From: STDN%MARIST@VM.MARIST.EDU (Dan Newcombe) Subject: Re: 386BSD vs Linux (* NO FLAMES * Date: 2 Oct 1992 14:29:52 -0500
> Okay, somewhere out there, I take it there is a nice
> comparasion between Linux and 386BSD.
> In paticular I'm interested in the space requiriments,
> and the tape drives that they support.
> Also the space taken up by an Xinterface, and which
> video cards are supported by the various X's.
> And of course anything else that people may have to
> add about the virtues of their choice :-)
Okay, I'm going to respond to this in an objective manner. I don't
care what people think of my views on either and I don't wanna hear it :)
While Linux does take up considerably less disk space for an installation
it depends on what you are installing. I had the kernel, the base tools,
the gcc, X and fonts, and some of the source installed. All in less than
40 Megs. The problem is getting a hold of it all. The FTP sites for
Linux are chaotic at best (or at least last time I was on one.) 386BSD
does take up more room, but this is because it is a more complete
installation, having more with it. And it is all put in the correct
place, no guessing as with some of Linux. I have it installed on a
50 meg partition right now. I do not have X and can't comment on that.
I know on Linux it was slow (I have a 386/33 and 4megs)
I'm sorry I can't comment on the tapes, but don't have one, never looked.
I think the best way to find this kind of info may be to pick up the
FAQ for both groups and compare and contrast.
Likes and dislikes about each: + = like - = dislike
Linux:
+ Small
- Unorganized distribution via FTP
+ Virtual Terminals
+ Shared Libraries
386BSD
- Size needed due to lack of shared libraries
+ Installation ease/distribution ease
+ Ease of use, friendliness
+ Lynne and Bill's sometimes biting post's to flamers on the list
Right now I only have DOS and 386BSD. My optimal hard drive would be:
1 GigaByte Drive
250 Megs 386BSD
160 Megs DOS
160 Megs Linux
160 Megs OS/2
10 Megs CP/M
and the rest Solaris :)
-Dan