Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!usenet From: John Dyson <dysonj@delphi.com> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux Date: Sun, 13 Mar 94 20:00:03 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Lines: 16 Message-ID: <he4OwCb.dysonj@delphi.com> References: <1994Mar8.141900.2906@wubios.wustl.edu><ARNEJ.94Mar9134803@supernova.pvv.unit. <DHOLLAND.94Mar13163925@husc7.harvard.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: bos1c.delphi.com X-To: David Holland <dholland@husc7.harvard.edu> David Holland <dholland@husc7.harvard.edu> writes: >Disk space isn't the issue. When I went looking around last summer, I >was told/found out from FAQs that Linux ran quite happily on a 386SX >with 4 megs of RAM, whereas *BSD didn't. Considering that I *have* a >386SX with 4 megs of RAM, this was an important issue. *BSD had problems mostly due to bugs than anything else. Even without *true* swapping *BSD should run nicely in 4MB. I would suggest running X in 8MB though. Also GCC2 is more memory hungry than GCC1, so if you are running on a 4MB system, it can be advantageous to build and use GCC1. Structurally limitations do start creeping in on less than 4MB, but some people have run *BSD in 2MB (I have heard even less????). John Dyson dyson@implode.root.com