Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.mira.net.au!inquo!in-news.erinet.com!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!nmia!gallup.cia-g.com!lithium From: Stephen Fisher <lithium@cia-g.com> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Linux vs. FreeBSD ... Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 21:33:44 -0600 Organization: New Mexico Internet Access Lines: 36 Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960509213021.5051J-100000@gallup.cia-g.com> References: <3188C1E2.45AE@onramp.net> <4mnsc5$6qo@sundial.sundial.net> <xcd3f5csajb.fsf@woodlawn.uchicago.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: gallup.cia-g.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII In-Reply-To: <xcd3f5csajb.fsf@woodlawn.uchicago.edu> On Tue, 7 May 1996, Soren Dayton wrote: > Our friend, b.j.smith@ieee.org (Bryan J. Smith, E.I.), wrote: > > > Linux, since it is written from the ground-up, is a much more efficient OS > > than FreeBSD (which has been written somewhat from the ground up, to prevent > > a lawsuit from BSDI, is still a lot of legacy OS code). Huh? That means Linux has a while to mature still, FreeBSD is based on a project which has been worked on and revised since the earily 80's. > You are going to have to explain this causal relationship to my little > mind > > > And FreeBSD v2.1 is > > a little dated (late '94) > > Funny. My 2.1 has system binaries from November 95. > > > and the current test version is still quite buggy. > > > > wow, test version that say *ONLY HACKERS USE THIS* are not stable. I > think I might just die from shock. Linux users aren't used to different levels of stability. They have one ongoing kernel that is going to get up to 1.3.150 before they finally release a stable one (no I didn't say one that has worked great on your machine for 20 hours so far.. I mean STABLE). Linux users shouldn't be talking about our latest SNAPshots being unstable - what about their 1.3.x kernels.. :) - Steve