home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.os.linux:20396 comp.unix.bsd:10200
- Path: sparky!uunet!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
-