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