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!
> 

Reply via email to