Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP id AA1783 ; Tue, 23 Feb 93 14:57:57 EST Xref: sserve comp.os.linux:26874 comp.unix.bsd:11464 Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!csus.edu!netcom.com!danr From: danr@netcom.com (Dan Ringdahl) Subject: Re: Linux or 386BSD? Message-ID: <1993Feb20.210457.4477@netcom.com> Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) References: <C2I6x0.LzD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <1993Feb17.042948.25850@cowpas.atl.ga.us> Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 21:04:57 GMT Lines: 61 In article <1993Feb17.042948.25850@cowpas.atl.ga.us> cfs@cowpas.atl.ga.us (Charles Stephens) writes: >Thomas Aaron Insel (tinsel@uiuc.edu) wrote: >: eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad) writes: >: >: > callahan@vax.oxford.ac.uk wrote: >: >: > : However, you said that it takes "days". I have installed SLS in about >: >: > We only need half an hour to install the basic distribution of 386bsd. >: > The latest dist.fs helps because we do not need to use nu or other partition >: > editor to put the A5 code. >: >: > : four hours a couple of times, counting the time taken to download the >: > : files from the net and then onto floppy (given a net-connected machine >: > : with a floppy drive, and mtools). It would have been shorter but I was >: > : (1) installing onto a *very* slow machine (386sx-16, slow hard disk) >: > : (2) making lots of hand cuts to install into a relatively small partition. >: >: > 4 hours is virtually the whole day which we cannot afford. >: > We have installed 10 386bsd systems with full XFree86 and networking in >: > 1.5 hours, and that includes giving it a host name, by far the most tedious >: > process. >: >: Not counting the ftp time, it took me about 1/2 an hour to install Linux >: and LILO. Admittedly, I'm not using X (some extra disks), and I still >: have to re-configure my kernel to use my 3c503 ethernet card, but that >: would be a one-time investment of time if I wanted to install on many >: machines. > >Well I can install DOS, Windows, OS/2, Linux, and 386BSD, in the amount >of time I waste reading this stupid thread. Just install what YOU >want and shut up about it (unless you have a IAQ (anti-FAQ)). > >Thank you. (Flames can go directly to hell). > >-- >Charles Stephens life.c: In function `living_hell': >cfs@cowpas.atl.ga.us life.c:666: warning: variable `purpose' is undefined I believe the point of the original posting about the time it would take (eg: days) for the poster to install each system included downloading the respective OS's at some rate considerably slower than ethernet speeds (eg: 9600 or 14,400 bps). Since this person was asking for advice on which OS was the preferable and therefore more worth the considerable effort to install I don't think that it should have been taken as the request for a "My OS is better than your's" debate. Since some people seem to be convinced that just because it may have taken someone 3 or 4 days to download and install one of these 2 OS's that that OS is a piece my comment on that is that not everyone has a T1 line or better connection into the internet. Some of us have to deal with 56KB or less (I have to deal with 9600 bps personally and it takes one hell of a long time to download 50MB, the size of 386BSD, at that speed). So, why can't someone who knows something about both OS's tell us about the respective pluses and minuses. And I'm not talking about licensing, speed that you were able to download it at, or the fact that this OS is prettier than that OS. Basically, if you haven't used both, shut up. And with that comment I'll shut up because I have yet to get either installed successfully (hardware incompatibilities on 386BSD and haven't downloaded Linux yet). -Dan