Which is better ?
Forrest Normandy
--
_______________________________________________________________________
** _ <\_ ** Forrest Normandy __
**`-\_ < \`\ `--** Internet : cs_...@stu.ust.hk (__)
** `\ > `\> ** E-mail : cs_...@uxmail.ust.hk /==\/==\
** `| /' ** Phone : (852)-358-0447 || || ||
** ___`--' ___ ** Paging : 1128635 a/c 4860 || || ||
** (~ `--/' `\ ** Address : Rm 608, UG Hall 4, HKUST `\\/\//'
** \ _) ** The Hong Kong University of /__\
** ~~\/\ (\ \ ** Science and Technology
** `'\<^'`\) ** Department of Computer Science
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Holger Veit
|> Does anyone know whether 386bsd or linux is better ?
Well, it is like the difference between an apple and a pear.
You have to taste both of them and then decide which one is better
for you. Perhaps you like both or none of them.
There is no general answer, and the only thing that will happen is
that that the pear lovers will count up the disadvantages of apples,
and the apple promoters will speak against pears (at least usually this
happened several times in the past after such questions).
And there the anaolgy ends: 386bsd and Linux are highly dynamic
beasts; the disadvantage of the one system compared to the other
might be equalized tomorrow, and a leadership today is nothing
worth any longer tomorrow.
I have special reasons why I prefer 386bsd over Linux, and others
think exactly opposite, for not less significant reasons.
Test both and then decide yourself.
Holger
|> ** _ <\_ ** Forrest Normandy __
|> **`-\_ < \`\ `--** Internet : cs_...@stu.ust.hk (__)
--
Dr. Holger Veit | INTERNET: Holge...@gmd.de
| | / GMD-SET German National Research | Phone: (+49) 2241 14 2448
|__| / Center for Computer Science | Fax: (+49) 2241 14 2342
| | / P.O. Box 13 16 | Three lines Signature space
| |/ Schloss Birlinghoven | available for rent. Nearly
DW-5205 St. Augustin, Germany | unused, good conditions
Philip Perucci
>Does anyone know whether 386bsd or linux is better ?
I like both...
I had to start with Linux, because it runs on buggy old MFM drives and
does not require much space. Still use it at work for that reason.
For home use, now that NetBSD is proven, and 386BSD 0.2 is on its way,
I am going with NetBSD at home. Having used it a little at home already,
I feel it is more complete and less buggy than Linux, although to get
XFree up, you need to get it separately, unlike the SLS distibution of
Linux.
If I ever figure out how to partition a disk right with BSD, I will try
again on my PC at work. Sure would be nice to have standard tcp/ip
configurability and 3C503 support without kernel compiling!
Warning: If you don't know Un*x (Really KNOW Un*x) go with Linux for now.
Most Linux users seem to be MS-DOG converts.
Asking simple Un*x questions on comp.os.386bsd.* is a sure fire
way to be flamed!!
--
==============================================================================
phil perucci | "Any opinions expressed are my views,
dsc...@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil | not the position of any organization"
==============================================================================
Paul
>Warning: If you don't know Un*x (Really KNOW Un*x) go with Linux for now.
> Most Linux users seem to be MS-DOG converts.
> Asking simple Un*x questions on comp.os.386bsd.* is a sure fire
> way to be flamed!!
This really shouldn't be the case. If you ask novice questions on
comp.os.386bsd.development then you asked for it, though personally I'd
never flame anyone for asking a simple question (I have to ask too many
myself :-))
However, comp.os.386bsd.questions should be exactly that sort of
forum. If we're not going to spend a little time answering newbie
questions and yes I know we're all busy doing the work that keeps
us alive, then 386bsd is never going to gain ground amongst the
broader user base. One of the things that does worry me is the total
lack of traffic in the 386bsd groups, while I know that there are
people out there working on things it seems that there isn't much
of a base actually using the stuff we develop.
--
Paul Richards, University of Wales, College Cardiff
Internet: pa...@isl.cf.ac.uk
spe...@thor.cf.ac.uk
Philip Perucci
>However, comp.os.386bsd.questions should be exactly that sort of
>forum. If we're not going to spend a little time answering newbie
>questions and yes I know we're all busy doing the work that keeps
>us alive, then 386bsd is never going to gain ground amongst the
>broader user base. One of the things that does worry me is the total
>lack of traffic in the 386bsd groups, while I know that there are
>people out there working on things it seems that there isn't much
>of a base actually using the stuff we develop.
>
As a current Linux user, but NetBSD "wanna-run" I feel that the reason the
user base for NetBSD/386BSD is not any larger is the lack of shared libraries
which results in greatly increased hard disk requirements as compared with
Linux. Also, there is no "idiot-proof" installation of XFree86 with
NetBSD as with Linux's SLS distribution, though this is a lesser issue.
Most PCs are too small to run NetBSD. With my 240Mb Quantum, I am just now
able to run NetBSD (thank God!). Yes, I know - the high disk requirements
are not inconsistant with the 386BSD role as a "research tool".
Personally, I am happy to WAIT until shared libraries are done "right", rather
than the "just-do-it" philosophy found elsewhere. However, until the shared
libraries come out, "if you want to play, you will have to pay (hard disk)".
I suspect that the more sophisticated developers are happy NOT to have a large
"MS-DOS convert" number of users. Being only a marginal C programmer myself,
however, I can only guess...
Brent Jones
>lack of traffic in the 386bsd groups, while I know that there are
>people out there working on things it seems that there isn't much
>of a base actually using the stuff we develop.
It might be interesting to look at some of the places that 386bsd and
NetBSD are being used. I'm sure some of the people and places would be
interesting and unusual.
The system that I'm currently running NetBSD with XFree on will be
installed this October at Amundsen Scott South Pole Station, at 90
degrees south in Antarctica. Ironically, though we're involved with
supporting some cutting-edge science down there for NSF, there is not
much money for purchasing luxuries like computers... I'm looking at
NetBSD and 386BSD 486 machines as a way of providing general access to
Unix machines in a place where an astrophysicist might not appreciate
your hacking on his SPARC that's trying to prove the big bang theory of
the universe...
Brent
Rolfe Tessem
Yes.
--
Rolfe Tessem Lucky Duck Productions
ro...@ldp.com 96 Morton Street, NYC, NY 10014
<NeXTMail OK> (212) 463-0029
Leon Dent
386bsd is better. The reverse will happen if you post to the Linux
group.
As a Linux user I wonder about somthing posted earlier. Someone
said they wanted a BSD system for their home. Having come to Linux
from Minix (as I'm sure most early Linuxers did) I don't know what
in particular is appealing about a "BSD" system. Other than
familiarity with a BSD system (as opposed to something else) why
the desire?
Leon Dent
l...@umcc.umich.edu
Andreas Schulz
>
>As a Linux user I wonder about somthing posted earlier. Someone
>said they wanted a BSD system for their home. Having come to Linux
>from Minix (as I'm sure most early Linuxers did) I don't know what
>in particular is appealing about a "BSD" system. Other than
>familiarity with a BSD system (as opposed to something else) why
>the desire?
>
Why i want a BSD lookalike system over a system V lookalike system:
1) I want long filenames, no fourteen character limit.
2) I want symlinks, if i have space problems on one partition, i use
a symlink and put it into another partition. No please install
the whole system new, if you didn't know your space requirements
first.
3) I want the filename completion in the C shell. If i type some
characters in a name and than press escape, it should beep:-).
4) I want functional network code, i had not seen a crash
from the network code. And i use the network heavily on this
machine.
5) And yes, the familiarity with the other BSD systems is nice,
i can compile more things from the NET on the 386bsd box than
on the new SOLARIS2.1 system on the SUN.
I have learned UNIX from Version 7, over System III and System V
Releases 1.0, 2.0, 2.1, 3.0 and SUNOS 3.3 ... 5.1. At one time
i had ported kernel parts and utilities on System V, and it
was nice to get the first SUN's and have a BSD system. If you
learned it, you miss it.
I don't know, how LINUX is, but i heard it is more the System
V direction, than the BSD direction, and thats the reason,
i had not tried it yet.
--
ATS ( a...@first.gmd.de or a...@cs.tu-berlin.de )
Andreas Schulz GMD-FIRST O-1199 Berlin-Adlershof Rudower Chaussee 5
Gebaeude 13.7 Tel: +49-30-6392-1856 Germany/Europe
HJ Lu
|> In article <1u0u1h$j...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu> l...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu (Leon Dent) writes:
|> >
|> >As a Linux user I wonder about somthing posted earlier. Someone
|> >said they wanted a BSD system for their home. Having come to Linux
|> >from Minix (as I'm sure most early Linuxers did) I don't know what
|> >in particular is appealing about a "BSD" system. Other than
|> >familiarity with a BSD system (as opposed to something else) why
|> >the desire?
|> >
|>
|> Why i want a BSD lookalike system over a system V lookalike system:
|> 1) I want long filenames, no fourteen character limit.
So do I.
|> 2) I want symlinks, if i have space problems on one partition, i use
|> a symlink and put it into another partition. No please install
|> the whole system new, if you didn't know your space requirements
|> first.
So do I.
|> 3) I want the filename completion in the C shell. If i type some
|> characters in a name and than press escape, it should beep:-).
I want more than that.
|> 4) I want functional network code, i had not seen a crash
|> from the network code. And i use the network heavily on this
|> machine.
I don't have a network.
|> 5) And yes, the familiarity with the other BSD systems is nice,
|> i can compile more things from the NET on the 386bsd box than
|> on the new SOLARIS2.1 system on the SUN.
|>
Yes.
|> I have learned UNIX from Version 7, over System III and System V
|> Releases 1.0, 2.0, 2.1, 3.0 and SUNOS 3.3 ... 5.1. At one time
|> i had ported kernel parts and utilities on System V, and it
|> was nice to get the first SUN's and have a BSD system. If you
|> learned it, you miss it.
|> I don't know, how LINUX is, but i heard it is more the System
|> V direction, than the BSD direction, and thats the reason,
That is not accurate. Linux is trying to be POSIX compliant. It also
has LOTS of BSD extensions. I am using Linux. BTW, a new network code is
on the way to the official Linux kernel.
H.J.
----
Leon Dent
Suppose Linux and [386|Net]bsd had equal reliablity. Does BSD have some
performance or capacity edge over Linux?
Leon Dent
l...@umcc.umich.edu
HJ Lu
|> What I was getting at with my question was...
|> Suppose Linux and [386|Net]bsd had equal reliablity. Does BSD have some
|> performance or capacity edge over Linux?
|>
You are starting a flame war. If possible, try them both. Or pick one
by random. Since I am working on Linux only, don't expect an unbiased
answer from me. Without the shared libraries, I don't think 386bsd will
have any real performance edge over Linux. BTW, if you are doing FP
stuff, Linux may be better for you.
H.J.
Gerd Truschinski
|> In article <1u5l7q$i...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu>, l...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu (Leon Dent) writes:
|> |> What I was getting at with my question was...
|> |> Suppose Linux and [386|Net]bsd had equal reliablity. Does BSD have some
|> |> performance or capacity edge over Linux?
|> |>
|>
|> You are starting a flame war. If possible, try them both. Or pick one
|> by random.
I think, it is best to look around and ask friends what they are using, and
the choose the same. They may help you, sit near your terminal, if you have
any problem.
--
Gerd Truschinski | INTERNET: g...@first.gmd.de
c/o GMD-First Berlin | Yes, this is the sort of scenario I
O-1199 Berlin-Adlershof | think up to amuse myself in the evenings.
Rudower Chausee 5 (13.7) | -- Larisa
Gilbert Nardo
development efforts are excellent because they foster innovation
and better use of current technology. Having said that, I would
like to clarify some of the (misinformed) gripes that were leveled
at SYS V-like systems, specifically at Linux.
a...@bsd386.first.gmd.de (Andreas Schulz) writes:
> In article <1u0u1h$j...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu> l...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu (Leon Dent) writes:
> Why i want a BSD lookalike system over a system V lookalike system:
> 1) I want long filenames, no fourteen character limit.
Linux comes with file systems such as xiafs and ext2fs, which
can handle filenames > 14 chars.
> 2) I want symlinks, if i have space problems on one partition, i use
> a symlink and put it into another partition. No please install
> the whole system new, if you didn't know your space requirements
> first.
Linux has symlinks.
> 3) I want the filename completion in the C shell. If i type some
> characters in a name and than press escape, it should beep:-).
There are several shells (ported to Linux) that have added
useful extentions to both the standard C and Bourne shells. For example,
bash (Bourne Again SHell) allows entering and editing history lines
via emacs or vi key sequences (in addition to the bang ! char).
> 4) I want functional network code, i had not seen a crash
> from the network code. And i use the network heavily on this
> machine.
Linux is still catching up here. 0.99pl10 added more
net-2 stuff. It still needs to be fully tested.
> 5) And yes, the familiarity with the other BSD systems is nice,
> i can compile more things from the NET on the 386bsd box than
> on the new SOLARIS2.1 system on the SUN.
GNU/X ports to Linux are relatively easier than other OS's (since
the development effort uses these very same tools to build the system).
> I have learned UNIX from Version 7, over System III and System V
> Releases 1.0, 2.0, 2.1, 3.0 and SUNOS 3.3 ... 5.1. At one time
> i had ported kernel parts and utilities on System V, and it
> was nice to get the first SUN's and have a BSD system. If you
> learned it, you miss it.
> I don't know, how LINUX is, but i heard it is more the System
> V direction, than the BSD direction, and thats the reason,
> i had not tried it yet.
I could not and would not try to sway you away from BSD, but
at least I hope the information above lessens the fear for you
about Linux.
--
Gil Nardo | g...@netcom.com
Migrant Computing Services | (415)664-1032 (voice)
1032 Irving Street, #435 |-----------------
San Francisco, 94122 | Save the Universe: Stop Entropy Now!
steve....@lambada.oit.unc.edu
>
>Why i want a BSD lookalike system over a system V lookalike system:
>1) I want long filenames, no fourteen character limit.
Huh, all linux filesystems support long filenames. The minix fs can
have filenames of length 14, 30, 62, ..etc. you chose the limit when
you make the fs. The ext, ext2, and xia filesystems have a limit of
256 characters. FFS is great. however, I will admit that.
>2) I want symlinks, if i have space problems on one partition, i use
>a symlink and put it into another partition. No please install
>the whole system new, if you didn't know your space requirements
>first.
All linux filesystems have symlinks. From day one. You know very
little about linux, it would seem.
>3) I want the filename completion in the C shell. If i type some
>characters in a name and than press escape, it should beep:-).
I've never used but tcsh in linux. It's by far the best interactive
shell there is, in my opinion. Tcsh builds out of the box for linux,
and has been there for a long long time. There's also all the others:
bash, ash, ksh, plain csh, ..etc., even Plan 9 rc.
Beeping on filename completion is the main reason I don't use bash. I
use tcsh since I can disable beeping by `set nobeep'. You cannot
disable the beep in the current version of bash, as fas as I know.
>4) I want functional network code, i had not seen a crash
>from the network code. And i use the network heavily on this
>machine.
386BSD has the edge right now when it comes to networking, but as it's
dying out slowly and developers are being scared away by ego wars and
mutinies, it would seem that it won't be long before linux catches up.
The latest version has a vastly improved networking support.
>5) And yes, the familiarity with the other BSD systems is nice,
>i can compile more things from the NET on the 386bsd box than
>on the new SOLARIS2.1 system on the SUN.
>
The real mystery to me is that it's by far much easier to port things
to linux than to 386BSD. In most cases no actual code modifications
are required. Perhaps it has to do with POSIX slowly becoming the
standard and people tired of supporting old BSD code quirks.
>I have learned UNIX from Version 7, over System III and System V
>Releases 1.0, 2.0, 2.1, 3.0 and SUNOS 3.3 ... 5.1. At one time
>i had ported kernel parts and utilities on System V, and it
>was nice to get the first SUN's and have a BSD system. If you
>learned it, you miss it.
>I don't know, how LINUX is, but i heard it is more the System
>V direction, than the BSD direction, and thats the reason,
>i had not tried it yet.
>
Well, it's apparent that you haven't tried it. Personally, I don't see
any difference between using linux and ultrix, which is BSD-based. I
routinely refer the ultrix man pages when writing code on linux, even
for section 2 (system calls).
- Steve
Andreas Klemm
|>
|>Warning: If you don't know Un*x (Really KNOW Un*x) go with Linux for now.
|> Most Linux users seem to be MS-DOG converts.
|> Asking simple Un*x questions on comp.os.386bsd.* is a sure fire
|> way to be flamed!!
|However, comp.os.386bsd.questions should be exactly that sort of
|forum. If we're not going to spend a little time answering newbie
|questions and yes I know we're all busy doing the work that keeps
|us alive, then 386bsd is never going to gain ground amongst the
|broader user base.
Thats the case.
Another story is the argument, that linux is smaller, then 386bsd.
Someone should do the task to create a sco unix alike custom utility.
So everyone can choose, which functionality he wants to install.
The dirty work is to split 386BSD into peaces on source and
binary level. And:
What should contain a base system ?
What packages should be created ?
Not too much packages to avoid hundreds of floppies ;-)
Installation based on 3.5" disks
A good idea and first step would be to create files in a format,
that packages can be build on floppy disk or on tape.
Then create scripts that create and extract distribution floppies and multi
volume Tapes.....
Based on that it should be possible to simplify the installation
of all 386BSD's......
EOF dreaming ... ;-)
|One of the things that does worry me is the total
|lack of traffic in the 386bsd groups, while I know that there are
|people out there working on things it seems that there isn't much
|of a base actually using the stuff we develop.
I don't think so. Although I doubt, that the splitting of the
386BSD user communityinto pieces was a good thought !
Perhaps W.J.'s 0.2 release with many new features, perhaps improved
performance, perhaps improved installation method will unify the
community ..... ?!
--
---- Andreas Klemm ------- /////// and...@knobel.GUN.de \\\\\\\
private : +49 2137 12609 D-4040 Neuss 21 (Norf), Germany
at work : +49 2173 3964 161 Wiechers & Partner Datentechnik GmbH
Telefax : +49 2173 3964 222 Abteilung Unix Support, D-4019 Monheim
Andreas Klemm
|In article <1993May25.2...@cm.cf.ac.uk> pa...@isl.cf.ac.uk (Paul) writes:
|>However, comp.os.386bsd.questions should be exactly that sort of
|>forum. If we're not going to spend a little time answering newbie
|>questions and yes I know we're all busy doing the work that keeps
|>us alive, then 386bsd is never going to gain ground amongst the
|>broader user base. One of the things that does worry me is the total
|>lack of traffic in the 386bsd groups, while I know that there are
|>people out there working on things it seems that there isn't much
|>of a base actually using the stuff we develop.
|>
|As a current Linux user, but NetBSD "wanna-run" I feel that the reason the
|user base for NetBSD/386BSD is not any larger is the lack of shared libraries
|which results in greatly increased hard disk requirements as compared with
|Linux. Also, there is no "idiot-proof" installation of XFree86 with
|NetBSD as with Linux's SLS distribution, though this is a lesser issue.
Although I am an experienced Unix Administrator and Support technician,
_and_ have already compiled and installed X11R5 from scratch on a
commercial Unix System I wasn't able to get X11R5 (XFree) installed
properly on a 386BSD 0.1 0.2.3.
Maybe the binary version is too old (6 Months old).
Ok, it runs, but the mouse cursor isn't there and I can't type in
any character in an xterm session. I think I need an idiot proofed
installation, too ;-) Or some qualified help before that ;-)
But in general .... Phil is right in saying so.
Andreas Klemm
|In article <35...@bigfoot.first.gmd.de> you write:
|>
|All linux filesystems have symlinks. From day one. You know very
|little about linux, it would seem.
No, he only said what he wants ;) Fortunately 386BSD has everything
he wanted ;)
Andreas Klemm
What have shared libraries to deal with better performance ?
Ok you get significant smaller code. And that can prevent a system
from being swapping or paging.
But the code isn't that fast as statically linked code.
because the shared memory organisation in the kernel produces some
overhead when running processes.
Or did I misunderstand something ?
Andreas
A Wizard of Earth C
>In <1993May28....@serval.net.wsu.edu> h...@eecs.wsu.edu (HJ Lu) writes:
>|answer from me. Without the shared libraries, I don't think 386bsd will
>|have any real performance edge over Linux. BTW, if you are doing FP
>|stuff, Linux may be better for you.
>
>What have shared libraries to deal with better performance ?
>Ok you get significant smaller code. And that can prevent a system
>from being swapping or paging.
>But the code isn't that fast as statically linked code.
>because the shared memory organisation in the kernel produces some
>overhead when running processes.
>
>Or did I misunderstand something ?
Basically shared code between applications, and a less frequent lru on pages
shared between applications.
For multiple instances of a single program, shred libraries offer *NO*
image size benefit... ie: if all you run are "xterm"s, then there isn't
a problem.
Shared libraries reduce the on disk image, sometimes significanlty for
trivial programs. For non-trivial programs, there isn't as much of a
savings, since the ratio of non-library-to-library code is much higher
(the library makes up a smaller percentage of the image size on disk).
This is a disk storage issue more than anything else. Linux will, in
general, take up 20% less space for an equivalent functional install.
Process load is slightly accellerated in a shared library environment,
enhancing the *appearance* of speed by causing programs to start executing
faster, expecially applications programs which produce immediate feedback
(like displaying a menu, etc.). This is significantly mitigated by the
way processes are started with a page-from-image mechanism in both 386BSD
and Linux, where the advantage is generally one fewer pages to demand load.
The costs of shared library are execution time, and are permanent by way
of requiring a jump table indirection for library function references;
this is somewhat (but not entirely) offset by the pages likelihood of
being in core by virtue of being shared between multiple processes,
Thus the advantages of shared libraries boil down to:
o Somewhat (~20%) less disk space overall
o Slightly faster start time for each process *if* it is a process
that provides immediate feedback (appears to have better performance).
o Ability to upgrade libraries without recompilation, as long as
major revision number does not change (interface is static).
o Overall less memory is used for a medium to large number of processes.
The disadvantages are:
o Slower overall performance of applications (doesn't really have better
performance).
All things being equal (they're not), shared libraries accelerate library
debugging and availability. I say they are unequal because of the fact that
thethe interface on the libraries is still not static; in fact, I had to
make a change recently to get the srand48/drand48 patch installed, and
this would change the size and location of entry points in any implementation
currently available or currently under consideration or developement. Thus
the upgrade ability is not an applicable advantage.
The disk space advantage is not currently an issue worth consideration, as
the number of patches required for current "best funcctionality" level are
such that sufficient disk space for recompilations and developement tools
(like the compiler) are still necessary. Without an additional 60% of disk
space (say from 30M to 65M), there isn't sufficient space to produce a
good robust system ; without 65M, a system that "fits" in 30M is just
as useless as one requiring 40M (ie: without shared libs).
The memory issues are moot, since the VM system still needs work, and once
you hit the threshold of 8M, the memory issues are not going to be much of
a problem one way or the other.
I would say that at the current state of 386BSD, shared libraries are not
really required nor are they very useful. Doesn't mean that those of us
dealing with shared library implementations don't want to be ready when
386BSD becomes a little more mature; it just means that this should not
be a factor in decisions you make at this time.
Terry Lambert
te...@icarus.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
David Fox
: In article <1u0u1h$j...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu> l...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu (Leon Dent) writes:
: >
: >As a Linux user I wonder about somthing posted earlier. Someone
: >said they wanted a BSD system for their home. Having come to Linux
: Why i want a BSD lookalike system over a system V lookalike system:
: 1) I want long filenames, no fourteen character limit.
That limitation was surpassed a long time ago. The ext2fs filesystem
that most linux people are using is much more reasonable, and is quite
good, even compared to the filesystem in 386BSD.
: 2) I want symlinks, if i have space problems on one partition, i use
: a symlink and put it into another partition. No please install
It can symlink across partitions. I've done it myself.
: 3) I want the filename completion in the C shell. If i type some
: characters in a name and than press escape, it should beep:-).
This is not a linux vs 386BSD issue. If you want filename completion
in csh (the csh I had with 386BSD didn't do filename completion, or
I didn't know it was possible at the time), you can add the capability
for that by patching the sources.
: 4) I want functional network code, i had not seen a crash
: from the network code. And i use the network heavily on this
: machine.
I suspect 386BSD is far more functional for networking than Linux is. But
I don't have a network.
: I don't know, how LINUX is, but i heard it is more the System
: V direction, than the BSD direction, and thats the reason,
: i had not tried it yet.
Well, it's actually closer to Posix, and has some BSD things in it. It
also has some system V too.
I'm now using Linux (probably for about a few weeks now), and I used
386BSD for 10 months. For my interests, I find linux to be better. It
also for me is far more easily obtainable. I am a user on a 486-based linux
box, so I can just easily download binaries. I don't have FTP access, and
don't have enough disk space to hold the source code + patches etc. (The
shared libraries in Linux are a Good Thing, given my h/w restrictions. I
also have a 386SX/16, with a Cyrix 387, and IMHO linux runs faster than
386BSD does on most things.
: --
: ATS ( a...@first.gmd.de or a...@cs.tu-berlin.de )
: Andreas Schulz GMD-FIRST O-1199 Berlin-Adlershof Rudower Chaussee 5
: Gebaeude 13.7 Tel: +49-30-6392-1856 Germany/Europe
--
David E. Fox email: hip-hop!df...@amdahl.com
5479 Castle Manor Drive
San Jose, CA 95129 Thanks for letting me change the magnetic
408/ 253-7992 images on your hard drive.
Peter da Silva
> Suppose Linux and [386|Net]bsd had equal reliablity. Does BSD have some
> performance or capacity edge over Linux?
BSD networking is better.
There are some VERY interesting special-purpose file systems coming out for
BSD, like the Vista file system.
BSD is ported to the 386 from other platforms. I've got a fighting chance at
porting it to something else (like my Amiga, or a VAX).
--
Peter da Silva. <pe...@sugar.neosoft.com>.
`-_-' Har du kramat din varg idag?
'U`
"Det er min ledsager, det er ikke drikkepenge."
Linus Torvalds
>
>I don't know, how LINUX is, but i heard it is more the System
>V direction, than the BSD direction, and thats the reason,
>i had not tried it yet.
Actually, almost none of the points you mentioned were relevant to
linux: linux does have some sysv features, but more of the "sysvr4"
kind, ie most of the good points of BSD are incorporated. Linux does
lean toward sysv in that it tries to be POSIX, which tends to follow
sysv closer than bsd, but on the other hand most of the linux people
seem to come from academic places that use mostly BSD'ish systems. So
linux has a lot of BSD (and notably SunOS) features due to the simple
reason that people have gotten used to them and want them on their own
machine.
Linus
Dan Naas
: What I was getting at with my question was...
: Suppose Linux and [386|Net]bsd had equal reliablity. Does BSD have some
: performance or capacity edge over Linux?
Why don't you simply get both systems, try them out and make up your
mind. That is exactly what many of us did. Why substitute the judgement of
others for your own? Or are you just looking for flames?
--
|< Dan Naas d...@oea.hobby.nl >|
+-------------------------------+