Linux and Coherent
U20...@uicvm.uic.edu
I am going to install a unix system in my 486DX66 PC.
Could anybody give me some suggestion on Linux and
Coherent, which one is better for new user?
Young
u20...@uicvm.uic.edu
Micheal Shallop
>
>I am going to install a unix system in my 486DX66 PC.
>Could anybody give me some suggestion on Linux and
>Coherent, which one is better for new user?
>
Key word being new-user, I'll bite on this one....
I've tried both Linux and COH:
I like Linux because of:
1. TCP support - (not really important because I use serial-based
communications, but I do some socket programming...)
2. Support on comp.os.linux.help - is pretty good - you can get
an answer back within a few hours.
3. Can relink the kernal to add/delete drivers.
4. Virtual memory!
5. Supports my mitsumi CDROM!
6. Other than my monthly service fee for my access provider, it's
free from sunsite.unc.edu.
I dislike Linux because of:
1. No manual. Lot's of FAQ's and HOWTO's, but, basically, problems
can get esoteric. See #2 above. (Have fun w/lp services...)
2. Size of installation - 90 meg for the base install w/X and source
code (see #3 above), and toss in another 10 meg for swap.
3. 70 bazillion different installation packages. SLS, SLACKWARE,
DEBIAN, Yagdrisil, TransAmeritech, etc... All purport to clean
up the install bugs of each other. All it really is is confusing.
4. Doesn't support my Bernoulli PC-powered 90Mgb removable hdd.
5. No tech support. No guru's to call when you get stuck and can't
wait on number 2 (above).
6. No QIC-80 support (or, is it out of Alpha now?)
I like COH because of:
1. Small, compact and neat. Base system, X, and GCC compilers take
up about 45 or 50 meg on my system.
2. The manual. It's awesome; like they documented every common problem
for new users and provided extensive solutions.
3. The price.
4. The C compiler - COFF compat-binaries. In real-life, I'm a SCO
sysadmin/developer - I port a lot of code from home.
It's also *much* faster than Linux's.
5. Tech support via phone. If it's important - call 'em up. They
have always answered the phone, and I have always gotten the
solution to my problem. (No matter how stupid the question!)
6. raven.alaska.edu
7. Udo Monk. Harry Pulley. Randy Wright.
I dislike COH because of:
1. No virtual memory. (yet)
2. No TCP support. (yet)
3. Cannot read my mitsumi CDROM.
4. Cannot read my Bernoulli.
5. No QIC-80 support. (yet)
6. C-compiler - K&R standard:
foo(x)
int x;
{
...
}
DISCLAIMER: usually, well, sometimes, I can ignore flame-bait. What I suggest
is that first you decide what you want from a free or *cheap* unix clone, then
you find the system that will meet your needs. That's the best system for you.
I installed COH, then Linux, then Linux, then Linux, then COH, then Linux,
then Linux, then Linux, and now I'm back to COH. I've formated the 40 or so
Linux Install diskettes and have shelved the Linux CDROM. Waffle-time is over.
Apologies to all for scarfing on bandwidth - I hope that what I've learned,
albeit personal, will help. Responding flames to /dev/null, intelligent
reponses intelligently discussed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micheal Shallop | "Battling and defeating another costumed Character,
mshallop@.neosoft.com | particularly one with negative Popularity, is
Entropy requires | considered good for the image."
no maintenance... | -- Marvel Super Heros Player's Guide
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Coats
Thanks for one of the first reasonable answers to this question I
remember reading in a long time.
I have been thinking about trying the L* word, or FreeBSD.
Has anyone had any experiences (hopefully as well balanced
and Michae Shallop's) with the *BSD versions?
Input is appreciated... Jack joc...@amoco.com
---
#include(standard-disclaimer.h);
E-mail: joc...@amoco.com Fax: 713/366-7570 Voice: 713/366-7120
Dmitry Gringauz
>
>I am going to install a unix system in my 486DX66 PC.
>
>Could anybody give me some suggestion on Linux and
>
>Coherent, which one is better for new user?
Coherent, IMHO.
>
>
>Young
>u20...@uicvm.uic.edu
--
Dmitry Gringauz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dmi...@talarian.com -- work | Think of your family tonight. Try to crawl
dmi...@golem.com -- home | home after the computer crashes.
Fred Butzen
> Hi there,
>
> I am going to install a unix system in my 486DX66 PC.
>
> Could anybody give me some suggestion on Linux and
>
> Coherent, which one is better for new user?
>
>
> u20...@uicvm.uic.edu
>
You'll probably get a lot of responses on this one. Here's mine.
Since I work for Mark Williams, you may wish to take this with a grain
of salt.
In brief, Linux has more features than COHERENT, in particular networking.
However, COHERENT is easier to install, in particular for a new user,
has better documentation, and offers on-line support.
C. S. Hendrix
> You'll probably get a lot of responses on this one. Here's mine.
> Since I work for Mark Williams, you may wish to take this with a grain
> of salt.
>
> In brief, Linux has more features than COHERENT, in particular networking.
> However, COHERENT is easier to install, in particular for a new user,
Having installed Slackware 1.1.2 (a Linux distribution) recently I can
say that the above is no longer true. Slackware installation is miles
ahead of Coherent's. I have given this package to complete neophytes
and they do just fine. It's available as a full-color installation
system that resembles most professional install software.
Once the drives are partitioned, the install utility does 95% of the
install for you. All questions have a help file associated with them
and everything is menu driven. You can stop installation, stop
individual disk sets, and re-install or remove packages any time
after the initial install.
> has better documentation,
It COMES with PRINTED documentation but Coherent's manual does not have
the wide margin over Linux documentation that it used to. Linux has
a huge volume of available documentation now and it's growing all the
time. It tends to be more detailed that what I find in the Coherent
manual. That of course, depends on the reader.
> and offers on-line support.
Linux online support is light-years ahead of Coherent's. MWC works
very hard and offers good support but so does Linux.
It's been a long time since I looked at BSD so I don't know what to
say about it but it's supposed to be much improved.
--
csh
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
shen...@escape.twuug.com (UUCP) | Cy486/40 LinuxOS system
shen...@pcs.cnu.edu (Internet) | Christopher Newport University
Olaf Matthaei
: Hi there,
: I am going to install a unix system in my 486DX66 PC.
: Could anybody give me some suggestion on Linux and
: Coherent, which one is better for new user?
For NEW user: coherent is the better way !
--
-------
Mfg
+----------------------------+-----------------------------+----------------+
| Olaf Matthaei | matt...@kwcom.in-berlin.de | COHERENT 4.2 |
| Luckenwalderstrasse 38 +-----------------------------+----------------+
| 15711 KOENIGSWUSTERHAUSEN | Line 1: +49 3375 291894 ELSA 24000 V.FastC |
| KW-COMMUNICATION, Germany | Line 2: +49 3375 292702 TS 144 V.32.bis |
+----------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
--
Stuart Demcak
> I have been thinking about trying the L* word, or FreeBSD.
>
> Has anyone had any experiences (hopefully as well balanced
> and Michae Shallop's) with the *BSD versions?
>
worth, this is my first impression.
* The FreeBSD distribution (1.0 or 1.0.2) requires much more space than
Linux or Coherent -- I would say roughly 3 times or more space.
* It seems to be much more of a "standard" UNIX:
- Compared to Linux and Coherent, it might be easier to do straight
compilations of free UNIX software without modifying code. (I have
never done this though -- just an impression. Does anyone have more
experience?)
- It has all(?) of the standard (BSD) UNIX commands performed in the standard
way. Coherent especially seems to be missing some of the commands and
options "standard" in large UNIX systems. (Although this may help
Coherent to be a "small" UNIX OS.)
- In some sense, Linux seems to add/replace some small UNIX features with
nicer (non-standard UNIX) ones. For instance, using "less" instead
of "more" as the default "man" pager, including less with the
typical installation, color in the man pages, etc.
Many of these UNIX "replacements" can be
gotten for FreeBSD (and Coherent), but are not included with the general
distribution and OS setup as it is with Linux.
* There seems to be more people working with Linux than with FreeBSD: porting
(free) software, etc.
In conclusion, with my very limited experience, I prefer Linux over FreeBSD.
However, this may depend on what one wants to do. For a new user, Linux
probably would be better. It also uses up much less disk space than FreeBSD.
There has already been alot of comparisons between Coherent and Linux, so I
will say nothing here.
WARNING: The above are generalized impressions of a
very breif usage of FreeBSD. I only put them here because
it seemed like no one else had said anything. If
anyone else has more experience and better impressions, I would appreciate
seeing them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Demcak |
stu...@zeus.jpl.nasa.gov | Jet Propulsion Laboratory (OAO Corporation)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lester Igo
: I have been thinking about trying the L* word, or FreeBSD.
: Has anyone had any experiences (hopefully as well balanced
: and Michae Shallop's) with the *BSD versions?
OK well as you can see by my .sig I am runing BSD but not for long. I have
SLACKWARE distribution on my desk next to me and am going to install tonight.
I found BSD to be very cryptic. You have to re-compile the kernel every time
you turn around. Com port devices are very tricky to deal with. However
BSD seemed to run somewhat faster?? had more vertuall terminal capabilities
(all 12 function keys rather than 8). BSD had a much more dificult install
method than LINUX. BSD is not bad but is not for the beginer.
Linux installations can range from 10 meg to ?? (I have about 50 disks
compressed) (120 meg??). Linux has many packages available on the net and with
it. Linux has a very easy automated install (I hear the new version is easier
than the last one I installed , last fall). Linux also has many manuals
available, You just have to go get them on the net. I have about a 300 page
print out behind me that is my big one.
PS. I agree with the BSD manualls on one thing. The OS that will work best is
not a universal thing. The best one is going to be determined by what
the people around you use. All of the options are functional. However
The collective minds and experience of several friends is much more
powerful than any one of these OSes advantages over the other.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Lester Igo | email- igo...@uidaho.edu |
| 316 Gault hall | Gault Hall treasurer |
| 5-8653 | finger igo@cs, look at my plan. it has my |
| Comp. Eng. | slip info. BSD is running on my pc. |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lester Igo
One last thing I have noticed. Coherent charges you for every new bit of
Technology. Linux is and will always be free. I have noticed that Coherent
charges for every upgrade, even of ported packages like Gcc. Also I feel
you are getting a fairly one sided opinion here. You should post your
question to the linux news groups so you can find out what the people who
chose linux have to say about it.
Joan Tine
: Jack Coats (zjo...@hou.amoco.com) wrote:
: : I have been thinking about trying the L* word, or FreeBSD.
: : Has anyone had any experiences (hopefully as well balanced
: : and Michae Shallop's) with the *BSD versions?
: OK well as you can see by my .sig I am runing BSD but not for long. I have
: SLACKWARE distribution on my desk next to me and am going to install tonight.
That's the one with the menu-driven installation suite? Where/how/howmuch
to obtain same? The idea of writing off all the time and work I've put
into Coherent is an abomination, but I'm going into my thire YEAR without
uucp....
Harry J. Regan
>I installed COH, then Linux, then Linux, then Linux, then COH, then Linux,
>then Linux, then Linux, and now I'm back to COH. I've formated the 40 or so
>
I'll second that! This accurately mirrors my Linux/Coherent experience...
Linux runs great when it's set up properly, but it seems to take a lot
more fiddling with than I care to put into it. I'd hesitate to recommend
it for a new user.
.......................................................
: Harry J. Regan : Internet: hre...@lepus.com :
: P.O. Box 943 : MCI Mail: 646-2749 :
: Rockville, MD 20848 : Voice/FAX: (301) 460-7341 :
.......................................................
Lester Igo
: : OK well as you can see by my .sig I am runing BSD but not for long. I have
: That's the one with the menu-driven installation suite? Where/how/howmuch
: to obtain same? The idea of writing off all the time and work I've put
: into Coherent is an abomination, but I'm going into my thire YEAR without
: uucp....
Yes I installed it and wow. 150 megs approximately. 55 disks. All menu
driven and easy. It sure beets last time I installed. The old versions felt
more like a hack to install than an installation.
Where: pick an ftp site. Sunsite.unc.edu is one of the biggest and best.
How: Ftp it off of the site onto disks. Just read the docs that are there
they explain everything. Basicly just get the disks, rawrite the first 2,
put bootdisk in, start computer, put rootdisk in when prompted, run fdisk,
type setup and follow the trails of menus that will lead you along the path.
Howmuch: THis is the part I love. THe best things in life are free.
Absolutely free, Unless you want the CDROM version. All you do is supply the
disks and use ftp to get it. This is not shareware, it is freeware, one step
better.
Michael Gerhards
> I have only had a very limited experience with FreeBSD. But, for what its
> worth, this is my first impression.
> * The FreeBSD distribution (1.0 or 1.0.2) requires much more space than
> Linux or Coherent -- I would say roughly 3 times or more space.
FreeBSD 1.1 ( coming soon :-) ) has shared libraries and will need less
space.
> * It seems to be much more of a "standard" UNIX:
Sure - it's BSD
> - Compared to Linux and Coherent, it might be easier to do straight
> compilations of free UNIX software without modifying code. (I have
> never done this though -- just an impression. Does anyone have more
> experience?)
A lot of code will compile fine without modification. Only code with
terminal-functions from ATT will need some work.
> - It has all(?) of the standard (BSD) UNIX commands performed in the standard
> way. Coherent especially seems to be missing some of the commands and
> options "standard" in large UNIX systems. (Although this may help
> Coherent to be a "small" UNIX OS.)
FreeBSD is not complete - the command 'at' is missing, for example.
COHERENT has nearly all standard commands. The reason for the 'small' OS
are not the missing commands. Compare an executable from FreeBSD with
the size of a COHERENT-binary ( elm: 323584 bytes, tin 311296 )
> - In some sense, Linux seems to add/replace some small UNIX features with
> nicer (non-standard UNIX) ones. For instance, using "less" instead
> of "more" as the default "man" pager, including less with the
> typical installation, color in the man pages, etc.
Yes, and sometimes, scripts won't work because of different behaviour of
commands with the same name. This is just guess - I never tried Linux
longer than two days.
> Many of these UNIX "replacements" can be
> gotten for FreeBSD (and Coherent), but are not included with the general
> distribution and OS setup as it is with Linux.
Advantage or disadvantage ? The originals can be gotten for Linux. but
are not included with the general distribution and OS setup :-))
> * There seems to be more people working with Linux than with FreeBSD: porting
> (free) software, etc.
BSD-users can port code easily, if it's written for any BSD. COHERENT
will compile nearly every program written for SVR3. Linux is between
them and I can't believe that porting is so easy . Most of the sources
available will be ported to Linux very quick, but that says nothing
about the difficulties for porintg code.
> In conclusion, with my very limited experience, I prefer Linux over FreeBSD.
> However, this may depend on what one wants to do. For a new user, Linux
> probably would be better. It also uses up much less disk space than FreeBSD.
I had accounts on FreeBSD and Linux-systems before I leaved the COHERENT
community ( sorry MWC, but I _need_ BSD for my work in the company ).
After a long time I decided to take FreeBSD. But, I had COHERENT running
two years, so I wasn't new to Unix. _New_ users should get COHERENT,
because its a very good learning tool ( It's a good platform for
porting/writing software for SVR3, but thats another thing ).
Important: I don't want to start a great debate about
FreeBSD/Linux/COHERENT here in the newsgroup. I tried to be impartial,
but after using FreeBSD for some month, I think it's impossible :-)
Michael
--
mic...@jester.GUN.de * Michael Gerhards * Voice: +49 2131 82238
-=> FreeBSD 1.0.2 <=- * Preussenstrasse 59 * Modem: +49 2131 80923
* Germany 41464 Neuss * Login guest, no passwd
Lester Igo
: >
: >I installed COH, then Linux, then Linux, then Linux, then COH, then Linux,
: >then Linux, then Linux, and now I'm back to COH. I've formated the 40 or so
: >
: I'll second that! This accurately mirrors my Linux/Coherent experience...
: Linux runs great when it's set up properly, but it seems to take a lot
: more fiddling with than I care to put into it. I'd hesitate to recommend
: it for a new user.
I'll agree with you on that one. THe old versions of linux are basicly a
hack to install. However the new slackware is totally menu driven and self
explanitory. I just installed it a couple of days ago and wow. More powerful
More packages, More documented, and More colorful and graphical. Before you
talk about linux installation you have to try slackware newer than say
Jan.
Steve Scott
>
> One last thing I have noticed. Coherent charges you for every new bit of
> Technology. Linux is and will always be free. I have noticed that Coherent
Can Lester or anyone else explain this ??.....free??...where ???
> | Lester Igo | email- igo...@uidaho.edu |
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
And...who is Slackware ?
Thanks,
Steve Scott s...@scotty.mv.com
....
> --
--
Chung Ng
> maybe I'm biased _but_, from most thing I have seen and heard:
>
> Coherent = go/plug/n/play
> Linux = read help.plug.n.pray
Really? I installed a beta version of Linux (0.99p15) in one trial in
less than 3 hours. That includes partitioning and formatting the hard
disk, copying over 25 disks containing base UNIX plus a whole bunch of
applications and utilities, and configurating XFree 2.0. The installation
program that comes with Slackware pretty much guided me through the
entire process and all I had to do was to answer some questions. In
my opinion, the installation process of Linux is comparable to Coherent.
I am not suggesting which one is better than the other but I do believe
that installing Linux is hardly "read help.plug.n.pray".
Oh, Linux 1.0 is out by the way.
Chung Ng
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| ____ _________ _ _________ | |
| =##=== /\ | / \ | | Chung Ng |
| =###==== / \ | \ / | | AT&T -- El Segundo, California |
| =##===== / \ | X | | Chun...@SanDiegoCA.ncr.com |
| ======== /------\ | / \ / | | 310-524-6440 |
| ====== / \ | \__X | | |
| ~~~~ Global Information Solutions | GET IT! MOVE IT! USE IT! |
| | at anytime, anywhere |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Cox
>Really? I installed a beta version of Linux (0.99p15) in one trial in
>less than 3 hours. That includes partitioning and formatting the hard
>disk, copying over 25 disks containing base UNIX plus a whole bunch of
>applications and utilities, and configurating XFree 2.0. The installation
>program that comes with Slackware pretty much guided me through the
>entire process and all I had to do was to answer some questions. In
>my opinion, the installation process of Linux is comparable to Coherent.
Now days Linux is as easy to install as Coherent but not as easy for a
novice to admin. You don't get 'The Book' which to be honest is the only
part of Coherent I think justifies the price, and it justifies most of the
price itself
Alan