Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!bruce.cs.monash.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!yeshua.marcam.com!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!agate.berkeley.edu!cgd
From: cgd@erewhon.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Chris G. Demetriou)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux
Date: 9 Mar 94 18:03:33
Organization: Kernel Hackers 'r' Us
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <CGD.94Mar9180333@erewhon.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
References: <1994Mar8.141900.2906@wubios.wustl.edu> <2lk1jm$aor@simpson-01.cs.strath.ac.uk>
<JK4rPn2.dysonj@delphi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: erewhon.cs.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: John Dyson's message of Wed, 9 Mar 94 19:18:38 -0500
In article <JK4rPn2.dysonj@delphi.com> John Dyson <dysonj@delphi.com> writes:
>We (FreeBSD) have made significant inroads into running on small machines.
>There are individuals running X on 4MB (but slowly.)
you make that sound so... AMAZING...
X386 has run on 4MB under *BSD of ram since the day X was ported to 386bsd.
"been there, done that, didn't want the t-shirt."
Perhaps some releases of *BSD (e.g. FreeBSD 1.0) weren't exactly... stable?
with 4M of RAM, but 386BSD worked fine w/4M of ram (it ran on my only
development machine, with that configuration, for a year, give or take...
with *2* megs for a while). NetBSD hasn't had any troubles with 4M of
RAM (i'm still using that damned machine for development, but not most
of the time... 8-), and it'll apparently boot multi-user and be usable
on a 2M machine, with a somewhat-large kernel (i.e. including NFS, etc.).
In other words: "truth in advertising" -- running X on 4M is no significant
inroad.
cgd
--
chris g. demetriou cgd@cs.berkeley.edu
you can eat anything once.