Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.questions:9431 comp.os.linux.help:26167 Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.os.linux.help Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!warwick!news.dcs.warwick.ac.uk!mashton From: mashton@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Beeblebrox) Subject: Re: NetBSD vs FreeBSD vs Linux? Message-ID: <1994Mar24.074827.19432@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> Sender: news@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Network News) Nntp-Posting-Host: stone Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England References: <SHEFF.94Mar23151209@indigoa.cr.usgs.gov> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 07:48:27 GMT Lines: 57 sheff@indigoa.cr.usgs.gov (Keith Sheffield) writes: >I am looking into using NetBSD, FreeBSD, or Linux to create several cheap >Intel Unix machines for a turnkey system. Here are the requirements I have: >1. Must be a stable platform. I would like to have the machines up 24 hrs a >day, 7 days a week if possible. I run Linux. My machine is up 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and has yet to crash. >2. Can use a wide variety of hard disk controllers, network cards, and display >devices. The actual machines that the OS will be running on will vary >depending on availability and price of the components. I think Linux has support for a pretty wide range of peripherals. Those deficiencies it does have are documented. >3. Relatively easy to install. I do not want to spend a lot of time trying to >figure out how to install the OS, since I might not be doing it on all the >machines. Fine, get a slackware distribution. >4. Relatively easy to maintain once set up. These systems will only have a >couple users running a limited set of programs. The only admin type work the >users will have to do is backing up and possibly restoring filesystems. Fine. >5. Simple network support (ie. TCP/IP, sockets, ftp, etc). X amd NFS would be >really nice, but not necessary. You got it. >I don't know a lot about the specifics of any of these OS and I would >appreciate the help. I had planned on using xenix mainly because it was >available, but cost ruled it out (it was also incompatible with a lot of the >stuff I could download from the net, too). Well, linux is awfully cheap (being free and all that) and I can compile most X stuff straight "out of the box". Non-X applications certainly give me no problems and everything I've written (being written properly :-) gives me no problem either. >I really need VM and multiprocesssing for this system. Using Dos wouldn't >really provide a good solution to my problem I think any of the above system would do, but I only have first hand experience of Linux, which works just fine IMHO. >(I don't know about OS/2, I've never been exposed to it). Lucky Devil. ___ mashton@dcs.warwick.ac.uk M.S.Ashton@csv.warwick.ac.uk C++ consultant and emacs support. Mail me if you have any problems.