[HN Gopher] For BSD Unix, It's Sayonara (1992)
___________________________________________________________________
For BSD Unix, It's Sayonara (1992)
Author : operator-name
Score : 77 points
Date : 2023-07-21 18:22 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.tech-insider.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.tech-insider.org)
| stan1234 wrote:
| [dead]
| CodeCompost wrote:
| I don't know what it is about the BSD's. I just keep getting
| drawn to them, and I don't even use them personally or
| professionally.
|
| I think it's because they are complete operating systems with
| their own user-land and complete documentation. Plus the fact
| that BSD users get excited about little things like when an extra
| command line switch or a new filesystem flag. All this meticulous
| attention to detail...
| LeFantome wrote:
| Try Chimera
| parlortricks wrote:
| This is me as well, im excited to know there is a whole
| solution in one. Ive run them here and there to experiment, but
| for my needs i still use Debian. I feel Debian gives me some of
| the BSD vibe, but i still enjoy reading about all the new
| features the BSDs bring each release. Hope one day they catch
| up to what my linux box does, so i can enjoy it more.
| drewg123 wrote:
| Not according to the computer I'm typing this on, 31 years later
| :)
|
| FWIW, Klara has a good series on the history of FreeBSD:
|
| https://klarasystems.com/articles/history-of-freebsd-unix-an...
|
| https://klarasystems.com/articles/history-of-freebsd-part-2-...
|
| https://klarasystems.com/articles/history-of-freebsd-part-3-...
|
| https://klarasystems.com/articles/history-of-freebsd-part-4-...
| 9front wrote:
| The article is about BSD Unix which had a final release in June
| of 1995. So BSD is sayonara!
|
| Long live FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD, the stepchild(s) of BSD.
| voytec wrote:
| Nevertheless, it shows an interesting crossroads moment in
| the BSD history and uncertainty of it's future.
|
| > There are still options to secure BSD code, with one
| company, Berkeley Software Design (Falls Church, Va.), a
| company employing former Berkeley programmer Mike Karels,
| planning to offer a commercial version of Unix for SPARC
| systems based on the 4.4BSD code but free of AT&T source
| licensing requirements. It currently offers BSD/386, a
| version of Unix for 386 machines based on the Berkeley NET2
| release.
|
| (commented from a laptop running FreeBSD 14.0-CURRENT;)
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Does it still have that classic Berkeley smell?
|
| "It was a matter of their taking it in and peeing on it
| until it smelled like Berkeley."
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| Ah, I was looking at the history of BSDi (nee Berkeley
| Software Design). Turns out BSD/OS was killed off by Wind
| River in 2003? I didn't realize it had lasted so long. Nor
| did I realize BSD/OS had such strong market share in '95.
|
| (commented from a laptop building an osx -> dragonfly cross
| compiler)
| Paul-Craft wrote:
| Don't forget Darwin, the step-grandchild of BSD. It might not
| be as free as FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD, but it'd be hard
| to argue it's not as important.
| slavapestov wrote:
| "The Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating System" is
| a classic: https://www.amazon.com/Implementation-Operating-
| paperback-Ad...
| assimpleaspossi wrote:
| Don't forget the newer, updated versions, the last release just
| a few years ago.
| shon wrote:
| Ahem... Darwin. Because of Darwin (iOS) and its derivatives, BSD
| probably powers 10-20% or more of all daily user hours logged on
| the planet.
| yuhong wrote:
| [dead]
| InTheArena wrote:
| It's neat to start reading and immediately run into professor Evi
| Nemeth being quoted. I TA"d for her a few year later, and it was
| axiomatic in her labs that BSD Unix was the only true Unix, that
| slowaris was a abomination and ATM was the worst network protocol
| ever devised.
|
| We eventually got her onto this new Linux thing..
| rootbear wrote:
| I always attended her talks at Usenix. I'm still sad about her
| loss.
| kazinator wrote:
| I recognize her as one of the authors of the _Unix System
| Adminstrator 's Handbook_.
|
| Re: ATM: https://books.google.ca/books?id=uAblPu1lpqIC&pg=PA130
| gwright wrote:
| > ATM was the worst network protocol ever devised
|
| Having 53 byte payloads is something only a committee could
| love.
| matthiasl wrote:
| ATM cells have 48 byte payloads.
|
| Supposedly that was because different groups involved in the
| standardisation process wanted either 32 or 64 byte payloads.
| marcus0x62 wrote:
| Supposedly it was the largest size the French contingent to
| the standards committee would accept. They wanted a very
| small sample size to reduce the need for echo cancellation
| in their network.
| chungy wrote:
| That's definitely a "split the baby down the middle" kind
| of solution.
| Paul-Craft wrote:
| More like a "fuck all you guys, I'm going home" kind of
| solution, if you ask me.
| p_l wrote:
| Still better than 193 bit frames
| marcus0x62 wrote:
| I assume that's a T1 dig? It worked quite well for the
| intended purpose - carrying voice traffic.
| InTheArena wrote:
| yeah. 53 bytes was the total packet size, not the payload
| size. But oh hey! lets pick a large prime number for the
| number of bytes that a payload could be transmitted in. Lets
| also pick a small prime number of bytes so we can't do byte
| boundaries.
|
| Needless to say, I am glad that TCP/IP won. Moving on.
| [deleted]
| Paul-Craft wrote:
| Funny. This reminded me of the old saying "Two of the most famous
| products to come out of Berkeley are BSD and LSD." Turns out, as
| a tech person, I'm (very) tangentially involved with BSD and my
| landlord was pretty deeply involved with LSD decades ago. ;)
| bitwize wrote:
| It's not over till Netcraft confirms it.
| tiffanyh wrote:
| Whatever happened to the old Netcraft site where I type in a
| url and it'd tell you what OS, webhost, webserver, etc it ran.
|
| Netcraft seems all corporate now.
| toast0 wrote:
| Security checklists.
| Sylamore wrote:
| Throwback to my slashdot sig: To misquote Churchill, never has
| an operating system (FreeBSD) used by so many been administered
| by so few. - NetCraft
| baz00 wrote:
| So basically it's an anti-Kubernetes?
| kstrauser wrote:
| Clap. Clap. Clap.
| jakedata wrote:
| So it goes.
| kstrauser wrote:
| Eh. _I_ thought it was funny, anyway!
| bitwize wrote:
| Good, that's still working.
| kstrauser wrote:
| I, for one, welcome our Slashdot-era meme overlords.
| vondur wrote:
| Wow forgot about that, How many times did the Slashdot trolls
| have the "BSD Is Dying" posts over the years?
| kstrauser wrote:
| I bet that continues, but I don't want to be the one to
| investigate.
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| Yea it's strange that right now we have four direct derivatives
| (OpenBSD, FreeBSD ,NetBSD and DragonflyBSD) and an combination of
| OSF Mach 4 and FreeBSD which has Billions of users (macOS ,iOS)
| declan_roberts wrote:
| Given Apple's market share, BSD is actually extremely popular!
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-21 23:00 UTC)