Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux:19115 comp.unix.bsd:8939 Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.hawaii.edu!ames!agate!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!ee!rick From: rick@ee.ee.uwm.edu (Rick Miller) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: Pros/cons of linux/386bsd? Date: 14 Dec 1992 20:26:46 GMT Organization: Just me. Lines: 34 Distribution: world Message-ID: <1giqm6INNj04@uwm.edu> References: <1giohqINNsqc@pollux.usc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.2.33 mharm@pollux.usc.edu (Michael Harm) writes: >Hi folks. >We are trying to decide whether to go with linux or 386bsd for >our 486 machines. Particular constraints are: First off... Who's "we"? That might give us a clue. You see, if "we" is a law-sensitive organization you may want to avoid 386BSD because it's derived from the NET-2 tapes which AT&T now claims to have Copyrights on. >We don't have a lot of disk space. Linux uses shared libraries, 386BSD doesn't. This means that Linux will take up a *lot* less disk-space than 386BSD will... especially if you intend to have lots of little executables (such as the usual suite of UNIX-ish commands: ls, more, cat, etc.). >We need X11. Both do this, don't they? >We don't have a lot of memory per machine. Linux will run with only 2 MegaBytes (though the install's a bit trickier). >We don't have cd roms Neither Linux nor 386BSD require you to have a cdrom. You didn't mention what you want to *DO* with your machines... That's CRITICAL. If you want to do networking, perhaps 386BSD is your answer. But if you want to be POSIX-compliant, it's Linux. Rick Miller <rick@ee.uwm.edu> | <rick@discus.mil.wi.us> Ricxjo Muelisto Occupation: Husband, Father, WEPCo. WAN Mgr., Discus Sys0p, and Linux fan