Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux.misc:10967 comp.unix.bsd:13604 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!hookup!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!EU.net!news.funet.fi!nntp.hut.fi!nntp!sja From: sja@snakemail.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux Date: 14 Mar 94 14:43:32 GMT Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland Lines: 30 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <SJA.94Mar14164332@gamma.hut.fi> References: <DHOLLAND.94Mar13163925@husc7.harvard.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: gamma.hut.fi In-reply-to: dholland@husc7.harvard.edu's message of 13 Mar 94 16:39:25 > Yes, it does. The Ultrix kernel (for example) has all sorts of cruft > in it associated with supporting obsolete terminal hardware and stuff > like that. Just for example. Unused hardware can be usually configured out of the kernel. I seriously doubt that whatever unused hardware support remains is going to make a big difference. (The most obvious way support for exotic hardware is going to affect you is the reverse: you _do_ have the hardware but your kernel doesn't grok it.) Let's see: $ ls -l /linux -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 502276 Apr 25 1993 /linux # ls -l /netbsd -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 491594 Feb 28 16:23 /netbsd As long as kernel sizes are the same within a few hundred kB, the "lots of kernel code for exotic hardware" theory has a definite problem. (Your numbers will depend on your hardware configuration.) (Hmm, "size /linux" bombs.) > Are you going to convince me that BSD > doesn't suffer from the same sorts of problems? Probably not. ++sja