DragonFly BSD Architecture

[Miguel Filipe]

Well, never saw anyone putting it on those "Winnebago vs towing
vehicle" terms.. he he.

I would also say that BSD takes a natural evolution course, its a OS
shaped by 3 decades of UNIX development.

Linux takes a revolution course, its a one decade rush of guys trying
to make UNIX from scratch..

On Apr 6, 2005 11:43 PM, Bill Hacker <wbh at xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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 at 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
> >>
> 


-- 
Miguel Sousa Filipe