Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.hawaii.edu!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.bc.net!news.mindlink.net!van-bc!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!not-for-mail From: les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: TCP latency Date: 16 Jul 1996 09:04:40 -0500 Organization: /usr/lib/news/organi[sz]ation Lines: 50 Message-ID: <4sg7ho$brs@Mercury.mcs.com> References: <4paedl$4bm@engnews2.eng.sun.com> <4sactc$fd5@uriah.heep.sax.de> <4sbpim$f4i@mercury.mcs.com> <4sc2lk$d3l@uriah.heep.sax.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: mercury.mcs.com Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:55607 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:23771 In article <4sc2lk$d3l@uriah.heep.sax.de>, J Wunsch <joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de> wrote: > >> >> I feel that it is self defeating >> >> to have BSDI, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and 386BSD out there. >> > >> >I feel that it is self defeating to have twenty-five different Linuxes >> >around. :) (I mean complete systems here, not only kernels.) >> >> I disagree (in both cases). There are at least 25 reasons to set up >> a system differently. > >But then you must admit that at least three different BSD streams are >not too many: > >. one for a commercially supported system >. one for a multi-platform system >. one for a ``mainstream platform(s) only'' but all whistles and bells > system > >That should cover 24 of your 25 reasons. ;-) Not exactly. I'm thinking more in terms of the intended use and user of the machine more than how and why it gets there. Actually one distribution would be OK if it came with setup scripts to optimize it as: + an xterminal + a terminal server, perhaps with fax and voice support + a single user workstation with local apps + a router + a server for any/all of NFS, appletalk, smb, http, smtp, pop, etc. + a multiuser interactive host and so on. That is, it is the combination of apps/OS that is important by the time you actually do anything. Most people don't have the expertise to tune a generic kernel for their intended use. Even Windows NT appears to be so difficult to tune that it is shipped in workstation/server editions. >(Note that i personally don't have a problem with seeing more than one >Linux distribution, but i do have a problem with Larry McVoy not >allowing us to have more than one *BSD distribution.) Well it would be nice if you at least emulated each other to a point where applications would compile without knowing which variation. Linux is particularly nice in this respect since it also provices sysv emulation and my old programs written with termio (vs. termios) compile with almost no changes. Les Mikesell les@mcs.com