From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Mar 7 04:35:13 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id EAA04625 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 04:35:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from hq.icb.chel.su (icb-rich-gw.icb.chel.su [193.125.10.34]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA04604 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 04:34:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (babkin@localhost) by hq.icb.chel.su (8.6.5/8.6.5) id RAA12777; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 17:35:11 +0500 From: "Serge A. Babkin" Message-Id: <199603071235.RAA12777@hq.icb.chel.su> Subject: Re: Comparing FreeBSD and other OSs To: lehey.pad@sni.de (Greg Lehey) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 17:35:11 +0500 (GMT+0500) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199603071207.NAA27433@nixpbe.pdb.sni.de> from "Greg Lehey" at Mar 7, 96 01:04:07 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text 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, AFAIK both of them are Xenix System V. May be "386" is omited now because Xenix 286 was discontinued. > it is still selling well. If it has been discontinued, it was > relatively recently (in the last 12 months). It's a surprize for me! I throught that it has been discontinued near 1992. -SB