6 ms·

NetBSD 10: Thirty years, still going strong

41 points by rodrigo975 3y ago

vermaden 3y ago
If - for some reason - FreeBSD would not be available - I would be running NetBSD. The things I miss in NetBSD (having them on FreeBSD) are: - ZFS Boot Environments with beadm(8) command. - Bhyve (I hope NVMM will get to similar level) - Jails - not sure NetBSD will bring any containers into the 'game' ... - Probably some other things that I missed because of not not running NetBSD daily. I heard WINE is not a 1st class NetBSD citizen - so that helps a lot here. IMHO (with my limited NetBSD experience) seems to look bright ... and I wish NetBSD and NetBSD community all the best.
johnea 3y ago
Nice! What a great distribution! I'm often surprised that the corps didn't pick up the BSDs instead of linux. Given the massively more secret friendly licensing. The exception of course being apple, which forked BSD from NextSTEP.
- jaypatelani 3y ago
  https://debugpointnews.com/netbsd-uptime/?amp=1 https://debugpointnews.com/netbsd-uptime/?amp=1 Some still using BSDs
- krylon 3y ago
  I suspect the licensing played a role in it, actually. With Linux being GPL, no single vendor could - in theory at least - take the code and make a proprietary fork. It became a neutral ground, so to speak, where corporate contributors could cooperate. Plus the lawsuit from AT&T came at a critical time, and of course pure chance played into it as well - Linus has stated that he was unaware of the BSD projects when he started Linux, and that if he had known, he probably would not have bothered with writing his own kernel.
- fulafel 3y ago
  > I'm often surprised that the corps didn't pick up the BSDs instead of linux. If you look at the usage, you'll find that they did, but because of licensing differences, they mostly forked proprietary versions, and only occasionally contributed back.
- mulderc 3y ago
  Sony also uses BSD for the PlayStation 4 and 5 operating systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4_system_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4_system_software
- mrweasel 3y ago
  Apple also used NetBSD in (some?) of their AirPort devices: https://jcs.org/2018/06/12/airport_ssh https://jcs.org/2018/06/12/airport_ssh NetBSD is fun, but I don't really see the point of it. It just seems to live in the shadows, continuing to do it's thing, producing code and funky innovations, then disappear for years, but never pointing any developers in the spotlight. Debian of the BSD world.
- chungy 3y ago
  Netflix uses FreeBSD for their content servers. They're one of the major contributors to the FreeBSD project, focused particularly on network (eg: kernel-level TLS acceleration) and UFS subsystems.
- SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
  It is not a distribution.
  - unethical_ban 3y ago
    Even if you're right, you should explain your statement when you make it. Otherwise you bait people.
  - bch 3y ago
    It's literally in the name - BSD is "Berkeley software distribution". NetBSD (and Free, Open, Dragon Fly) ship kernels with original tooling and integrated 3rd party software, as a distribution.
    - SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
      Yes it is in the name, much like Federal Express. Not a distribution in a canonical meaning of the word. The idea of distributions is unique to Linux-based systems.
      - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
        > The idea of distributions is unique to Linux-based systems. That's not quite true; there are illumos distros.
      - BSDobelix 3y ago
        >The idea of distributions is unique to Linux-based systems. That's a Linux-distribution, and please stop with that nonsense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_distribution >>Examples of software distributions include BSD-based distros (such as FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and DragonflyBSD) and Linux-based distros (such as openSUSE, Debian, and Fedora).
        SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
        You should probably eventually try using one of BSD systems, you may like it.
- PAPPPmAc 3y ago
  Short answer: The legal situation in the early 90s made BSD unattractive right at the time where cheap microcomputers sufficient to host Unix-likes were proliferating, which allowed Linux to reach critical mass instead. Too much detail answer: In the 80s a lot of the commercial UNIX-likes were all or partly BSD derived, like DEC Ultrix, SunOS especially pre-Solaris, pieces of IBM/ISC's AIX, etc. and by the early 90s there were a bunch of BSD ports established or in progress for up-and-coming less expensive (..at least compared to minicomputers) workstations like HPBSD, SunOS, and the Tahoe system that fell through as the target for mainline 4.4BSD, and even commodity Microcomputers like 386BSD and BSD/386 once Intel offered a part with a usable MMU. At this point _everyone and their dog_ derived their networking stack from BSD, because it was the reference OSI TCP/IP design and all the networking parts were permissively licensed. Even the Windows networking stack is BSD derived. That's still a thing, the Nintendo 3DS and Switch's in-house OS has a network stack that is derived from FreeBSD (though the rest of the OS isn't). Then USL v. BSDi happened in 1992. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_Laboratories,_Inc._v._Berkeley_Software_Design,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_Laboratories,_Inc..... and made it unclear if the BSD platform was legally viable from 1992-1994. The delays from that are essentially why Linux started and proliferated. A few years later, MontaVista contributed a bunch of scalability work to Linux, and SGI and IBM who had recently bought Sequent contributed their even larger scaling and NUMA stuff to Linux as they bailed out of the Itanium Unix-brand-Unix Project Monterey (the later of which is what kicked off the SCO v. IBM lawsuit in 2003, but that was too late to kill inertia like the USL v. BSDi one did)... basically Linux got critical mass on features, vendor support, and hardware support by being in the right place at the right time and on relatively neutral ground relative to many long-standing divisions in the Unix world, and steamrolled the rest of the Unix market. There was also a bunch of the common problem for permissively licensed stuff happening, in that the core folks got hired away by proprietary derivatives and choked the upstream. In the 80s a bunch of the core BSD folks left for Sun and built partially-incompatible partially-proprietary SunOS that was then superseded by the SVR4 based Solaris (SVR4 was _highly_ cross-pollinated with BSD, Xenix, and SunOS parts). Then a bunch of BSD folks spun BSDi to make commercial and partially proprietary releases (with squabbling about what would be proprietary), and the Jolitzes had a series of companies and... Then the Berkley CSRG that was the center of gravity for the BSD world closed up in 1995 (they had been winding down for years before that), and the post-4.4BSD community projects (FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc.) proliferated, with the usual open source squabbling keeping them not-very-unified. As you note, the Next/Apple family has a lot of BSD code in it because the Mach folks at CMU derived most of their stack from BSD (and contributed back the BSD virtual memory system), and a lot of the people and code from that became the core of NeXTStep which became the core of OS X, and that lineage persists in nearly all of Apple's products and is occasionally re-synced with FreeBSD. You used to be able to get all the non-proprietary parts distributed as Darwin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system) , but Apple stopped doing that almost a decade ago and none of the forks have rooted. There _are_ quite a number of other BSD derived proprietary OSes floating around that often don't go out of their way to note their relationship. The Sony Playstation 3/4/5 system software are hacked up FreeBSD derivatives. Juniper Junos that runs on a lot of fancy routers is FreeBSD derived (though recent releases have been migrating to Linux). Force10 (now part of Dell) and some Ericsson routers run NetBSD derived stacks. Etc.
- p_l 3y ago
  The short story is that during dive very critical years BSDs had the spectre of AT&T lawsuit over them, plus x86 ports were less known or commercial. From my understanding this managed to get a critical mass for Linux on commodity hardware resulting in (real or perceived) situation where Linux had better chances of running well on what random enthusiast or cash strapped team might scrounge up from local used PC parts store compared to BSDs where existence of non-commercial port that doesn't require spending big money on used unix workstation. Later on there was less difference and more fashion (unless someone dug deep into optimization or why one or the other) but arguably BSDs were still pickier about hardware they ran on. And finally, I'd say around 2.6 kernel and NLPT, Linux actually was better for many in terms of performance - not to mention being stuff people were used to, with large software repositories, NAPI for high performance networking (at the same time OpenBSD would talk about how to physically swap your PCI NICs to make them share interrupts so interrupt on one would trigger driver receive queue for all of them), better known and corporate-tested commercial suppliers (RedHat, SuSE). For a time network heavy stuff and IPv6 favoured Free and NetBSD from my observations but that didn't last. Probably non trivial part is that those who evacuated from commercial unices to PCs were mostly moving from System V flavour after Sun switched from BSD base, so Linux systems being closer than BSD in behaviour and API might have impacted software porting (pure speculation on my part here). Meanwhile the only major commercial BSD based systems by late 1990s as people moved en masse to free unices on PCs was OSF/1, whose main incarnations in a larger number were Digital Unix aka Tru64 and NEXT STEP/OpenSTEP/MacOS X with all kinds of fun stuff like their BSDisms being older than FreeBSD forking out of BSD
jonatron 3y ago
Should this be [future video]?
- dang 3y ago
  Yup. Our software added that bit. I've taken it out now.
chungy 3y ago
I would like to know from anyone that runs NetBSD, a simple question: why? Any and all answers appreciated, but for a very long time, I've boxed NetBSD into a corner of "extreme portability" without much else to hold it as practical. FreeBSD is great for all around general purpose desktops and servers, OpenBSD is great for the network edge, and NetBSD... I guess you can run on your Dreamcast.
- musicale 3y ago
  NetBSD seems to have more mature support for non-x86 architectures and also tends to run on old and arcane hardware. It also just feels like classic BSD Unix, for better or for worse. Personally I find NetBSD's pkgsrc package system to be very useful as well since it is portable to other OSes (including macOS and Linux) and doesn't require root access to install or use.
- snvzz 3y ago
  Because it works well on the Amiga. Linux used to be the best option, but it got extremely slow, and recently even retired PCMCIA support, which is how most A1200 users access ethernet or wifi networks. Whereas Openbsd dropped m68k support ages ago.
- mrweasel 3y ago
  The portability is weird, NetBSD has 11 tier 1 platforms, OpenBSD has 14. NetBSD has a really impressive list of tier 2 platforms, but how usable are they?
  - chungy 3y ago
    Admittedly, I hadn't looked recently, but that values does seem flipped around from how I remember it (then again, tier 1 was probably always a lot more minimal than tier 2). For comparison, FreeBSD has just two tier 1 platforms: https://www.freebsd.org/platforms/ https://www.freebsd.org/platforms/ OpenBSD has 14, as you mentioned: https://www.openbsd.org/plat.html https://www.openbsd.org/plat.html NetBSD, I count 9: https://wiki.netbsd.org/ports/ https://wiki.netbsd.org/ports/ FreeBSD has an additional 14 platforms in tier 2 or 3 support (counting FreeBSD 13; 8 platforms counting only FreeBSD 14), OpenBSD has no non-tier1 platforms, and NetBSD has too many to count, but it's notable that most of them are updated to the current release.
dang 3y ago
It's probably best to wait until the event has happened and then people can watch the talk as well. In the meantime, recent and related: FOSDEM 2024 Schedule - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38694390 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38694390 - Dec 2023 (76 comments)

41 points by rodrigo975 3y ago

If - for some reason - FreeBSD would not be available - I would be running NetBSD. The things I miss in NetBSD (having them on FreeBSD) are: - ZFS Boot Environments with beadm(8) command. - Bhyve (I hope NVMM will get to similar level) - Jails - not sure NetBSD will bring any containers into the 'game' ... - Probably some other things that I missed because of not not running NetBSD daily. I heard WINE is not a 1st class NetBSD citizen - so that helps a lot here. IMHO (with my limited NetBSD experience) seems to look bright ... and I wish NetBSD and NetBSD community all the best.

johnea 3y ago

Nice! What a great distribution! I'm often surprised that the corps didn't pick up the BSDs instead of linux. Given the massively more secret friendly licensing. The exception of course being apple, which forked BSD from NextSTEP.

jaypatelani 3y ago
https://debugpointnews.com/netbsd-uptime/?amp=1 https://debugpointnews.com/netbsd-uptime/?amp=1 Some still using BSDs
krylon 3y ago
I suspect the licensing played a role in it, actually. With Linux being GPL, no single vendor could - in theory at least - take the code and make a proprietary fork. It became a neutral ground, so to speak, where corporate contributors could cooperate. Plus the lawsuit from AT&T came at a critical time, and of course pure chance played into it as well - Linus has stated that he was unaware of the BSD projects when he started Linux, and that if he had known, he probably would not have bothered with writing his own kernel.
fulafel 3y ago
> I'm often surprised that the corps didn't pick up the BSDs instead of linux. If you look at the usage, you'll find that they did, but because of licensing differences, they mostly forked proprietary versions, and only occasionally contributed back.
mulderc 3y ago
Sony also uses BSD for the PlayStation 4 and 5 operating systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4_system_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4_system_software
mrweasel 3y ago
Apple also used NetBSD in (some?) of their AirPort devices: https://jcs.org/2018/06/12/airport_ssh https://jcs.org/2018/06/12/airport_ssh NetBSD is fun, but I don't really see the point of it. It just seems to live in the shadows, continuing to do it's thing, producing code and funky innovations, then disappear for years, but never pointing any developers in the spotlight. Debian of the BSD world.
chungy 3y ago
Netflix uses FreeBSD for their content servers. They're one of the major contributors to the FreeBSD project, focused particularly on network (eg: kernel-level TLS acceleration) and UFS subsystems.
SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
It is not a distribution.
- unethical_ban 3y ago
  Even if you're right, you should explain your statement when you make it. Otherwise you bait people.
- bch 3y ago
  It's literally in the name - BSD is "Berkeley software distribution". NetBSD (and Free, Open, Dragon Fly) ship kernels with original tooling and integrated 3rd party software, as a distribution.
  - SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
    Yes it is in the name, much like Federal Express. Not a distribution in a canonical meaning of the word. The idea of distributions is unique to Linux-based systems.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
      > The idea of distributions is unique to Linux-based systems. That's not quite true; there are illumos distros.
    - BSDobelix 3y ago
      >The idea of distributions is unique to Linux-based systems. That's a Linux-distribution, and please stop with that nonsense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_distribution >>Examples of software distributions include BSD-based distros (such as FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and DragonflyBSD) and Linux-based distros (such as openSUSE, Debian, and Fedora).
      - SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
        You should probably eventually try using one of BSD systems, you may like it.
PAPPPmAc 3y ago
Short answer: The legal situation in the early 90s made BSD unattractive right at the time where cheap microcomputers sufficient to host Unix-likes were proliferating, which allowed Linux to reach critical mass instead. Too much detail answer: In the 80s a lot of the commercial UNIX-likes were all or partly BSD derived, like DEC Ultrix, SunOS especially pre-Solaris, pieces of IBM/ISC's AIX, etc. and by the early 90s there were a bunch of BSD ports established or in progress for up-and-coming less expensive (..at least compared to minicomputers) workstations like HPBSD, SunOS, and the Tahoe system that fell through as the target for mainline 4.4BSD, and even commodity Microcomputers like 386BSD and BSD/386 once Intel offered a part with a usable MMU. At this point _everyone and their dog_ derived their networking stack from BSD, because it was the reference OSI TCP/IP design and all the networking parts were permissively licensed. Even the Windows networking stack is BSD derived. That's still a thing, the Nintendo 3DS and Switch's in-house OS has a network stack that is derived from FreeBSD (though the rest of the OS isn't). Then USL v. BSDi happened in 1992. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_Laboratories,_Inc._v._Berkeley_Software_Design,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_Laboratories,_Inc..... and made it unclear if the BSD platform was legally viable from 1992-1994. The delays from that are essentially why Linux started and proliferated. A few years later, MontaVista contributed a bunch of scalability work to Linux, and SGI and IBM who had recently bought Sequent contributed their even larger scaling and NUMA stuff to Linux as they bailed out of the Itanium Unix-brand-Unix Project Monterey (the later of which is what kicked off the SCO v. IBM lawsuit in 2003, but that was too late to kill inertia like the USL v. BSDi one did)... basically Linux got critical mass on features, vendor support, and hardware support by being in the right place at the right time and on relatively neutral ground relative to many long-standing divisions in the Unix world, and steamrolled the rest of the Unix market. There was also a bunch of the common problem for permissively licensed stuff happening, in that the core folks got hired away by proprietary derivatives and choked the upstream. In the 80s a bunch of the core BSD folks left for Sun and built partially-incompatible partially-proprietary SunOS that was then superseded by the SVR4 based Solaris (SVR4 was _highly_ cross-pollinated with BSD, Xenix, and SunOS parts). Then a bunch of BSD folks spun BSDi to make commercial and partially proprietary releases (with squabbling about what would be proprietary), and the Jolitzes had a series of companies and... Then the Berkley CSRG that was the center of gravity for the BSD world closed up in 1995 (they had been winding down for years before that), and the post-4.4BSD community projects (FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc.) proliferated, with the usual open source squabbling keeping them not-very-unified. As you note, the Next/Apple family has a lot of BSD code in it because the Mach folks at CMU derived most of their stack from BSD (and contributed back the BSD virtual memory system), and a lot of the people and code from that became the core of NeXTStep which became the core of OS X, and that lineage persists in nearly all of Apple's products and is occasionally re-synced with FreeBSD. You used to be able to get all the non-proprietary parts distributed as Darwin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system) , but Apple stopped doing that almost a decade ago and none of the forks have rooted. There _are_ quite a number of other BSD derived proprietary OSes floating around that often don't go out of their way to note their relationship. The Sony Playstation 3/4/5 system software are hacked up FreeBSD derivatives. Juniper Junos that runs on a lot of fancy routers is FreeBSD derived (though recent releases have been migrating to Linux). Force10 (now part of Dell) and some Ericsson routers run NetBSD derived stacks. Etc.
p_l 3y ago
The short story is that during dive very critical years BSDs had the spectre of AT&T lawsuit over them, plus x86 ports were less known or commercial. From my understanding this managed to get a critical mass for Linux on commodity hardware resulting in (real or perceived) situation where Linux had better chances of running well on what random enthusiast or cash strapped team might scrounge up from local used PC parts store compared to BSDs where existence of non-commercial port that doesn't require spending big money on used unix workstation. Later on there was less difference and more fashion (unless someone dug deep into optimization or why one or the other) but arguably BSDs were still pickier about hardware they ran on. And finally, I'd say around 2.6 kernel and NLPT, Linux actually was better for many in terms of performance - not to mention being stuff people were used to, with large software repositories, NAPI for high performance networking (at the same time OpenBSD would talk about how to physically swap your PCI NICs to make them share interrupts so interrupt on one would trigger driver receive queue for all of them), better known and corporate-tested commercial suppliers (RedHat, SuSE). For a time network heavy stuff and IPv6 favoured Free and NetBSD from my observations but that didn't last. Probably non trivial part is that those who evacuated from commercial unices to PCs were mostly moving from System V flavour after Sun switched from BSD base, so Linux systems being closer than BSD in behaviour and API might have impacted software porting (pure speculation on my part here). Meanwhile the only major commercial BSD based systems by late 1990s as people moved en masse to free unices on PCs was OSF/1, whose main incarnations in a larger number were Digital Unix aka Tru64 and NEXT STEP/OpenSTEP/MacOS X with all kinds of fun stuff like their BSDisms being older than FreeBSD forking out of BSD

jonatron 3y ago

Should this be [future video]?

dang 3y ago
Yup. Our software added that bit. I've taken it out now.

chungy 3y ago

I would like to know from anyone that runs NetBSD, a simple question: why? Any and all answers appreciated, but for a very long time, I've boxed NetBSD into a corner of "extreme portability" without much else to hold it as practical. FreeBSD is great for all around general purpose desktops and servers, OpenBSD is great for the network edge, and NetBSD... I guess you can run on your Dreamcast.

musicale 3y ago
NetBSD seems to have more mature support for non-x86 architectures and also tends to run on old and arcane hardware. It also just feels like classic BSD Unix, for better or for worse. Personally I find NetBSD's pkgsrc package system to be very useful as well since it is portable to other OSes (including macOS and Linux) and doesn't require root access to install or use.
snvzz 3y ago
Because it works well on the Amiga. Linux used to be the best option, but it got extremely slow, and recently even retired PCMCIA support, which is how most A1200 users access ethernet or wifi networks. Whereas Openbsd dropped m68k support ages ago.
mrweasel 3y ago
The portability is weird, NetBSD has 11 tier 1 platforms, OpenBSD has 14. NetBSD has a really impressive list of tier 2 platforms, but how usable are they?
- chungy 3y ago
  Admittedly, I hadn't looked recently, but that values does seem flipped around from how I remember it (then again, tier 1 was probably always a lot more minimal than tier 2). For comparison, FreeBSD has just two tier 1 platforms: https://www.freebsd.org/platforms/ https://www.freebsd.org/platforms/ OpenBSD has 14, as you mentioned: https://www.openbsd.org/plat.html https://www.openbsd.org/plat.html NetBSD, I count 9: https://wiki.netbsd.org/ports/ https://wiki.netbsd.org/ports/ FreeBSD has an additional 14 platforms in tier 2 or 3 support (counting FreeBSD 13; 8 platforms counting only FreeBSD 14), OpenBSD has no non-tier1 platforms, and NetBSD has too many to count, but it's notable that most of them are updated to the current release.

dang 3y ago

It's probably best to wait until the event has happened and then people can watch the talk as well. In the meantime, recent and related: FOSDEM 2024 Schedule - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38694390 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38694390 - Dec 2023 (76 comments)