Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!zombie.ncsc.mil!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!matlock.mindspring.com!usenet From: Robert Sanders <rsanders@mindspring.com> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc Subject: Re: FreeBSD or NetBSD Date: 12 Dec 1995 02:15:29 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. Lines: 23 Sender: rsanders@interbev.mindspring.com Message-ID: <8791kiycq6.fsf@interbev.mindspring.com> References: <4ag00h$ckk_001@martis-d221.sierra.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: interbev.mindspring.com In-reply-to: jiho@sunset.net's message of Mon, 11 Dec 95 01:03:13 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.0.10 On Mon, 11 Dec 95 01:03:13 GMT, jiho@sunset.net (jiho@sunset.net) said: > other hand, in NetBSD 1.0 the kernel I build (equivalent to the one for > FreeBSD 2.1 that was well over 700K) is less than 500K. But even though some > of 1.0's problems have been fixed for 1.1, my kernel in NetBSD 1.1 is about > 35K larger than in 1.0, and already I am at a loss to find the reason; so the > same trend seems to be developing for NetBSD, as drove me away from FreeBSD! I think you can't see the kernel for the bytes. You say that the kernels are "equivalent" here, but later contradict yourself by listing many of the differences. The sizes are different for a reason, and it's not just because the FreeBSD guys are blazing new trails in dead code generation. These kernels do different things. > The Linux (Swansea) implementation of NFS is *tiny* compared to BSD's, and > according to some reports, works better and more reliably besides. Only on backwards day. Trust me, I know. I have used both FreeBSD and Linux NFS implementations, and FreeBSD embarrasses Linux in that area. -- Robert