Talk:Comparison of BSD operating systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Free Software / Software / Computing   
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Free Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of free software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 

Do we want to duplicate information from Comparison of operating systems here?[edit]

The lists of supported architectures and supported file systems, the kernel type, the type of update management, etc. are on the "Comparison of operating systems" page and here. That runs the risk of the lists going out of sync. Guy Harris 21:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

(The only reason I'd justify it on the Comparison of Linux distributions page is that the information in question is different for different distributions.) Guy Harris 21:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is a risk. However, I have added a number of minor BSD operating systems, especially on the general infomation table, which are probably not sufficiently important to put on the Comparison of operating systems page. I intend to add more of these operating systems onto the other two tables as I find information. There are only 4 operating systems included on both this page and the one you work on: FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and MacOS X. Additionally, I have created See also links from all of the operating systems on the table pointing to this page, hoping that people who work on those pages will help keep it up-to-date. Nonetheless, it would certainly be prudent to try to work together on our common portions. Armedblowfish 00:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. One of these things is not like the other - I'd consider DragonFlyBSD to be a BSD OS in its own right (and perhaps, as a result, deserving of an entry in Comparison of operating systems), while all the added BSDs are derivatives of one of the "main" BSDs; in some ways, those are a bit like Linux distributions (or, at least, like those Linux distributions being based on a "Linux core" that includes not only the Linux kernel but also GNU libc and a pile of other libraries and programs common to the mainstream distributions). Those don't have entries in tables other than "General info", although arguably DesktopBSD (and PC-BSD?) would have an entry that differs from FreeBSD in at least one column, namely "Integrated GUI" (depending on what "Integrated GUI" means - see my comments about that in Talk:Comparison of operating systems#Integrated_GUI). Guy Harris 00:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
DragonFlyBSD may be a BSD OS in its own right, but you should know that I'd never heard of it until I started writing this article. They did have relatively helpful information, though, compared to the other minor BSDs. The Wikipedia articles I have read on the other minor ones, as well as the project pages I have seen, do consider them to be independent projects, albeit closely related, often with very different philosophies. (There was only one minor distribution that was even hosted on the FreeBSD site.) As for the ones that are only on the General Info table, I hope to add as many of them as I can to the other two. (This article was only started a few days ago, and the two shorter tables were just moved over from Comparison of operating systems today, so this is definitely a work in progress.) Armedblowfish 00:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Supported file systems[edit]

The information about the BSDs and UFS/UFS2/ffs is confusing. I know that Open doesn't yet have UFS2, but does Free really have no UFS? And is ffs really unique to Open? --Oneiros 00:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

...and, as per my comment above, it's not clear it belongs here anyway, as it's also in Comparison of operating systems.
At least some of the confusion is confusion about what FFS and UFS are. They're all descendants of Kirk McKusick's Berkeley Fast File System. Back in the early '80's, Sun developed one of the early virtual file system (VFS) implementations, so that UN*X system calls that manipulate files could, instead of going directly to the code for the one and only file system implementation, be directed to different file system implementations. This let those system calls work with both the Berkeley FFS (which was the local on-disk file system used by SunOS at the time) and NFS. Sun called the Berkeley file system "UFS", for "UNIX File System".
Later, the Berkeley FFS code was split into two parts - one that implemented lower-level inode or "container" functions, and one that implemented UN*X semantics (directories, permissions, ownership, etc.) atop that lower level, and the higher-level code was made to work atop the Berkeley LFS as well. The bottom part was called "FFS", presumably because the bulk of the changes between the old UNIX file system and the Berkeley Fast File System were at the container level (the higher-level changes were largely to implement symbolic links and large file names, although symbolic links could be trivially added to the old UNIX file system as well), and the top part was called "UFS", perhaps out of a combination of Sun's influence and the fact that most of the "UN*X" semantics were implemented at that layer.
In answer to your two questions:
  1. FFS is not unique to OpenBSD;
  2. FreeBSD does have UFS. Guy Harris 00:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
However, to my knowledge, OpenBSD is the only one on that list that still uses the old ffs as a default. Armedblowfish 01:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The {FFS,LFS}/UFS code split occurred, as far as I know, in 4.4BSD, and, as far as I know, OpenBSD split from NetBSD after NetBSD updated to a 4.4-Lite base. OpenBSD has a sys/ufs source directory with ffs, fs, mfs (for memory-based containers), and ufs, so it has the same code structure as FreeBSD, NetBSD, and DragonFlyBSD in that regard, meaning it doesn't have the old pre-split FFS. Perhaps they call it FFS, but it's still UFS.
Are you thinking of UFS1 vs. UFS2 here? Guy Harris 01:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
OpenBSD definitely still calls it ffs. See a relevant OpenBSD FAQ. Also, they specifically state that they do not support UFS2. I have OpenBSD, and when I installed Debian, I remember having to do something special in order to mount OpenBSD's ffs partitions. Will try to look it up. Armedblowfish 02:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
What they call FFS in that FAQ is the OpenBSD version of UFS1 (as opposed to UFS2). Was it any different trying to mount NetBSD or FreeBSD UFS1 partitions on Debian? (If not - or if you didn't try to mount them - the fact that Debian required special action in order to mount OpenBSD UFS1 partitions doesn't necessarily mean OpenBSD is any more different from the other BSDs than they are from each other.)
Note also that according to the NetBSD fstab man page, the fstab entries for local "McKusick File System" (at this point, I'm tempted to use that term, to avoid FFS/UFS/etc. confusion) partitions have "ffs" as the file system type, just as they do in OpenBSD. Perhaps that's "ffs" as distinct from "lfs", with both of them offering "ufs" semantics - i.e., "ffs" means "UFS atop FFS", and "lfs" means "UFS atop LFS". (Amusingly enough, NetBSD and OpenBSD also implement ext2 as a container layer for UFS!) Guy Harris 03:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
A Linux man page specifies different "ufs types". (Search for "Mount options for ufs"). Ufstype 44bsd (4.4BSD) is apparently the one Free/Open/NetBSD use. This brings up the question of whether to call it UFS, UFS1, or FFS? Since ffs is the one that OpenBSDers and NetBSDers (and maybe FreeBSDers?) use, it would make sense to call it by what the people who use it call it, with an appropriate footnote. Armedblowfish 03:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
FreeBSD uses "UFS1" exclusively, OpenBSD uses "FFS" mostly but also "UFS" in some places (and in the code). Call it "UFS1" or "FFS" and add a footnote explaining the alternative names. All the BSDs versions of UFS1 are broadly similar and originate in the same codebase, but I believe disklabel and superblock differences now mean that FreeBSD's is not completely compatible with NetBSD/OpenBSD. I believe NetBSD and OpenBSD are compatible, and Solaris' is slightly different again. NicM 07:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC).
Thanks for the updates and clarification. Please don't forget to also update Unix File System.--Oneiros 11:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

OpenBSD - Integrated GUI?[edit]

First of all, note that there has already been a discussion of what qualifies as an integrated GUI, which Guy Harris kindly linked to above. While X is developed in the OpenBSD source tree, it's installation does not fall under the "recommended" category, as the system is perfectly usable without it, and even if you do install it, by default it does not start when the system is booted. Also note that OpenBSD is still listed as not having an integrated GUI in the Comparison of operating systems article. (Also, sorry to revert your changes on the picture alignment and placement, NicM, but the logos really should be in the logos section. Also, your way made the CSS break in my browser, making the "edit" for the philosophies section overlap with other text.) Armedblowfish 14:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the other discussion on GUIs. Regarding the images: putting all the images squashed around the one small section is really ugly and hard to read. The entire article is about the BSDs, the logos are relevent in all sections. I suggest either expand the logo section enough that it warrants three images, remove two of the images, or spread them around the document as I did. The fact that the CSS breaks is reason to report that and get it fixed, not reason to butcher the layout. NicM 15:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC).
OpenBSD is still marked as having an integrated GUI on this page and not having one on the other. Should we change this one, or talk about first it and perhaps change the other? Armedblowfish 16:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the OpenBSD logo down to the paragraph that discusses its philosophy again, which means the logo section is not quite so cluttered. NicM 15:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC).
You made that change rather quickly, resulting in an edit conflict. I have tried to lengthen the section to make it more easily to fit three pictures, as per your recomendation, and will try to lengthen it even more. However, while the logos are relevant to all sections, they are specifically relevant to the section on logos. Also note that Manual_of_Style#Pictures does say that "Portraits with the head looking to the right should be left-aligned (looking into the article)." Also, my different preferences are no reason to refer to my change as butchering the layout, though I assume that your lack of diplomacy was completely unintentional and resulting from your desire to make the article perfect. Armedblowfish 15:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh come on, three images squashed together is obviously ugly, particularly on a small screen, and since they are relevent in all sections there is no reason not to spread them out to be more attractive and balance the article better. I never claimed that the head should be pointing outside the article and if I changed it to be so, it was a mistake. NicM 16:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC).
I don't mind how it is fixed: it is not too bad as it is now with the smaller images, it was just very obviously wrong before. NicM 16:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC).
I'm going to see if I can find some information regarding the minor BSDs on the topic... that should help. Armedblowfish 16:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure an awful lot of them got so far as to have a logo :-). DFLY definitely does though and PC-BSD/DesktopBSD and Anonym.OS likely do too. NicM 16:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC).
I was going to talk about their slogans (if they had them), maybe their names, and link to/describe but not include their logos (as that would add even more picture clutter). Armedblowfish 16:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I understood, it is a good idea :-). NicM 16:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC).
  • There, how's that? If we moved the NetBSD logo over to the left, it could be closer to the NetBSD paragraphy, but whatever. Also the links are a bit messy (some of them point to external sites, some of them are actually Wikipedia). Armedblowfish 17:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks good. Eventually, the aim is usually to have a Notes and references section and not have any external links in the text at all, just links either to other WP articles or to an endnote or reference. I would also try to have less links in general and also to try to avoid linking to images in favour of linking to pages about the images, if they exist. NicM 17:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC).
  • The external links to pictures aren't really references so much as "see picture here"s, so it would be easier on the reader to leave at least those external links there. I think I've switched all the pictures that have a Wikipedia picture over, so for the rest we'd have to check copyright/freeness and upload them ourselves. Armedblowfish 18:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Nah, external links should go in a references/notes section, or the external links section, at the end regardless. It looks fine for now, but it would be nice in the end to have longer discussion of a few logos (if it was just a few we could put the pictures inline) rather than just "X's logo is this, Y's logo is that" for a lot of them. NicM 19:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC).
I'm not sure about a longer discussions, but I put all of the "X's logo is a stylized version of its own name" together so that its more of a comparison than a list/summary. Armedblowfish 15:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations[edit]

Much of the information in this article comes from other Wikipedia articles. Should we tell the other articles they need citations as well? Or can we cite those articles? Armedblowfish 16:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You can't cite other articles. If the other articles don't have references, they should be fixed too :-). NicM 16:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC).
I've added more external links. Do you think there's enough to take the not verified tag off the top?Armedblowfish 20:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, {{not verified}} should be moved to the offending pages, if the unverified info comes from them. Qwertyus 21:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
In any case, I've just found some very confusing information regarding SunOS. Armedblowfish 21:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
HA! I have figured it out and footnoted it. Armedblowfish 21:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to confirm that Wikipedia articles should not be used as sources. -- ReyBrujo 16:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this was an old conversation (I was new at the time). Other sources were found. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 16:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Yup, I knew the conversation was old, was adding the guideline in case some other new contributor arrives and wonders if there is a reason for not using Wikipedia as source =) -- ReyBrujo 16:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Trimming...[edit]

I think this article needs to have the fat cut off it. Listing things like PC-BSD and DesktopBSD are wrong, since they are not complete operating systems, rather they are packaged releases of FreeBSD. They follow the releases and do only minor GUI work. Listing things like Micro/ekkoBSD are also unneeded, since neither exists anymore, both were short-lived projects of ego with no actual programmers involved. MirOS, though hardly noteworthy is at least it's own project and still being developed. Firefly too is another which doesn't really merit mention, since it's a packaged Dragonfly BSD. Anyways, I had to get that off my chest, since this article isn't looking too useful with all the clutter in it. 65.94.57.226 21:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You may be right, though it is odd that you complain about PC-BSD and DesktopBSD, as they are two of the more well established minor BSDs on the list, especially PC-BSD. As for MicroBSD, at least the website still exists. I don't really think there's much information regarding how close FireflyBSD is to DragonFlyBSD. In any case, I have added a note about no longer developed operating systems below the General Info Table, and pointed out that apparently FireflyBSD proceeds go to DragonFlyBSD in the Names/Logos/Slogans section. Though a lot of the operating systems mentioned on this table aren't particularly noteworthy and their independance from their parent operating systems is often questionable, I don't think ommitting them is the solution (with the possible exception of ekkoBSD, which I have found very difficult to find information on, though I think that as a minimum there should be a note saying that ekkoBSD did in fact exist at one point in time). IMO, the minor BSD OSes are as at least as important to BSD in general as flavors are to linux, and there is a Comparison of Linux distributions article. If it bothers you, take comfort that at least they aren't on Comparison of operating systems's tables. Perhaps a section could be added regarding the significance/independence of these OSes, though unless very well researched (probably involving emailing involved developers), such a section could have POV issues. Armedblowfish 03:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Firefly BSD looks dead too. Secretlondon 04:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

External links[edit]

The subsection External links should be renamed to something different, like "Further reading", "Other sources", etc, as it is standard to name External links to the section where the user can check the topic in discussion (in example, home page of the topic). I also suggest moving all the home pages for the distributions that are right now in the subsection in a new External links, so that the user can visit any of the distros pages. If possible, move as many of the subsection links into inline links. Other than that, the article is well referenced. -- ReyBrujo 17:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the current organization better? Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 19:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, cleaner now. -- ReyBrujo 19:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

SunOS 4 and System V[edit]

In case there's any doubt over whether SunOS 4 incorporated System V compatibility while being largely based on 4.3BSD, here's a manpage from SunOS 4.1.3. Letdorf 13:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:$[edit]

Template:$ has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

What about JunOS ?[edit]

So if this comparison is to include SunOS, I think it should also include JunOS, the operating system shipped with Juniper Networks' J-, M- and E-series routers.

You can find official references about the links between BSD and JunOS in the following paper: Optimizing Routing Software for Reliable Internet Growth section 7, JunOS origins in FreeBSD http://www.juniper.net/solutions/literature/white_papers/200003.pdf

This is a specialized OS but it's probably more popular than many of the other BSD variant described in this article. 213.41.155.24 09:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Very outdated security information[edit]

At least concerning NetBSD, secunia appears to be offering only obsolete security information, as the NetBSD-version in consideration is the long since superceded 1.x-branch. This should be fixed somehow, I guess. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ddenbrok (talkcontribs) 20:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Fixed. 80.218.217.116 19:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Tru64 UNIX is a BSD OS?[edit]

If having support for BSD syscalls makes Tru64 UNIX a BSD OS, wouldn't SVR4 and all its derivatives also be BSD OSes?--NapoliRoma 13:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The Tru64 kernel is (or at least was) Mach + large chunks of 4.3ish BSD, with SVR4 compatibility added later. In its earlier (OSF/1 AXP) incarnations at least, it was, to a first approximation, a BSD UNIX. Letdorf 22:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC).

Organizing the list[edit]

Does anyone like the suggestion that the lists should be organized between still supported BSD forks and unsupported/dead projects? I'll say the same to the Linux page as well, but I'm definetely not going to touch that page, too many distros over there.Orthuberra 21:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

FreeBSD NX bit[edit]

FreeBSD does support NX in FreeBSD -CURRENT since April 6, 2007. So it is probably good to update "Data execution prevention" section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NX_bit#FreeBSD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.222.21.198 (talk) 23:42:19, August 18, 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Freebsd-logo.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Freebsd-logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale added. Source attributed. Speedy template on image removed. /Blaxthos 14:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Vulnerabilities not correct[edit]

FreeBSD: Of these 4 vulnerabilities, 3 are local denial of service -- everyone can decide for themselves if these should be listed. To have 0 vulnerabilities for PC-BSD and MidnightBSD seems unbelievable under these circumstances as they are both based on FreeBSD 6 (and not 5 as the link for PC-BSD indicates -- PC-BSD never even was). What does MidnightBSD do here anyhow -- do you want to list DesktopBSD, FreeSBIE, etc., too? Just because Secunia does not list NetBSD or DragonFly does not make this number 0 for them, either. What is this information based on? Their own reports? Since FreeBSD does not release security advisories for local denial of service attacks, it should have a 0 there, too, if that is what counts. OpenBSD does have 1 unfixed vulnerability since 2007-08-16 ("local users to bypass certain security restrictions") at Secunia. Where does the 0 come from if it is "updated daily"? This whole column seems to be completely useless and should be removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.115.192 (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Freebsd-logo.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Freebsd-logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wacked out diff[edit]

I have no idea what happened here. The sole change I made was to add the {{update}} template, and I can't explain the other changes. I am using Opera browser under Vista, using the normal web form for editing on the wiki site (no external applications or editors). I will post a report of this to AI and/or whatever development noticeboard I can find. Thanks for fixing, the sole purpose was indeed the update template. Sorry for the hassle (though I don't understand how it happened). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Follow up - Upgrade bug caused the issue (apparently that edit was the first known). Report and discussion here. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Java support[edit]

It would be nice if this article would also mention current Java support. -- Ernstdehaan (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NetBSD.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:NetBSD.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Popularity section[edit]

Hey, instead of updating the figures every day, which seems rather stupid to me, why not put a mention of the existence of the Distrowatch rankings and be done, huh? Because y'all are wasting disk space and burning daylight, eh. And your mother dresses you funny.
--Jerome Potts (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:DragonFly BSD Logo.png[edit]

The image Image:DragonFly BSD Logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"X11" Capitalization[edit]

I looked at the page source for the table with the column "Primary API", and I could not figure out why under MidnightBSD "X11" is not capitalized. This is minor, but any detail should be perfected. Thanks!

OliveBSD redirects here ?![edit]

OliveBSD redirects here. I think it shouldn't. I removed the link to the french page fr:OliveBSD. Bikepunk2 (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Aims[edit]

I think they should be removed, because while there is some truth in them it's a fact that all of them are general purpose systems. They care about security and OpenBSD has also a lot of ports to hardware. NetBSD lacks support for some of these platforms. While I'm not sure about OpenBSD they generally aim for performance and of course they want to support SMP on their platforms. Maybe it would be better to replace Aims with slogans and list the exact slogan, but I don't really think this fits a comparison.-Athaba (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you meann Aims lack of rational approach? Agree on that. Slogans and Purposes helped me (a GNU Linux long time desktop and server user) get the point. Should suffice for the majority of newcomers without adding a third layer, IMHO. --kozaki (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

ADOS ?[edit]

Unless you are referring to the very first incarnation (pré 1988 kickstart 1.3), the Amiga file system is now called "Fast File System" FFS for short. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_Fast_File_System

Friendly regards 83.101.79.241 (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

software defined radio[edit]

I've added "citation needed" to the assertion that "so that vendors do not share their proprietary algorithms" in FreeBSD, in the hope that a citation can be found and the text corrected. Vendors do not share their software-defined radio code because of FCC restrictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.182.242 (talk) 10:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of BSD operating systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Comparison of BSD operating systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)