Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!academ!news.sesqui.net!uuneo.neosoft.com!web.nmti.com!peter From: peter@nmti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc Subject: Re: BSDI as host to terminals? and ... Date: 26 Apr 1996 15:15:52 GMT Organization: Network/development platform support, NMTI Lines: 29 Message-ID: <4lqpb8$mb3@web.nmti.com> References: <4lq2i9$82@orb.direct.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: sonic.nmti.com In article <4lq2i9$82@orb.direct.ca>, Randy Dufresne <hossers@Direct.CA> wrote: > Is BSDI suitable as a host for dumb terminals in an office > enviroment much like most SCO boxes are used? Absolutely. > Why so many variations of BSD? They're all pretty much the same. The differences are due to there being different targets. > Lites 4.4 BSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD > FreeBSD, BSDI and others, What are the major differences? If you want to run Mach stuff, you use Lites. NetBSD gives you platform independence. OpenBSD is basically NetBSD relabelled. FreeBSD is 80x86 based, and aimed at reliability on a PC platform. BSDI is commercial, with commercial support and pricing. > Which is most stable? For what? To host dumb terminals in an office, from a PC? I'd go with FreeBSD or BSDI. -- Peter da Silva (NIC: PJD2) `-_-' 1601 Industrial Boulevard Bailey Network Management 'U` Sugar Land, TX 77487-5013 +1 713 274 5180 "Har du kramat din varg idag?" USA Bailey pays for my technical expertise. My opinions probably scare them