 6G disk, put it in my laptop, and
see how the FreeBSD install measures up to Debian Stable or Ubuntu some
weekend.
I'm convinced that Linux is what it is due to one simple fact:
Linux Torvalds is... Linux Torvalds! Unique, priceless, and
basically the root cause of everything Linux has become.
(Compare Torvalds to Theo de Raadt, for example, and it is easy
to understand why Linux and OpenBSD are both technically
superior products, and Linux is more popular.)
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- References:
- Is Linux BSD or System V ?
- From: Roka
- Re: Is Linux BSD or System V ?
- From: Floyd L. Davidson
- Re: Is Linux BSD or System V ?
- From: Wad
- Re: Is Linux BSD or System V ?
- From: Dances With Crows
- Is Linux BSD or System V ?
- Prev by Date: Re: Is Linux BSD or System V ?
- Next by Date: printing queued cups file to windows local pc printer. Possible?
- Previous by thread: Re: Is Linux BSD or System V ?
- Next by thread: Re: Is Linux BSD or System V ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
