Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!sgiblab!pacbell.com!charon.amdahl.com!amdahl!JUTS!griffin!gab10
From: gab10@griffincd.amdahl.com (Gary A Browning)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: 386BSD or LINUX?
Message-ID: <f5wu02Uv29Rg01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
Date: 5 Nov 92 00:02:27 GMT
References: <Nov.2.20.33.38.1992.18690@remus.rutgers.edu> <1992Nov3.172846.23739@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil>
Sender: netnews@ccc.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 29
In article <1992Nov3.172846.23739@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil>,
dsc3pzp@nmrdc1.nmrdc.nnmc.navy.mil (Philip Perucci) writes:
> 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...
Version 0.0 is very old and I am not sure it is even available anymore.
The newest one, Ver 1.0 pl 58, does not have this problem.
> 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".
I do not think 386BSD is of micro kernel design.
Another limitation of 386BSD that was not mentioned earlier is that it
currently has no support for shared libraries.
--
Gary Browning | Exhilaration is that feeling you get just after a
| great idea hits you, and just before you realize
| what is wrong with it.