Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux:57422 comp.unix.bsd:13663
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!not-for-mail
From: ggm@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au (George Michaelson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux
Date: 23 Mar 1994 13:57:17 +1000
Organization: University of Queensland
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <2moemt$sln@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au>
References: <CGD.94Mar9085540@erewhon.CS.Berkeley.EDU> <CMI39r.GrE@ucc.su.OZ.AU> <DERAADT.94Mar19235135@newt.fsa.ca> <2mo6uh$ecm@u.cc.utah.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dingo.cc.uq.oz.au
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #2 (NOV)
terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) writes:
>As the original poster pointed out, support for the machines that *don't*
>have a 4.1.3 that will run on them is the major selling point. For
>machines that *do* have 4.1.3, 4.1.3 is BSDish enough that there isn't
>a religious reason to switch.
Depends on your religion. Around here, one common sourcetree for a mix
of boxen spells MUCH better control on application release to that mix.
We're looking at rightsizing DNS/Kerberos/Mailhub/Newshub/X25hub/OSIhub
stuff onto the appropriate CPU, disk and memory combinations. If we can
get them under a common source tree, then by golly we're winning on the
personpower $$$ budget.
StunOS stings you $something per layered product. Enough of this comes
in *bsd (like OSI and X.25) that we can do all of the above for a lot
less in dollar terms, both licencewise and labourwise.
I'd say by that holy creed, its worth it even if it excludes the SS10 and
above.
Roll on DEC/Mips support...
-George
--
George Michaelson
G.Michaelson@cc.uq.oz.au The Prentice Centre | There's no market for
University of Queensland | hippos in Philadelphia
Phone: +61 7 365 4079 QLD Australia 4072 | -Bertold Brecht