Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!uunet!think.com!ames!haven.umd.edu!mimsy!nmrdc1!dsc3pzp From: dsc3pzp@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil (Philip Perucci) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: 386BSD or LINUX? Message-ID: <1992Nov3.172846.23739@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil> Date: 3 Nov 92 17:28:46 GMT References: <Nov.2.20.33.38.1992.18690@remus.rutgers.edu> Organization: Naval Medical Research & Development Command Lines: 33 In article <Nov.2.20.33.38.1992.18690@remus.rutgers.edu> glenw@remus.rutgers.edu (Glenn Wasserman) writes: >As the subject heading says, which is it? Which is the better,more >supported operating system (I know I'm going to get a lot on this >one!) > >I have Linux running on my machine now, and I'm just wondering if this >is the right choice. Is 386BSD more stable? Is there any reason to >switch? > I too would like feedback re: Linux vs. 386BSD. Having used Linux for a couple of weeks, and 386BSD for about 2 days clearly does not make me an expert, but 386BSD seems cleaner than Linux for 1. Of course the Linux FAQ mentioned something about 386BSD 0.0's nasty tendancy to trash hard-disks... The reason I am moving to 386BSD (assuming I can run w/3Mb & 40Mb HD - don't laugh) is the my PERCEIVED view of the kernel designs. 386BSD seems, at first glance to be a micro-kernel OS, whereas Linux is more "monolithic". It would seem compiling the kernel is more frequently needed to configure Linux. I would especially appreciate any feedback regarding this point! While my toy PC can't do much now, I do anticipate upgrade, and I would like to minimize administration/configuration issues. I happily noted this design goal in the Installation Notes for 386BSD!!! Please respond via USENET. I keep switching hosts, our domain is about to change, ... -- phil perucci dsc3pzp@nmdsc40.med.navy.mil #include <std.disclaimer>