*BSD News Article 7068


Return to BSD News archive

Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!uunet!pipex!ibmpcug!rachel.ibmpcug.co.uk!adrian
From: adrian@rachel.ibmpcug.co.uk (Adrian Hall (Systems Manager))
Subject: Re: 386BSD vs. SCO
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, Harrow, England
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1992 17:56:44 GMT
Message-ID: <BwqpuK.8uJ@ibmpcug.co.uk>
References: <1cesn9INNfs5@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
Sender: news@ibmpcug.co.uk (News System Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: rachel.ibmpcug.co.uk
Lines: 22

In article <1cesn9INNfs5@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> lestat@cats.ucsc.edu (Lestat de Lioncourt) writes:
>
>
> i am preparing to setup my first unix box. and am wondering whether i 
>should go with 386BSD or SCO. OS cost is not an issue. So that makes no
>difference in my selection. I have read the faq on 386bsd. It says that
>BSD cannot reside next to a dos partition, is this still teh case? and
>will i be able to run xwindows from bsd. this is very important. for now
>i will be running the system on a 386 system. although if i need more 
>performance i will get a 486-50. 
>

I run both SCO Unix v3.2.4 and 386BSD. It all depends on what you want. Do
you want a stable envioronment, thats very hard for porting software too,
but has the backing of an international development team (paid) on it, or
do you want a chance at kernel source code hacking, an easier time of porting
but doing a lot of support by yourself.

The choice is, in the end, totally up to you. Personally, I would go for
386BSD, but then, I like hacking.

Adrian