From: dfox@hip-hop.suvl.ca.us (David Fox) Subject: Re: Coherent vs. Linux - a comparo Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1993 05:09:26 GMT
Peter Mutsaers (muts@muts.hacktic.nl) wrote:
: On 18 Jun 1993 20:26:45 GMT, markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) said:
: M> Linux, on the other hand, you can't even fit except on the newer
: M> machines built to accomodate overinflated code of the MicroSoft
: M> variety. What a precedent to follow!
: Nonsense. Only if you want to install all of the huge amount of large
: packages available for Linux. The core system is very small. Want to
Right. Even if you want everything in SLS, it may look like it's
big, but realistically linux binaries can be much smaller than DOS/Windows
binaries for several reasons:
) rather than using several small binaries to get the job done, the
DOS/MS-Windows approach is to have large single-purpose (and HUGE)
binaries.
) math support is in the kernel. In DOS/Windows, each binary includes
a copy of the compiler's math support. For non-FPU systems, this means
much larger binaries.
) shared libraries. Nonexistent in DOS; partially existent in Windows
(.DLL).
) MUCH more effective and efficient compiler. Although i386 (32-bit)
is potentially bigger, the code quality will / should give faster and
smaller binaries. Compared to gcc, most (16-bit) DOS compilers are
terrible.
: ______________________________________________________________________
: Peter Mutsaers | Bunnik (Ut), | Quod licet bovi,
: muts@muts.hacktic.nl | the Netherlands | non licet Jovi
-- David E. Fox email: hip-hop!dfox@amdahl.com 5479 Castle Manor Drive San Jose, CA 95129 Thanks for letting me change the magnetic 408/ 253-7992 images on your hard drive.