[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       netbsd-users
Subject:    Re: Learning the UNIX Operating System - NetBSD Edition
From:       Marina Brown <marina () e271 ! net>
Date:       2015-12-29 15:47:24
Message-ID: 5682AB0C.9030006 () e271 ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

On 12/27/2015 11:50 PM, Joseph wrote:
> Thanks for all your recommendations!
> 
> Let's see them in detail:
> 
> 1. Live CDs (I refer to LiveUSBs and DVDs as live CDs as well, later on)
> 
> @mike (without capitalization) recommended Frenzy  which might be totally OK for my \
> purposes, it is just happened to be discontinued for many years and I prefer - if \
> possible - current themes, for just the heck of it, why not? In the Linux world \
> it's quite easy to have live CDs, almost everything Linux comes as a live CD these \
> days. Strangely, it's almost the opposite with BSD Unix. I dug the net and the \
> mailing list archives and was not able to find any current, widely used, accepted, \
> and respected live variant of any of the 3 major BSDs. A live system might come as \
> a handy tool. 
> @Joachim recommended the Jibbed live CD, which actually looks good, except in a few \
> year old, but still most recent topic on it in this very list it was not really \
> recommended, actually for a very similar, learning situation. Even the NetBSD site \
> does not link to it, does not mention it as at least being tolerated. I could use \
> it without problem, nonetheless; just sayin' 
> So, why no (official) love for live CDs from the BSDs?
> 
> In searching for Unix-like live CDs (not necessarily a BSD, let's try different \
> flavors as I'm learning Unix, why not?), I came across OpenIndiana, which comes as \
> a live CD by default, but I was unable to make a bootable media from Windows (never \
> had such problems with any Linux live CD). 
> I also found Minix, which might be interesting later on, as an OS designed for \
> learning, serious learning, but I'm not there yet. It also dropped the live CD \
> option from the latest version for security purposes, though I also tried to make \
> bootable media from the earlier version, without success. 
> @Clark: Thank you for the best recommendation, the SDF Public Access UNIX System - \
> I didn't know about it! As I am lazy, and given the situation with the live CDs \
> described above, I probably will just use the SDF for the time being. 
> Extra thanks for the Unix Haters handbook download link and recommendation; this \
> looks like a fun read for winter evenings. 
> @Marina: all the guys 'got' my question, with respect, you may totally misread my \
> original question, by both of your answers. 
> In your 1st mail you recommended me to
> a) install BSD
> b) as a virtual system.
> 
> I may assume, you may made some assumptions but did not put them in writing, hence \
> I'm not getting your point. 
> a) We (the list, altogether) concluded before (see my 1st mail in the thread) that \
> at this point I may not want to install anything, just run a Unix OS (as the NetBSD \
> manual starts with, it's not for newbies to start from scratch) 
> b) Virtual system? It depends:
> - If you have one, very powerful machine, then yes, you may consider installing \
>                 something virtual on it
> - On the other hand, if you have, say, three, medium or less powerful machines \
> spare, why install any OS as a virtual machine, why not just install any OS \
> natively on one of your boxes? 

Well - if you have a machine that is not even powerful enough to run
linux - say an old 386 that you found in a basement, you can run NetBSD
on it and start learning.

> I'd go for the second version as noted author of two BSD books (except for NetBSD), \
> Michael Lucas also suggests a native install as well - and most importantly, I \
> agree with him! He says virtualization might cause problems not present with \
> software run natively, why even start with that, if you don't have to? 
> Your 2st answer: you recommending me reading OS code in C - again, I think you made \
> some assumptions of my level of C knowledge (it's absolutely zero at this point; \
> but it's not required to just run the OS, as per my original question, right?). \
> Jumping from zero knowledge to reading OS source code might not be the most \
> effective 'introduction to C 101 course,' I guess. 

Sorry about the assumptions - the BSD crowd used have an assumption
about code as literature. BSD C code is perhaps the most readable c code
around. ...Though plan9 code is similar. Back in the day reading a bit
of code was part of learning an OS. The BSD's have a long history so it
is sometimes easy to forget that it is not the 80's here. Wow, how
did i get to be 50.

--- Marina

> Thanks for your contribution, though.
> 
> Merry Christmas to all!
> 


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]