*BSD News Article 7417


Return to BSD News archive

Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!ames!agate!boulder!kinglear!drew
From: drew@kinglear.cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt)
Subject: Re: 386BSD or LINUX?
Message-ID: <1992Nov4.212017.8957@colorado.edu>
Sender: news@colorado.edu (The Daily Planet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: kinglear.cs.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder
References: <Nov.2.20.33.38.1992.18690@remus.rutgers.edu> <1992Nov3.172846.23739@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 21:20:17 GMT
Lines: 42

In article <1992Nov3.172846.23739@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil> dsc3pzp@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil (Philip Perucci) writes:
>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".

Both are macro kernels.  However, the separation between the different
parts of BSD fairly clean, where as there are incestuous relationships
between the different parts of Linux (like special case code in the 
block device read/write code for hard disks, etc).

>It would seem compiling the kernel is more frequently needed to configure
>Linux.  I would especially appreciate any feedback regarding this point!

I don't agree with this point.  For the most part, Linux device drivers
auto-configure.  We'll autodetect the IRQ, memory address, and I/O address
of serial boards, most SCSI boards, etc. 

Virtually all Linux kernel structures are dynamically allocated.  Add 
another disk, and the same Linux kernel will see it.

-- 
Microsoft is responsible for propogating the evils it calls DOS and Windows, 
IBM for AIX (appropriately called Aches by those having to administer it), but 
marketing's sins don't come close to those of legal departments.
Boycott AT&T for their absurd anti-BSDI lawsuit.