Re: DragonFly BSD Architecture

[Bill Hacker <wbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jaime Andrés Ballesteros wrote:

> But i have another question. The Linux base kernel is not a BSD Base?

Not even on the same planet.

> which are their principal diferences?

One was driven by scholary design by the top Computer Science experts of 
one of the world's leading scientific stablishments, (UC Berkeley) plus 
the then-globally-dominant communications technology developer, (Bell 
Labs), with substantial state and federal funding - to meet, among other 
things, 'cold war' military networking and large university teaching and 
admin needs.

The other was driven by a curious, and very bright, engineering 
student's personal economic distress (at the time).

> or is just a philosophy?

Now it is.

Originally it was deliberate design vs an 'organically grown' 
educational exercise.

BSD equates to a Winnebago motor home.
Ships with a motor, kitchen, bath, and all amenities integrated, plus a 
trailer-hitch to attach other things of your choice.
Only a few models - say different engines and transmissions, same basic 
frame.

Linux equates to a towing vehicle (the kernel). Motor, steering wheel, 
front seat.
*Everything* else (GNU) goes on the trailer hitch.  Bicycle to Airstream 
land yacht.
Near-infinite selection of possibilities, 200 or so already
pre-packaged as 'distros' so former WinVictims can just select one
turn the key, and start insulting WinVictims.

But the Winnbago trailer hitch will pull most of these also.
though most will actually fit inside it.

> Thanks.
>
> On Apr 6, 2005 4:20 PM, Bill Hacker <wbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Gabriel Ambuehl wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Bill Hacker wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Mostly it does.
> > > >
> > > > The 'BSD basics' are covered here:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/design-44bsd/
> > >
> > >
> > > I haven't looked at it personally, but seeing how old 4.4BSD really is,
> > > http://www.awprofessional.com/bookstore/product.asp?isbn=0201702452&rl=1
> > > might be a better choice.
> >
> > Not old. MKM et al book was about the concepts and theory.
> >
> > Implementation has evolved, theory is still highly relevant,
> > especially if one is coming from a Windows or Linux background,
> > where there is no direct counterpart.
> >
> > Those are 'organic' OS / environments.  Adapted and 'grown', then
> > adapted again, etc., but not designed in advance, 'purpose built',
> > or 'architected' per se.
> >
> > Understanding that difference in origin helps avoid confusion
> > and 'holy wars' between why Linux goes one way and BSD another.
> >
> > Horses for courses.
> >
> > Bill