From: iiitac@swan.pyr (Alan Cox) Subject: Re: Coherent vs. Linux - a comparo Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1993 18:26:37 GMT
In article <1vpsj1$j25@sun.Panix.Com> dans@panix.com (Dan Simoes) writes:
>Let's talk about Linux for a second, and compare it to Coherent,
>from what I have gleaned by reading c.o.linux for a few weeks:
>
>Coherent Linux
>======== =====
>Mostly SysV ditto, more so
Actually more POSIX than SYSV.
>No networking (pending) yes
(not yet perfect)
>COFF binaries (i.e. SCO) no
(pending - but not immediately)
>no dos emulator beta, "works w/60% of programs"
60% maybe, 60% of useful programs - not
in my experience.
>stable ???
I've been running Linux without networking, and my machine was up
42 days, and only went down to swap a serial port. With networking
on a busy network uptime is normally n days (n < 7).
>small, easy to install bigger, perhaps harder (haven't done it)
Coherent is much much easier to install. If you want an easy install
get the MCC Linux release. Its much easier to install.
>no X (Answer or MWC will cost) Xfree386 1.2 and 1.3 (free), Motif (costs)
Once networking appears and Coherent gets virtual memory I'm fairly sure
a free X server port will magically appear. These things happen thanks to
a lot of very hard working people.
>
>I think Linux is positioning itself to clobber Coherent. Many of the
>suggestions made in this group over the past few years are now ready
>in Linux, while MWC is still developing these, at (understandably)
>extra cost to their user base.
It will be interesting. Coherent is still smaller and better documented
especially as a newbie unixoid system. Also bear in mind Linux doesn't
really tick with under 4Mb of RAM. Coherent is great in 2.
Alan