Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mira.net.au!news.netspace.net.au!serval.net.wsu.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!oracle.pnl.gov!osi-east2.es.net!lll-winken.llnl.gov!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!news.uh.edu!uuneo.neosoft.com!bonkers.taronga.com!peter From: peter@bonkers.taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: BSD CD-ROM : Walnet Creek or Infomagic ? Organization: Taronga Park BBS Message-ID: <D2I6tM.D91@bonkers.taronga.com> References: <3e8t0q$gnp@vishnu.jussieu.fr> <3f7hc4$er9@escape.widomaker.com> <D2EJnL.Mn1@bonkers.taronga.com> <3fcgs1$6qk@escape.widomaker.com> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 14:56:09 GMT Lines: 26 In article <3fcgs1$6qk@escape.widomaker.com>, Shannon Hendrix <shendrix@escape.widomaker.com> wrote: >I'm sure you wouldn't have them remove 386-specific code like TSS >segments, tasking primitives, hardware memory protection, certain >exceptions, etc? I don't know enough about the 386 to say, though there's been some discussion that the TSS stuff is really too heavyweifght and CISCish for something like UNIX. >Well, I've never say BSD was more 386 specific myself. I don't recall who did, but that's what the original message I was responding to was saying: FreeBSD=too 386 specific, NetBSD=too port specific, with Linux in the middle. Which is just silly... Linux is way more out there in 386 land than either BSD. If anyone's in the middle it's FreeBSD. >>Heck, in some ways that's a problem for FreeBSD: >>it can't use the Linux DOS emulation because that depends on the Linux >>80x86 support. >Well, I was staying away from BSD because it didn't support my Adaptec >1520 but you are tempting me... :-) Oh, it doesn't run DOOM either!