Subject: Re: Resource needs
To: Wojciech Puchar <email@example.com>
From: Marcin Jessa <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/01/2005 22:06:13
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 21:04:18 +0200 (CEST)
Wojciech Puchar <email@example.com> wrote:
> i prefer NetBSD because it's clear, while FreeBSD (4.* and 5.* what i
> tried) is made "user friendly" (=overcomplicated and messy). with NetBSD
> it's really clear how to configure kernel, services etc.
The way you set up services from the base on FreeBSD is exactly the same as on NetBSD.
FreeBSD 5.x adapted the rc.d system of NetBSD.
What is unclear with [/usr/src]# make kernel/buildkernel/installkernel KERNCONF=YOUR_KERNEL ?
NetBSD is very spartan compared to FreeBSD and the reason for that is NetBSD aims to run on a variety of platforms.
I dont find FreeBSD any more userfriendly than NetBSD. It may have some more config scripts here and there but that's it.
> and i use older version of NetBSD (1.5.4) for i386 devices acting as
> routers/NAT/DNS boxes as it works smooth and fast with low end 486 with
> 8MB RAM (12-16 is true requirement for 2.0).
I run NetBSD 2.0 on a tiny embedded device just fine.
The requirements differ depending on the role of your system.
> it's much better than floppy-based linux distros, at least i have good
> logging there.
Linux offers lots of different logging utilities.
There are sysklogd, which is the traditional set of system logging daemons, syslog-ng, an advanced system logger, and metalog which is a highly-configurable system logger and propably more.