FreeBSD

I believe that you have to recompile the freebsd kernel as well, and that instead of the interface you get for configuring the linux kernel, there is a text file you edit to configure. Although I guess it depends on what you do with your system as to whether or not you have to recompile your kernel. It is fairly well designed as for being a *nix, the ports tree is in a predictable order, and their packaging system is fairly easy to use. If you are annoyed with linux, it would be worth a try.

Oh man. I need to write a new unix. But I will still try FreeBSD.

Most users don''t need to recompile their linux kernel... bsd is the same way...

---------------------------------------------------
laziness is the foundation of efficiency
retrospiral.net | llamas! | megatokyo | gamedev.net | google

I don''t think this OS you speak of exists...

---------------------------------------------------
laziness is the foundation of efficiency
retrospiral.net | llamas! | megatokyo | gamedev.net | google

I''d have to say that writing "Kernel Level code" would require that you do a kernel recompile, and that the recompile will not be simple.

quote:

---

Original post by zer0wolf
I don't think this OS you speak of exists...

---

Microkernel architecture, like Mach (which, incidentally, is what Darwin is based on - BSD + Mach microkernel).

Of course, our friend Witchcraven doesn't understand what he's saying:

quote:

---

Original post by Witchcraven

---

Yeah, but in a good OS you should never have to. I am big on the quality of the design of OSes. Because I like to code at the kernel level.

---

What are you writing, a device driver? For application programming, there is never any reason to write ring0 code under Unix. But of course you knew that...

quote:

---

An OS should be easy to recompile, but never should it have to be. Ideally, you should be able to make any changes you want with "plugins", or whatever you want to call them. There is one I like at uuu.sf.net, but its not unix.

---

Some changes are more fundamental. Take Windows, for instance. Between 95, p95b, 98, 98SE, 2000 and XP, do you think the kernel hasn't been recompiled? For fundamental changes to system architecture - fundamental extensions and the like - there's no getting around recompiling a kernel. Griping against that in an open source OS indicates that you don't understand either open source or operating systems.

Just ask for help instead of coming off as a lame poseur.

[Edit: Formatting.]

[edited by - Oluseyi on November 20, 2003 9:57:01 PM]

I think you only have to recompile your kernel if something is fuxx0rred. Anyway, I use this OS called Windows XP. The installation is really easy, and you never have to recompile the kernel.

___________________________________________________________
Proceeding on a brutal rampage is the obvious choice.

Ah, but I do know what I am talking about. Writing kernels is a particular interest of mine. And your right, the OS I speak of does not exists as far as I know. uuu is close though.

And you can modify the fundamental arch of an OS without recompiling (there are some lesser known ones that allow this. I dont appriciate the poseur thing.

EDIT: Gah, messed up one of my posts. So here are both.

[edited by - witchcraven on November 20, 2003 10:34:40 PM]

[edited by - witchcraven on November 20, 2003 10:39:55 PM]

I use NetBSD on my Sun SPARCstation 4 server and it runs pretty stable. Recompiling is probably not necessary if you don’t have a low-end system.

The package system is very handy too.

quote:

---

Original post by Witchcraven
Ah, but I do know what I am talking about. Writing kernels is a particular interest of mine. And your right, the OS I speak of does not exists as far as I know. uuu is close though.

And you can modify the fundamental arch of an OS without recompiling (there are some lesser known ones that allow this. I dont appriciate the poseur thing.

EDIT: Gah, messed up one of my posts. So here are both.

[edited by - witchcraven on November 20, 2003 10:34:40 PM]

[edited by - witchcraven on November 20, 2003 10:39:55 PM]

---

Then it may not have been the best idea to open the discussion with an "I hate linux because I''ve been using it for 20 minutes" attitude. Linux is easier than BSD in terms of use but not necessarily in terms of setup or maintainence. There''s a reason why they say GNU''s Not Unix. There are only certain situations where you ever need a kernel recompile in both OS''es. FreeBSD will, however let you configure your kernel in the initial setup program which is pretty neat. What distro have you been using? How long? And also this will be of great use to you in your pursuit of *nix knowledge FreeBSD handbook and The Linux Documentation project

I have been using redhat since version 5.2 I think (maybe 3.2), or something like that. So years. I am quite good with it. For a while I liked it. Until I tried using OS X and Windows XP. It really put linux into perspective. I got tons more done on OS X and XP than linux. In linux everything is a fight, especially if you have odd hardware. The good thing about linux is once you get it stable it stays that way unless you change something. But I generally have to a lot because of the nature of my work.

Um... macs don''t really give you the option to have odd hardware and if something doesn''t work, it turns into a hell of a battle too; especially since the system doesn''t exactly offer a whole lot of control- ex: add a cheap modem or soundcard to a mac and you''ll fully understand what I''m saying. Windows can be worse because as newer versions appear, there have been an increasing lack of support for old hardware. I personally find linux easier to work with on a weird system because there is a million right ways to do something and older hardware support is superb- of course there are those moments when things just don''t work. All I can say is make sure your hardware is supported for any OS you choose. Also the latest Mandrakes have been fanfreakingtastic at autodetecting and configuring hardware. Redhat had always been a pain for me. Dunno why. I use slack as my preferred anyways. FreeBSD will usually detect and configure your parts in the kernel but I havent used it for more than a basic workstation with a DVD player so I don''t know about printers, jumpdrives, scanners etc.