Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!news.smith.edu!jfieber From: jfieber@sophia.smith.edu (J Fieber) Subject: Re: BSD UNIX Message-ID: <1993Aug31.185019.22189@sophia.smith.edu> Organization: Smith College References: <newmanCCL33A.GBo@netcom.com> <GOWEN.93Aug30234233@apex.cs.tufts.edu> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1993 18:50:19 GMT Lines: 75 In article <GOWEN.93Aug30234233@apex.cs.tufts.edu> gowen@apex.cs.tufts.edu (Gregory Owen) writes: > >newman@netcom.com writes: >> My local college computer store has a BSD based UNIX for only $249 >> but it requires a 486. Does anyone know of a BSD of Sys V Based UNIX >> for the PC that runs on a 386 and costs $249 or less. > Linux attempts to comply to POSIX, SysV, and BSD in that >order, I believe. I note it is much more BSD than Solaris, which is a >SysV4 system. 386bsd and NetBSD attempt to comply with BSD/POSIX and on occasion SysV where it seems appropriate. > Linux supports most any major package you want: gcc 2.4.5, >emacs 19.whatver-today-is, X, LaTeX, ghostscript, etc. etc. 386bsd and NetBSD support most any major package you want: gcc 2.4.5, emacs 19.whatever-today-is, X, LaTeX, ghostscript, etc. etc. > A second alternative which is, I believe, free, is 386bsd >which has the newsgroups comp.os.386bsd.* devoted to it. I know very >little about it except that it is not copylefted (berkely copyright, I >think) and that asking "which is better, 386bsd or linux?" is a 100% >sure way to create 2 months worth of noise on any newsgroup. I'd >advise you to find someone who uses it to get an opinion; I have no >experience with it. linux versus 386bsd threads don't usually get too out of hand in the comp.os.386bsd.* groups. I stopped monitoring the linux groups a while ago (so much news, so little time!). Both systems have evolved enough that it is getting pretty hard to come up with substantial things to pick at any more. I would add that 386bsd is based on the BSD Net2 release by the Jolitz's. Since the release of version 0.1, they have been more or less privately working on the "next greatest version" while bunches of net-people have been providing excellent support and upgrades for the 0.1 release. Due to some differences in opinion as to the direction 386bsd should take (useful for everyday use versus OS research) A branch has split off and it is called NetBSD. The improvement of the original release continues and a new base binary release, to be called FreeBSD should be coming out very soon. There is no reliable word on the next release from the Jolitz's. In their infancy, it was easy to point out great strengths and weakneses between Linux and 386bsd but it is becoming much harder now. My general impression at this point is that Linux a wee bit less hardware hungry, particularly with respect to disk space since it has shared libraries. Linux also has the reputation of very quick development and bug fixes, but sometimes at the cost of stability. 386bsd has had a tendancy to be slower about changes and upgrades but bug-fixes are well tested and the over-all system a bit more robust and stable because of that. However, at this point I believe both systems to be extremely stable and porting applications is more often than not just a "make; make install". Really, the biggest differences may be a matter of style (SysV versus BSD) and cultural. > I've been using Linux since may and am tickled pink with it. >I'd been stuck in DOS for so long, and love having an operating system >that isn't crippled. Just a personal testament. I've been using 386bsd since March and am tickled pink with it. Fortunately I *wasn't* stuck with DOS (Had an Amiga before) but for my purposes, moving to 386bsd was a good move. (Just as NetBSD is being ported to the Amiga...) -john -- === jfieber@sophia.smith.edu ================================================ ======================================= Come up and be a kite! --K. Bush ===