Umm, One other major difference. SYSV uses STREAMS. Yeah, all that other
stuff is cosmetic. BSD was the first to implement IP in the kernel (as
well as ethernet). SYSV came up with STREAMS as the way to not be trapped
into IP.
--
-Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana. Stranger things have -
-happened but none stranger than this. Does your driver's license say Organ
-Donor?Black holes are where God divided by zero. Listen to me! We are all-
-individuals! What if this weren't a hypothetical question? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Selim Jahangir wrote:
=>charset="iso-8859-1"
=>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=>
=>Dear sir
=>Thank u so much for very good explanation of BSD & SysV . I am really very
=>much happy with write up. It is really a great write up.
=>
=>Thank u very very much.
=>Selim
=>
=>
=>----- Original Message -----
=>From: "Michael R. Jinks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
=>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
=>Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 1:06 AM
=>Subject: Re: BSD & SysV
=>
=>
=>> On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 01:39:15PM +0600, Selim Jahangir wrote:
=>>
=>> > what is the fundamental diff between BSD and SysV unix ?
=>>
=>> I'm not really qualified to answer this but it looked as though nobody
=>else
=>> has mailed the list about it so I'll have a go.
=>>
=>> The _fundamental_ difference is historical. For a long time during the
=>70's
=>> and 80's AT&T allowed third parties to write their own versions of Unix,
=>and
=>> one version that caught on was written at the University of California at
=>> Berkeley, hence "BSD" for Berkeley Software Distribution. System V was
=>the
=>> last in-house AT&T version (which actually incorporated a lot of features
=>of
=>> BSD Unix and previous AT&T-derived versions).
=>>
=>> Both BSD and AT&T/System V Unix spawned a lot of offshoots, and inspired
=>> a lot of imitation in Unix-like OS's which weren't direct offshoots.
=>Sun's
=>> "SunOS" was a BSD offshoot up through the 4.0 series, but at 5.0 they
=>rewrote
=>> it extensively, incorporated a lot of "SysV'isms", and started calling it
=>> "Solaris". They still make a lot of the BSD-style commands available
=>under
=>> their /usr/ucb directory (ucb == "University of California, Berkeley").
=>>
=>> AIX is a completely independent, from-scratch rewrite of a Unix-like OS,
=>but
=>> it usually gets classed in the System V family because it has more in
=>common
=>> with SysV than with BSD.
=>>
=>> IRIX has some AT&T code in it, but also exhibits some BSD-style behaviors
=>> (though I'd be hard pressed to come up with examples off the top of my
=>head).
=>>
=>> Linux tries to be a sensible hybrid of both systems, to the delight of
=>some
=>> and the frustration of others, but the real lesson I get from it is that
=>the
=>> BSD/SysV distinction is really only useful in a historical context; as
=>Linux
=>> demonstrates, you can mix and match where appropriate.
=>>
=>> The most obvious differences in style have to do with the way each system
=>> handles initialization and service control during runtime. Under BSD,
=>there
=>> are a few files under /etc which list the services to run at boot time,
=>and
=>> that's about it; there is no such notion as a "runlevel", although I think
=>> that BSD does have a "single user" mode for system maintenance.
=>>
=>> Under System V, things get a little more complex (and, in my opinion, more
=>> elegant). Most of the system services have their own script
=>(traditionally
=>> stored in /etc/init.d/ or in RedHat under /etc/rc.d/init.d/) which
=>controls
=>> how that service is started and stopped. SysV also has the notion of
=>> runlevels, different system states which are defined by the list of
=>services
=>> that the system runs in each given state. The precise behavior of each
=>> runlevel varies a lot among systems, and can be extensively customized by
=>> the system administrator. (man init for the details on how it all works.)
=>>
=>> There are a lot of differences deeper down as well, but the distinction
=>starts
=>> to get a little blurry. Most SysV-style systems use Berkeley-style
=>network
=>> sockets, for example. Printing could be SysV or BSD or both. And many
=>common
=>> commands will have different behaviors; an obvious example is the "ps"
=>command.
=>> Historically "ps" took different arguments and displayed completely
=>different
=>> behavior under BSD vs. SysV, and each camp thought their ps was the
=>superior
=>> implementation. Modern Red Hat systems come with a ps that merges the
=>two:
=>> run "ps -[options]" and you get SysV behavior; run "ps [options]" (no
=>dash) and
=>> you get BSD behavior. Again, the manpage explains the details.
=>>
=>> Well I had to leave this for a couple of hours, and by now somebody has
=>> probably handled this better so I'll stop. Hope this helps somehow.
=>>
=>> -m
=>>
=>> --
=>> Michael Jinks, IB
=>> Systems Administrator, CCCP
=>> finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for public key
=>> Vote Duke! http://www.entertaindom.com/pages/duke2000/home.jsp
=>>
=>>
=>>
=>> _______________________________________________
=>> Redhat-list mailing list
=>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=>> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
=>>
=>
=>
=>
=>
=>--__--__--
=>
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
