NetBSD and QIC02
dgy at DakotaCom.Net
Sat Mar 25 16:08:17 CST 2006
Chuck Guzis wrote:
> Many thanks to whomever suggested NetBSD for my QIC02 support problem.
> I've been a long time user of Linux--my last contact with BSD was back in
> the 80's on a VAX--I think it was 4.2BSD.
> The last few years, the rot in Linux has been getting to me. It seems that
> every time I want to do something a little off the beaten path, it's a
> matter of Googling for "who else has this problem?" and finding patches and
> putting up with careless distros. And endless bloat implementing things
> that I didn't even dream that anyone could want.
Agreed. Folks seem to think of Linux as a playground instead of a
platform. Who cares if you have a gorgeous skylight in your house
if the roof leaks?? :-( No, I *don't* want to upgrade my kernel
to get *this* fixed -- along with a NEW set of bugs. :-(
(I can get that sort of thing from Microsoft :< )
I started using NetBSD 0.8 (!) in early 1990's (maybe 1993?).
Then, moved to FreeBSD as they were further along with certain
stability and userland issues (the NetBSD folks have always had
a much harder job since they have to support N architectures
instead of the *single* x86 architecture that FBSD supported
at that time).
But, FBSD quickly became a Linux-wannabe... oodles of features
added but lots of bugs in already existing (cough) "features".
So, I went back to the NBSD camp and have been there ever since.
> NetBSD (I installed 2.1 to be safe) is the way I remember Unix--no-nonsense
> and no-frills. The kernel compiled with what I wanted on the first try. I
> haven't installed KDE yet, but it looks to be pretty straightforward.
I think you will find the "packages" to be of more dubious quality
than the core OS features. There seems to be much less discipline
there. And, I have found people don't often understand what they
are tinkering with as they patch the code -- "it compiled without
any errors, so it MUST be OK, right??" :<
> The surprise is how well NetBSD functions on a lowly Pentium 166.
> Compiling the kernel is a matter of saying "make" just before you go to
Heh heh heh... try building a kernel on a SPARC classic (40MHz?).
Actually, it isn't terribly unbearable. And, you can always
keep working while it's doing its thing!
Please, no flames from the Linux world. I respect what you are
trying to do -- it just doesn't "fit" with what *my* needs are!
(I don't buy *hammers* that also have built in AM/FM radios and
dental floss dispensers... I just want to drive a *nail* and be
done with it! :> )
More information about the cctalk