Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!uwm.edu!news.alpha.net!news.mathworks.com!uhog.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!jaring.my!oasys!othman
From: othman@oasys.pc.my (Othman Ahmad)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Why *BSD's have smaller user base ? [WAS: Can we quit with "Linu
Message-ID: <m1cPwc2w165w@oasys.pc.my>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 94 10:44:21 +800
References: <3b87te$11r@adam.com.au>
Organization: None
Lines: 47
steve@adam.com.au (Stephen White) writes:
> Bill Bogstad (bogstad@blaze.cs.jhu.edu) wrote:
> : Then there was the 386BSD vs. NetBSD vs. FreeBSD wars. Linux users may
> : argue about which distribution is the best; but they consider it to be one
> : OS (and it is one kernel).
>
> When I was choosing an OS, I looked at comp.os.386bsd.* and comp.os.linux.*.
>
> What I observed was:
>
> 1) The 386bsd groups were all talking about Linux.
Too many Linux users want to know about 386bsd.
>
> 2) The Linux groups were getting on with it.
Few 386bsd user want to be bothered with Linux.
I tried but get bored quickly.
>
> 3) BSD was split up into multiple warring groups.
>
> 4) Linux was getting on with it.
With different packages and libraries/versions, all scattered.
>
> So I judged that Linux was the happening OS, and I picked Linux.
>
> As for why I'm here now - the 386bsd groups are still all talking about
> Linux and I wanted some Linux vs BSD comparisions since I've heard that
> BSD can handle more of a load without getting sluggish.
It shows how insecure Linux users are.
I still stick to 386bsd because of its FFS. This is one reason why it
can handle more load. When Linux runs out of file cache RAM, it
becomes sluggish, as shown by one file benchmark test(iozone).
SABAH is HEAVEN.
If you are born in 1958, you'll cherish beautiful
beaches, corals and mountains very near to civilisations,
BUT will it last for my children?
Disclaimer: I only speak for myself