I'm switching from NT to an open source unix.
What are the pros and cons of Linux vs FreeBSD for writing web ASP
applications (Application Service Provider, not the MS stuff!)
I will use apache, XEmacs and LW or ACL. All this work under Linux and
FreeBSD. (ok, I still have some Motif shared library pb with LW but it
should work.)
I also have to choose an SQL database and a SQL/Lisp interface.
It's a server so I don't need all the desktop goodies of linux.
So far I'm favoring FreeBSD but I installed both.
So linux or FreeBSD?
What SQL and SQL/Lisp interface?
Thanks
Marc Battyani
"Marc Battyani" <·············@fractalconcept.com> writes:
> So linux or FreeBSD?
I would suggest Debian Linux because it's so damn easy to maintain,
and a very nice set CMUCL packages are available for it, as well a
Free databased like PostgreSQL.
> What SQL and SQL/Lisp interface?
Please check out http://alpha.onshore.com/lisp-software for both a Web
Application Server, called "IMHO", and an SQL/Lisp interface that
provides functional and object-oriented interfaces to postgreSQL,
MySQL and Oracle. Both of these packages are Free Software.
Check out the Lisp Web Dev mailing list mentioned in my signature as
well, the archives for the list contain discussion about severla other
packages that people are usng to do lisp web development.
--
Craig Brozefsky <·····@red-bean.com>
Lisp Web Dev List http://www.red-bean.com/lispweb
--- The only good lisper is a coding lisper. ---
"Craig Brozefsky" <·····@red-bean.com> wrote in message
···················@piracy.red-bean.com...
> Please check out http://alpha.onshore.com/lisp-software for both a Web
> Application Server, called "IMHO", and an SQL/Lisp interface that
> provides functional and object-oriented interfaces to postgreSQL,
> MySQL and Oracle. Both of these packages are Free Software.
Got it.
How does PostgreSQL compare to MySQL and Oracle (using your interface not
their specific APIs)?
Marc Battyani
"Marc Battyani" <·············@fractalconcept.com> writes:
> > Please check out http://alpha.onshore.com/lisp-software for both a Web
> > Application Server, called "IMHO", and an SQL/Lisp interface that
> > provides functional and object-oriented interfaces to postgreSQL,
> > MySQL and Oracle. Both of these packages are Free Software.
>
> Got it. How does PostgreSQL compare to MySQL and Oracle (using your
> interface not their specific APIs)?
PostgreSQL is our preferred DB. The mySQL interface is not supported
presently, but we would welcome patches to it, and the Oracle
interface works fine. The problem is that the round-trip time per
request to Oracle is considerably slower than it is in PostgreSQL.
the Oracle Call Interface, which is what our driver code interacts
with, requires alot more work from the application, and this is what
is causing the slowdown. Postgres on the other hand has a very simple
(which has it's drawbacks in the long run) interface which is very
fast, an order of magnitude faster when using UncommonSQL.
--
Craig Brozefsky <·····@red-bean.com>
"Revolution begins by giving things and social
relationships their real names". -- L. Trotsky
"> Got it.
> How does PostgreSQL compare to MySQL and Oracle (using your interface not
> their specific APIs)?
MySQL has some serious limitations: no transactions, no referential
integrity...
"Fernando Rodriguez" <···@mindless.com> writes:
> "> Got it.
> > How does PostgreSQL compare to MySQL and Oracle (using your interface not
> > their specific APIs)?
>
> MySQL has some serious limitations: no transactions, no referential
> integrity...
MySQL is also much faster than PostgreSQL and Oracle, and
there are plenty of applications where MySQL works well. BTW: the
MySQL people are currently working a new version of MySQL which uses
something called "BerkeleyDB transactional tables"...
--
Raymond Wiker
·············@fast.no
Raymond Wiker <·············@fast.no> writes:
>"Fernando Rodriguez" <···@mindless.com> writes:
>> "> Got it.
>> > How does PostgreSQL compare to MySQL and Oracle (using your interface not
>> > their specific APIs)?
>>
>> MySQL has some serious limitations: no transactions, no referential
>> integrity...
> MySQL is also much faster than PostgreSQL and Oracle, and
>there are plenty of applications where MySQL works well. BTW: the
>MySQL people are currently working a new version of MySQL which uses
>something called "BerkeleyDB transactional tables"...
The "speed" depends on a lot of factors and some real-world
complicated stuff behaves much different than benchmarks. I believe
that typical Web stuff is fast on MySQL, but the real problematic
things might turn out different. Also, intentions of using BerkeleyDB
and claims for speed don't go along, IMHO.
Martin
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin Cracauer <········@bik-gmbh.de> http://www.bik-gmbh.de/~cracauer/
FreeBSD - where you want to go. Today. http://www.freebsd.org/
"Marc Battyani" <·············@fractalconcept.com> writes:
> I'm switching from NT to an open source unix.
>
> What are the pros and cons of Linux vs FreeBSD for writing web ASP
> applications (Application Service Provider, not the MS stuff!)
> I will use apache, XEmacs and LW or ACL. All this work under Linux and
> FreeBSD. (ok, I still have some Motif shared library pb with LW but it
> should work.)
> I also have to choose an SQL database and a SQL/Lisp interface.
>
> It's a server so I don't need all the desktop goodies of linux.
> So far I'm favoring FreeBSD but I installed both.
>
> So linux or FreeBSD?
Others here have already recommended Linux. I have used
FreeBSD extensively for a few years, and have recently started using
RedHat Linux as well. IMHO FreeBSD is *much* "tidier" and easier to
administrate (this may well be different for other Linux distros.) The
Linux emulation in FreeBSD also seems to work well for many things
(including LispWorks :-)
So, if you like FreeBSD better and don't need particular
Linux-specific features or applications, you should just stick with
FreeBSD.
--
Raymond Wiker
·············@fast.no
"Raymond Wiker" <·············@fast.no> wrote in message
···················@raw.gren.fast.no...
> Others here have already recommended Linux. I have used
> FreeBSD extensively for a few years, and have recently started using
> RedHat Linux as well. IMHO FreeBSD is *much* "tidier" and easier to
> administrate (this may well be different for other Linux distros.) The
> Linux emulation in FreeBSD also seems to work well for many things
> (including LispWorks :-)
Hum...
> So, if you like FreeBSD better and don't need particular
> Linux-specific features or applications, you should just stick with
> FreeBSD.
I will go for FreeBSD. I even know some happy people that managed to get LW
to work on it. ;-)
I have installed all the openmotif packages I could find but it's still not
good. How can I found which exactly what library LW loads (the complete
pathname)
"Marc Battyani" <·············@fractalconcept.com> writes:
>"Raymond Wiker" <·············@fast.no> wrote in message
>···················@raw.gren.fast.no...
>> Others here have already recommended Linux. I have used
>> FreeBSD extensively for a few years, and have recently started using
>> RedHat Linux as well. IMHO FreeBSD is *much* "tidier" and easier to
>> administrate (this may well be different for other Linux distros.) The
>> Linux emulation in FreeBSD also seems to work well for many things
>> (including LispWorks :-)
>Hum...
>> So, if you like FreeBSD better and don't need particular
>> Linux-specific features or applications, you should just stick with
>> FreeBSD.
>I will go for FreeBSD. I even know some happy people that managed to get LW
>to work on it. ;-)
No problem, but you need 4.1 to support lispworks' annonoymous mmap on
a real file descriptor (arg!).
>I have installed all the openmotif packages I could find but it's still not
>good. How can I found which exactly what library LW loads (the complete
>pathname)
Here is what I have in /compat/linux/usr/X11R6/lib:
lrwx------ 1 root wheel 13 Oct 14 1999 ···········@ -> libXmu.so.6.0
lrwx------ 1 root wheel 15 Oct 14 1999 ·············@ -> libXaw3d.so.6.0
lrwx------ 1 root wheel 13 Oct 14 1999 ···········@ -> libXpm.so.4.8
lrwx------ 1 root wheel 14 Oct 14 1999 ············@ -> libXtst.so.6.0
lrwx------ 1 root wheel 12 Oct 14 1999 ··········@ -> libXt.so.6.0
lrwx------ 1 root wheel 12 Oct 14 1999 ··········@ -> libXi.so.6.0
lrwx------ 1 root wheel 13 Oct 14 1999 ···········@ -> libXaw.so.6.0
lrwx------ 1 root wheel 14 Oct 14 1999 ············@ -> libXext.so.6.0
lrwx------ 1 root wheel 13 Oct 14 1999 ···········@ -> libXIE.so.6.0
lrwx------ 1 root wheel 13 Oct 14 1999 ···········@ -> libX11.so.6.0
lrwx------ 1 root wheel 12 Oct 14 1999 ··········@ -> libSM.so.6.0
lrwx------ 1 root wheel 14 Oct 14 1999 ············@ -> libPEX5.so.6.0
lrwx------ 1 root wheel 13 Oct 14 1999 ···········@ -> libICE.so.6.0
lrwx------ 1 root wheel 22 Oct 14 1999 ···@ -> ../../../var/X11R6/lib
lrwx------ 1 root wheel 14 Oct 14 1999 ············@ -> libXm.so.1.2.4
-rwxr-xr-x 1 cracauer wheel 655700 Jun 14 13:36 libXbae.so.4.0.8*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 cracauer wheel 175520 Jun 14 13:36 libXlt.so.0.8.0*
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 16 Jun 14 13:37 ··········@ -> libXbae.so.4.0.8
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 15 Jun 14 13:37 ···········@ -> libXlt.so.0.8.0
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 15 Jun 14 13:37 ·········@ -> libXlt.so.0.8.0
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 16 Jun 14 13:37 ············@ -> libXbae.so.4.0.8
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 12 Jun 14 13:40 ··········@ -> libXm.so.1.2
IIRC, I unpacked a Motif package for debian or Redhat.
Don't forget to run /compat/linux/sbin/ldconfig after installing libs.
Martin
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin Cracauer <········@bik-gmbh.de> http://www.bik-gmbh.de/~cracauer/
FreeBSD - where you want to go. Today. http://www.freebsd.org/
"Martin Cracauer" <········@counter.bik-gmbh.de> wrote in message
··················@counter.bik-gmbh.de...
[about making lispworks]
> No problem, but you need 4.1 to support lispworks' annonoymous mmap on
> a real file descriptor (arg!).
>
> >I have installed all the openmotif packages I could find but it's still
not
> >good. How can I found which exactly what library LW loads (the complete
> >pathname)
>
> Here is what I have in /compat/linux/usr/X11R6/lib:
> lrwx------ 1 root wheel 13 Oct 14 1999 ···········@ ->
libXmu.so.6.0
...
> Don't forget to run /compat/linux/sbin/ldconfig after installing libs.
Great! It works now.
Thanks to all.
Back to lisp now
Marc Battyani
Marc Battyani wrote:
>
> I'm switching from NT to an open source unix.
>
> What are the pros and cons of Linux vs FreeBSD for writing web ASP
> applications (Application Service Provider, not the MS stuff!)
> I will use apache, XEmacs and LW or ACL. All this work under Linux and
> FreeBSD. (ok, I still have some Motif shared library pb with LW but it
> should work.)
> I also have to choose an SQL database and a SQL/Lisp interface.
>
> It's a server so I don't need all the desktop goodies of linux.
> So far I'm favoring FreeBSD but I installed both.
>
> So linux or FreeBSD?
Well, I'd go with Linux because you can get Oracle for it, and last time
I checked, IBEX was working on porting ITASCA.
I'm not surprised there's no LW for Linux/Alpha, but no Oracle either??
It sucks to be stuck with x86-64 or Itanic for 64-bit Beowulfs (even if
it's not an FP app).
--
Fernando D. Mato Mira Phone : +41 (78) 778 FDMM
E-mail : matomira AT acm DOT org
"Fernando D. Mato Mira" <········@iname.com> writes:
>Marc Battyani wrote:
>>
>> I'm switching from NT to an open source unix.
>>
>> What are the pros and cons of Linux vs FreeBSD for writing web ASP
>> applications (Application Service Provider, not the MS stuff!)
>> I will use apache, XEmacs and LW or ACL. All this work under Linux and
>> FreeBSD. (ok, I still have some Motif shared library pb with LW but it
>> should work.)
>> I also have to choose an SQL database and a SQL/Lisp interface.
>>
>> It's a server so I don't need all the desktop goodies of linux.
>> So far I'm favoring FreeBSD but I installed both.
>>
>> So linux or FreeBSD?
>Well, I'd go with Linux because you can get Oracle for it, and last time
>I checked, IBEX was working on porting ITASCA.
The Linux version of Oracle works on FreeBSD.
I'm a big fan of FreeBSD. General Unix vs. Unix advocacy is besides
the point. You can see my FreeBSD opinion on my homepage:
http://www.cons.org/cracauer/freebsd.html
Relevant to Lisp is that CMUCL on Linux had a lot of problems with
Linux in the past, whereas the FreeBSD front was quiet:
- aout -> elf: FreeBSD' move was very smooth.
- *.rpm vs *.deb: New versions of CMUCL are *.deb. Linux users
prefer to get an outdated version as *.rpm unless they are on
Debian. Bad idea. Party outdated ftp servers add to the problem,
not to speak of ftp servers who prefer to mirror *.rpm over *.deb.
Bad idea.
- gibc5 -> 6. Major changes.
- glibc-2.0 -> glibc-2.1, setfpfw. Setting the FPU cw is a single
assembler instruction on i386, it's just stupid to make it a
function in a shared library. FreeBSD always had a macro, no
further binary compat issues.
- Implementing a switch to turn overcommit memory off. Good idea.
Make it default without announcing it properly. Bad idea. Don't
emit a clean error message, let the application do it. Worse idea.
- Kernels from Redhat and S.u.s.e. are quite different from standard
kernels. Even when you ask a person what distribution he is
running, you don't know whether he is running a stock kernel.
Just ask deja.com for "linux cmucl", you'll get the idea.
>I'm not surprised there's no LW for Linux/Alpha, but no Oracle either??
>It sucks to be stuck with x86-64 or Itanic for 64-bit Beowulfs (even if
>it's not an FP app).
Being on Alpha is not enough. Is there any Alpha Lisp implementation
that uses more than 32 bits for pointers? CMUCL at least doesn't.
Martin
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin Cracauer <········@bik-gmbh.de> http://www.bik-gmbh.de/~cracauer/
FreeBSD - where you want to go. Today. http://www.freebsd.org/
"Martin Cracauer" <········@counter.bik-gmbh.de> wrote in message
··················@counter.bik-gmbh.de...
> The Linux version of Oracle works on FreeBSD.
> I'm a big fan of FreeBSD. General Unix vs. Unix advocacy is besides
> the point. You can see my FreeBSD opinion on my homepage:
> http://www.cons.org/cracauer/freebsd.html
I read it. It reinforce my feeling that FreeBSD is the OS to go for server
application.
My only trouble so far with FreeBSD is that the linux LispWorks fail to find
the correct motif libraries.
I installed several openmotif and lesstif packages but it's still not
working. Do you know an URL that explain where the linux apps try to find
their libraries?
Thanks
Marc Battyani
"Marc Battyani" <·············@fractalconcept.com> writes:
>"Martin Cracauer" <········@counter.bik-gmbh.de> wrote in message
>··················@counter.bik-gmbh.de...
>> The Linux version of Oracle works on FreeBSD.
>> I'm a big fan of FreeBSD. General Unix vs. Unix advocacy is besides
>> the point. You can see my FreeBSD opinion on my homepage:
>> http://www.cons.org/cracauer/freebsd.html
>I read it. It reinforce my feeling that FreeBSD is the OS to go for server
>application.
>My only trouble so far with FreeBSD is that the linux LispWorks fail to find
>the correct motif libraries.
>I installed several openmotif and lesstif packages but it's still not
>working. Do you know an URL that explain where the linux apps try to find
>their libraries?
See my other post for exact files. Of course, you need Linux shared
libs, installing FreeBSD native packages is not useful. The place
does not matter as long as it is where Linux's ldconfig looks for it.
Martin
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin Cracauer <········@bik-gmbh.de> http://www.bik-gmbh.de/~cracauer/
FreeBSD - where you want to go. Today. http://www.freebsd.org/
Martin Cracauer wrote:
> The Linux version of Oracle works on FreeBSD.
Is it supported? I don't even know if you'd qualify for support
if you bought ACL or LW for Linux and ran it on SuSE, not RedHat.
Thanks,
--
Fernando D. Mato Mira Phone : +41 (78) 778 FDMM
E-mail : matomira AT acm DOT org
"Fernando D. Mato Mira" <········@iname.com> writes:
> Martin Cracauer wrote:
>
> > The Linux version of Oracle works on FreeBSD.
>
> Is it supported? I don't even know if you'd qualify for support
> if you bought ACL or LW for Linux and ran it on SuSE, not RedHat.
I'm running Lispworks under Debian (somewhat between 2.1 and 2.2) and
it worked just fine. Before I bought it I run the Personal version to
check it it will work. So long it's quite ok, so dunno if there are so
much distribution dependencies. BTW if Linux than Debian ;-)
Regards
Friedrich
--
for e-mail reply remove all after .com
"Fernando D. Mato Mira" <········@iname.com> writes:
>Martin Cracauer wrote:
>> The Linux version of Oracle works on FreeBSD.
>Is it supported?
No. It works from a technical standpoint :-)
Martin
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin Cracauer <········@bik-gmbh.de> http://www.bik-gmbh.de/~cracauer/
FreeBSD - where you want to go. Today. http://www.freebsd.org/
Martin Cracauer wrote:
>
> "Fernando D. Mato Mira" <········@iname.com> writes:
>
> >Martin Cracauer wrote:
>
> >> The Linux version of Oracle works on FreeBSD.
>
> >Is it supported?
>
> No. It works from a technical standpoint :-)
Does it work on OpenBSD too? If the priority is minimizing
_security_ risks it might be acceptable if it appears trouble-free..
--
Fernando D. Mato Mira Phone : +41 (78) 778 FDMM
E-mail : matomira AT acm DOT org
"Fernando D. Mato Mira" <········@iname.com> writes:
>Martin Cracauer wrote:
>>
>> "Fernando D. Mato Mira" <········@iname.com> writes:
>>
>> >Martin Cracauer wrote:
>>
>> >> The Linux version of Oracle works on FreeBSD.
>>
>> >Is it supported?
>>
>> No. It works from a technical standpoint :-)
>Does it work on OpenBSD too? If the priority is minimizing
>_security_ risks it might be acceptable if it appears trouble-free..
The OpenBSD list archive say yes, also see
http://www.schmolze.com/openbsd/oracle. You need 2.7 + patches.
I don't like OpenBSD for other reasons, find some of their security
claims over other BSDs questionable and hence my recommendation for
FreeBSD does not extend to OpenBSD.
Martin
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin Cracauer <········@bik-gmbh.de> http://www.bik-gmbh.de/~cracauer/
FreeBSD - where you want to go. Today. http://www.freebsd.org/
Martin Cracauer wrote:
> I don't like OpenBSD for other reasons
I'd like to know why. I'm not keen on FreeBSD because it's "a PC thing"
Thanks,
--
Fernando D. Mato Mira Phone : +41 (78) 778 FDMM
E-mail : matomira AT acm DOT org
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 11:09:37 GMT, Fernando D. Mato Mira <········@iname.com> wrote:
>Martin Cracauer wrote:
>
>> I don't like OpenBSD for other reasons
>
>I'd like to know why. I'm not keen on FreeBSD because it's "a PC thing"
You should take a look at NetBSD. I remember when the OpenBSD fork
happened (it was a fork from the NetBSD sources). The person initiating
the fork was Theo de Raadt. I can't comment on his technical abilities,
but at the time of the fork he seemed bitter. He made claims that
couldn't be substantiated about the NetBSD sources and about their
supposed security holes. He attacked people on the NetBSD team in
public forums. Generally, he behaved in a way that didn't lead me to
have much faith in the OpenBSD.
It seemed like his primary objection at the time was that it was too
difficult to get sources included in NetBSD. He indicated that there
were too many hurdles to hop. He wanted to ease the restrictions on
new source entering the project. This seemed to conflict with his
stated goals of making OpenBSD more secure than NetBSD.
I tried looking up some of Theo's old posts on Deja, but his email
seems to have changed a couple of times since then. If anyone knows
what it was back during the split, please post it. A quick look at his
own words would clarify my statements I'm sure.
Again, technically he may be brilliant. We all know people like that.
--
Kenneth P. Turvey <······@SprocketShop.com>
--------------------------------------------------------
In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one
of the risks he takes.
-- Adlai Stevenson
>>>>> "Kenneth" == Kenneth P Turvey <······@SprocketShop.com> writes:
Kenneth> You should take a look at NetBSD. I remember when the
Kenneth> OpenBSD fork happened (it was a fork from the NetBSD
Kenneth> sources).
To be honest, while I like NetBSD and Slackware Linux a lot, OpenBSD
gives me a warm fuzzy as far as network security goes. I've been
cracked twice now on what I thought (wrongly) were up-to-date Linux
systems, and ever since I've switched over to OpenBSD, even though
I've been under somewhat constant probing since the last break-in,
nobody's made it in, yet. This is a good thing. :)
Too bad OpenBSD lags behind on driver and feature support. It's a
solid, stable distribution, but on my favorite architecture (alpha) it
is about three years behind (e.g. no ELF or shared libs, no floppy
driver, no LFS like in NetBSD, lots of bitrot, etc.). I need to learn
how to write device drivers, is what I need to do, instead of whine
off-topic on comp.lang.lisp. :)
BTW: When is CMUCL going to support more than just Digital UNIX on the
Alpha? I looked at SBCL, but I don't know what I'm doing when it
comes to CMUCL's internals (heh, and everybody at work thinks I'm some
kind of elite hacker). Oh well. I wish I had more of a clue. :(
--
"Hello," he lied.
-- Don Carpenter, quoting a Hollywood agent
>>>>> "XF" == Xenophon Fenderson the Carbon(d)ated <········@irtnog.org> writes:
XF> BTW: When is CMUCL going to support more than just Digital UNIX on the
XF> Alpha? I looked at SBCL, but I don't know what I'm doing when it
When someone with a need of CMUCL on something more than Digital UNIX
on Alpha has the time and desire to make it happen?
Like all open software stuff, things happen when someone wants it to
happen.
Ray
········@irtnog.org (Xenophon Fenderson the Carbon(d)ated) writes:
>BTW: When is CMUCL going to support more than just Digital UNIX on the
>Alpha? I looked at SBCL, but I don't know what I'm doing when it
>comes to CMUCL's internals (heh, and everybody at work thinks I'm some
>kind of elite hacker). Oh well. I wish I had more of a clue. :(
*BSD and Linux ports for Sparc and alpha are on my personal TODO list,
it doesn't look like I can get around it until winter, though.
Unless I'm mistaken, SBCL narrows - not widens - the number of
platforms compared to CMUCL.
Martin
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin Cracauer <········@bik-gmbh.de> http://www.bik-gmbh.de/~cracauer/
FreeBSD - where you want to go. Today. http://www.freebsd.org/
········@counter.bik-gmbh.de (Martin Cracauer) writes:
> ········@irtnog.org (Xenophon Fenderson the Carbon(d)ated) writes:
>
> >BTW: When is CMUCL going to support more than just Digital UNIX on the
> >Alpha? I looked at SBCL, but I don't know what I'm doing when it
> >comes to CMUCL's internals (heh, and everybody at work thinks I'm some
> >kind of elite hacker). Oh well. I wish I had more of a clue. :(
>
> *BSD and Linux ports for Sparc and alpha are on my personal TODO list,
> it doesn't look like I can get around it until winter, though.
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, SBCL narrows - not widens - the number of
> platforms compared to CMUCL.
This is true, but:
- SBCL is currently running on Linux-x86, FreeBSD-x86 and
OpenBSD-x86.
- A port to Linux-alpha is underway.
- Most of the support code for other platforms is still
present in SBCL (in more-or-less modified form).
- Building SBCL is as simple as typing "./make.sh" in the
top-level directory of the SBCL source tree. This is to me the single
most important reason to "prefer" SBCL over CMUCL.
--
Raymond Wiker
·············@fast.no
>>>>> "Martin" == Martin Cracauer <········@counter.bik-gmbh.de> writes:
Martin> *BSD and Linux ports for Sparc and alpha are on my
Martin> personal TODO list, it doesn't look like I can get around
Martin> it until winter, though.
Cool, and please (!!!) let me know how I can help. Learning the
internals and the compiler is worth the effort; I just don't know
where to start.
--
UN-altered reproduction and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT information is
ENCOURAGED
······@SprocketShop.com (Kenneth P. Turvey) writes:
>On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 11:09:37 GMT, Fernando D. Mato Mira <········@iname.com> wrote:
>>Martin Cracauer wrote:
>>
>>> I don't like OpenBSD for other reasons
>>
>>I'd like to know why. I'm not keen on FreeBSD because it's "a PC thing"
>You should take a look at NetBSD. I remember when the OpenBSD fork
>happened (it was a fork from the NetBSD sources). The person initiating
>the fork was Theo de Raadt. I can't comment on his technical abilities,
>but at the time of the fork he seemed bitter. He made claims that
>couldn't be substantiated about the NetBSD sources and about their
>supposed security holes. He attacked people on the NetBSD team in
>public forums. Generally, he behaved in a way that didn't lead me to
>have much faith in the OpenBSD.
That normal in the free software world and Theo is even more like
that. The important thing is that OpenBSD currently holds its
critical mass of contributors, rough manners or not.
>It seemed like his primary objection at the time was that it was too
>difficult to get sources included in NetBSD. He indicated that there
>were too many hurdles to hop. He wanted to ease the restrictions on
>new source entering the project. This seemed to conflict with his
>stated goals of making OpenBSD more secure than NetBSD.
See my other posts, I wouldn't like to see many of the OpenBSD patches
in my OS as well and NetBSD is even more conservative than FreeBSD.
>I tried looking up some of Theo's old posts on Deja, but his email
>seems to have changed a couple of times since then. If anyone knows
>what it was back during the split, please post it. A quick look at his
>own words would clarify my statements I'm sure.
deja.com doesn't have the old archives online anymore.
The discussions that lead to the split are clearly not useful to
choose your OS. If you want a BSD that develops on many fronts
simultaneously, FreeBSD is the only option. If you are happy with
what NetBSD or OpenBSD shine in, they are both choosable at this
point in time.
Martin
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin Cracauer <········@bik-gmbh.de> http://www.bik-gmbh.de/~cracauer/
FreeBSD - where you want to go. Today. http://www.freebsd.org/
On 5 Sep 2000 10:41:59 +0200,
Martin Cracauer <········@counter.bik-gmbh.de> wrote:
[Snip]
>>I tried looking up some of Theo's old posts on Deja, but his email
>>seems to have changed a couple of times since then. If anyone knows
>>what it was back during the split, please post it. A quick look at his
>>own words would clarify my statements I'm sure.
>
>deja.com doesn't have the old archives online anymore.
I didn't know that..
>The discussions that lead to the split are clearly not useful to
>choose your OS.
Possibly not, but since Theo still manages the development in much the
same way that Linus does for the Linux community this might give you
some insight into his motivations.
>If you want a BSD that develops on many fronts
>simultaneously, FreeBSD is the only option. If you are happy with
>what NetBSD or OpenBSD shine in, they are both choosable at this
>point in time.
Don't NetBSD and OpenBSD both support more platforms than FreeBSD? This
could also be a deciding factor. It has been a while since I ran NetBSD
but as I recall it could also use FreeBSD packages on platforms that it
supported (as well as Linux, SCO, and a few others). Is this still the
case? I'm not a NetBSD advocate, but I don't seem to hear much about it
and it was a good platform not too many years ago.
--
Kenneth P. Turvey <······@SprocketShop.com>
--------------------------------------------------------
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for
a few public officials.
-- George Mason, Virginia ratification convention 1788
······@SprocketShop.com (Kenneth P. Turvey) writes:
> [..] I'm not a NetBSD advocate, but I don't seem to hear much about
> it and it was a good platform not too many years ago.
To me, NetBSD is quite clearly the best Unix platform out there, and
it's still being very actively maintained and developed. The only
(rather major) annoyance is that Franz doesn't support NetBSD, so I
still have to keep one FreeBSD box around for ACL.
--
Frode Vatvedt Fjeld
"Fernando D. Mato Mira" <········@iname.com> writes:
>Martin Cracauer wrote:
>> I don't like OpenBSD for other reasons
>I'd like to know why. I'm not keen on FreeBSD because it's "a PC thing"
Well, FreeBSD is i386 + Alpha (not that this says anything about the
overall quality of the OS).
I don't like OpenBSD because they have a tendency to solve problems
with a big hammer, i.e. replacing tools like sh and tar with
less-tested alternatives, thereby loosing all the bug reports that
went in from years of heavy use (the new tools weren't used that
heavily because they were not part of a widely-distributed OS).
FreeBSD instead fixes things. OpenBSD takes many performance hits for
their security updates, even unneeded ones. I.e., they replace every
occurance of sprintf with snprintf, even when you can proove that the
buffer cannot overrun (they do that so that (sprintf doesn't show up
in grep) and they zero buffers in many situations were
the code in questions is also being used in non-security related
places. FreeBSD would instead choose to add an interface feature to
turn zeroing on or off. All proven security-related features are
copied by FreeBSD and NetBSD.
Also, OpenBSD is behind the other BSDs with regards to drivers for
modern/high-end hardware, the VM system, CAM, SMP and emulations of
other OSes - a result of limited manpower.
Having said this, OpenBSD is clearly a living OS and people
expectations that it wouldn't survive its first year were wrong.
However, for me it's clear the FreeBSD is the best free Unix around.
Outstanding features for my Lisp work are the quality of its Linux
emulation (i.e. for Lispworks) and the speed of the VM system (my
laptop wouldn't be happy to run CMUCL otherwise).
Martin
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin Cracauer <········@bik-gmbh.de> http://www.bik-gmbh.de/~cracauer/
FreeBSD - where you want to go. Today. http://www.freebsd.org/
"Fernando D. Mato Mira" wrote:
> I'm not surprised there's no LW for Linux/Alpha, but no Oracle either??
> It sucks to be stuck with x86-64 or Itanic for 64-bit Beowulfs (even if
> it's not an FP app).
Yellow Dog Linux + DB2 + Power4. Wow.
--
Fernando D. Mato Mira Phone : +41 (78) 778 FDMM
E-mail : matomira AT acm DOT org