*BSD?

[bighara]

Here's the deal,
I've got an old Mac Quadra 700 with 20MB of RAM and a 4GB HD (added later obviously). I've checked out a few of the *nix mac68k-compatible distros out there and it *seems* like the one that makes sense is NetBSD/mac68k (hardware compat, sys reqs, etc.). My question is, what is the real difference between OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD etc. etc.?

I've been working with Linux for a few months and starting to learn my way around it. Am I starting from scratch with *BSD or is it similiar enough for me to transfer what few skills I've picked up from Linux? The Linux machine is fine, but it's dual-boot. I want a stand alone *nix-only & I'd rather use the old Quadra than buy another machine if possible.

[SolarFlux]

OpenBSD (http://openbsd.org) is the 'secure by default' option, good for firewalls and secured serving; it branched off from NetBSD. Very sparse install (again, with security in mind), but a fair amount of sw is available.

NetBSD (http://www.netbsd.org) is more for the hardcore UNIX user (everything is configured manually) and good for serving, it supports the most platforms by far. So, portability is the key here.

FreeBSD (http://www.freebsd.org) is the most 'Linux-like', and good for desktop systems as well as for running servers. It only supports x86 and Alpha architectures. The ports system of downloading and installing software automagically is awesome. It will run linux binaries in linux-compat mode.

Then there's BSDi (http://www.bsdi.com), but that's for enterprises; it costs $$$.

Peruse the links for more info.

[Beowulf_Ghost]

I have not used netBSD. But from everything I've heared it acts like the other BSD's. I have used freeBSD, so I offer up this addvice;

Get used to the C shell. I takes commands just like bash, but the environment setting are different.

/etc is layed out differently. But not to different from Linux. Remember, alot of Linux is borrowed from BSD. But things like inetd.conf are still their.

They use different names in /dev. So mounting harddrives and CD's can be weird at first. I'm sorry I can't elaberate on this more. My freeBSD box is at my college, or I would give you some examples.

Other then that, startx still starts X, and twm looks just as ugly in freeBSD as it does in Linux. But I know you can get other WM's and Gnome. I don't know too much more about X in freeBSD, because I use that box for DNS and e-mail on a small network. So I rearly use X.

To summerize;
Once you've installed freeBSD, and you're sitting at the CLI, you won't notice too much of a difference. The differences start poping up the deeper you dig into BSD's guts. But even Linux has differences between the distros when you start digging. So you'll need to bone up on freeBSD in order to configure it. But once it's running, from a users point of view, it's not much different Linux.

Have Fun

[jemfinch]

Originally posted by SolarFlux:
FreeBSD is the most 'Linux-like'


Just out of curiosity, why do you say that?

Jeremy

[nanode]

IS FreeBSD the 'least different' BSD from Linux?

FreeBSD wasn't too steep of a learning curve from Slackware Linux. I don't run X on that box, and really only use it as a file server and backup DNS.

Here's a troll for the forum:

BSD init is better than SysV.

Seriously, anyone know why Patrick Volkerding (spelling?) decided to use BSD-style init for Slackware?

[dieselboy]

because he was smart? BSD init is WAY better. and you are right.. there really is not that much of a learning curve .. but... freeBSD might force you to do more for yourself. that is the answers are not always easy to find. But I have been a user/developer for years and I love it.. I love it much more then linux.. and I like linux alot. so i better go having said that..
lates
diesel

[SolarFlux]

Originally posted by jemfinch:
Just out of curiosity, why do you say that?

Jeremy

Out of the three, FreeBSD has the widest userbase and the most support of the general public. Plus, Linux apps can be run on FreeBSD. That doesn't mean it is really like Linux, I just meant that in terms of usablility it is the closest to Linux.