From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Mar  7 04:08:13 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id EAA03446
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 04:08:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nixpbe.pdb.sni.de (mail.sni.de [192.109.2.33])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA03308
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 04:07:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from nerv@localhost) by nixpbe.pdb.sni.de (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA27437 for hackers@freebsd.org; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 13:07:38 +0100
Message-Id: <199603071207.NAA27437@nixpbe.pdb.sni.de>
Subject: Re: Comparing FreeBSD and other OSs
To: babkin@hq.icb.chel.su (Serge A. Babkin)
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 13:04:07 MET
From: Greg Lehey <lehey.pad@sni.de>
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org (Hackers; FreeBSD)
In-Reply-To: <199603071146.QAA11889@hq.icb.chel.su>; from "Serge A. Babkin" at Mar 7, 96 4:46 pm
X-Mailer: xmail 2.4 (based on ELM 2.2 PL16)
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

>> The current FreeBSD/Linux comparison is only part of a larger
>> question: which operating system should I install on my PC?
>> Stretching the term "Operating System" to include program loaders like
>> DOS, we have at least the following choices on standard PC hardware:
>>
> [...]
>> Xenix
> [...]
>>
>> Comments? Flames?
>
> IMHO Xenix means two choises, not one:
>
>    Xenix 286
>    Xenix 386
>
> Xenix 386 is completely dead (killed by SCO Unix). I can suggest only
> one use for it: it would work even in 1.5M of memory. And I see no
> reason to run Xenix 286 on any machine with {>2}86 CPU.

Yes, I know about the different kinds of Xenix.  In fact, the 386
version I have is called Xenix System V.  To the best of my knowledge,
it is still selling well.  If it has been discontinued, it was
relatively recently (in the last 12 months).

Of course, I'm not suggesting that anybody should buy SCO products.
I'm just saying they're out there.

Greg