Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux.advocacy:1756 comp.os.386bsd.misc:5306 comp.unix.bsd:16105 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!prodigy.com!not-for-mail From: davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: Linux vs. BSD?! Date: 10 Feb 1995 10:52:51 -0500 Organization: TMR Associates, Schenectady NY Lines: 21 Sender: davidsen@usenety1.news.prodigy.com Message-ID: <3hg24j$u9g@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com> References: <3h68pj$agf@gateway.wiltel.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: loopback.news.prodigy.com In article <3h68pj$agf@gateway.wiltel.com>, Igor Chudov <igor_chudov@wiltel.com> wrote: | You know, it is too hard to live without Unix at home, so now I am trying | to make a major choice for my home PC based system. Do you have any | arguments about Linux vs. 386BSD? If you use BSD at work or school, use it at home. Otherwise use Linux. BSD may be a hair more stable, but unless you want the bleeding edge kernels, Linux is fine, and runs for months without problems <crosses fingers here>. Linux is a POSIX system, and feels like many workstations, while BSD feels like, well, BSD. Virtually every workstation now either runs a SysV kernel or a BSD kernel with POSIX extensions and utilities. I guess I would call Linux "stable but not static," with usefully stable kernels coming out on a regular basis. I run two productin systems which have not had a software crash in about a year. The development system... well Linux "restore from backup" and "reload from CD" work well on that.