From: mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: What NOT To POST Here!! Date: 7 Apr 1993 12:25:23 -0400
In article <1993Apr6.221838.3826@serval.net.wsu.edu> hlu@eecs.wsu.edu
(HJ Lu) writes:
>
> There is no correct answer. Only one I can think of is "try both".
> Since I only use Linux, I really don't know much about 386bsd first
> hand. I can only give some impressions:
>
> 386bsd:
>
> pros:
> very reliable networking
> cons:
> no shared library (need more disk spaces)
> GNU utilities are not default.
>
> Linux:
> pros:
> shared library (need less disk spaces). FYI, it supports
> dynamically linked library (DLL).
> GNU utilities are default, they are the best.
> better C library
> support more hardware (?)
> bugs are fixed very fast.
> cons:
> networking is not as reliable as 386bsd. but with Fred's
> improvement coming soon, that may change.
But this is twisted.
a) I know of 3 different implementations of shared libraries for
386BSD, including one which is essentially a port of the Linux code.
There is nothing stopping anyone from using them. The only difference
here is that the standard release does not include shared libraries.
b) It's not clear what you mean by a `better' C library. The 386BSD C
library is essentially from Net2. It's roughly POSIX-compliant, for
whatever that's worth, with compatibility for old BSD programs. Parts
of it (like stdio) have been worked on extensively by very bright
people. I have a fair bit of confidence in it.
c) Bugs in 386BSD tend to be fixed fairly quickly, too, but again there
is no coordinated release mechanism like SLS. I won't say `all bugs'
or even imply it, and neither should you, as I'm sure we both know of
bugs in both systems which haven't been fixed after months. (Ahem.)
d) Saying Linux `supports more hardware' is merely flame bait.
-- \ / Charles Hannum, mycroft@ai.mit.edu /\ \ PGP public key available on request. MIME, AMS, NextMail accepted. Scheme White heterosexual atheist male (WHAM) pride!