> cal at bigtime:~$ ldd /bin/bash > libtermcap.so.2 => /lib/libtermcap.so.2 (0x4001d000) > libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x40021000) > libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x40024000) > /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000) > cal at bigtime:~$ ldd /sbin/init > libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x4001d000) > /lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000) > > Why is dynamic stuff in /bin and /sbin a problem? The libraries are in > /lib, which should be on the root partition as well. If / is hosed > you've got bigger problems than worrying about static binaries... If you ever upgrade your C library - things do not always go well. It can be a pain in the but to roll that back. The BSD's are built to be entirely upgradable from source code. Linux does not work that way. Just remember the upgrade from libc5 to glibc. Also, if you keep /bin and /sbin static, you don't have to include the C libraries on the root partition. They really belong on the usr partition anyway I would think - as they are required by binaries that are linked after a system is already installed. You can argue this point anyway you want - and who would be right or wrong - probably nobody. I happen to like this choice though. > > > > Also, the kernel is organized in a much different manner. I think the Linux > > > kernel source is far easier to read and understand, but it is not as > > > efficient as the BSD kernel. That is changing every day and the two are > > > getting closer. > > Show me the numbers, otherwise its just talk. ;) I have read it over the last few months in many places. If you want to verify it, go ahead, if you don't that is fine. I don't ask anybody to take me at my word, but for myself, I know it is true. As far as the kernel source code goes, I have looked through both, and the Linux kernel source is far easier to read. Since this is pro Linux, I don't suspect you will argue that point ;) > > BSD did USB before linux, you can give it that much... They did SB Live! and UltraDMA33,66,100 before Linux as well. They also did networking before Linux :) > > > linux and BSD have been sharing device drivers, and kernel code for a > > while now. linux took from the BSD networking code, improved on it, now > > linux has a very fast networkign stack. BSD has taken many device drivers > > from linux, Iomega Zip paralell driver comes to mind. To me, this is a > > good thing, sharing code is what open souce is about. > > Ummm, what about the differing licenses? GPL/LGPL stuff certainly can't > go into BSD, dunno about the other way. I did see the e2fs stuff in BSD > in a clearly seperate source tree though... If you look around the Linux source tree (perhaps kernel and certainly userland) you will find lots of code that is under the BSD license. > > > > If you have UltraDMA storage hardware, you can't beat FreeBSD. Linux does > > > not have the ATA chipset support (with or without hendrick's patches) that > > > FreeBSD has. > > > I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about, from my understanding > > FreeBSD has allways had lackluster IDE support. as far as DMA mode, most > > distros leave DMA mode disabled by default for compatability reasons. a > > simple /sbin/hdparm -d 1 /dev/hda turns on DMA support, making things MUCH > > faster > > Linux kernel 2.2 does have that "Use DMA by default" kernel compile > option... That is DMA, not UltraDMA aka ATA. FreeBSD as of version 4.0 has totally rewritten the IDE support so that it uses UltraDMA 33, 66 and 100 as well as other versions such as WDMA (?) and the early forms. I once saw some bonnie benchmarks posted (to freebsd-stable at freebsd.org) that had UltraDMA performance outperforming all other unices and I believe Windows 98. > > And Linux claims to be the first OS with UDMA100 support. BSD didn't get > there first did they? ;) Certainly they did in a release mode. UDMA100 is supported in FreeBSD 4.1 (and maybe 4.0). There is no release version of Linux 2.2.17 or earlier that has ANY UDMA66 or better support. > > And just to bash Linux a little, the VM in 2.2 really does suck ass. I'm > considering going to 2.4 now that a certain filesystem eating bug has > been fixed and a much improved VM is in and apparently working. ;) FreeBSD 4.x just had its VM rewritten and that is why it is so much faster than previous versions. There have been "testemonials" that it is the fasted operating system that some people have ever used. You can take that with a grain of salt though. Tom Veldhouse veldy at veldy.net --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: tclug-list-unsubscribe at mn-linux.org For additional commands, e-mail: tclug-list-help at mn-linux.org