Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 13:59:05 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Doug White <dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu> Cc: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net>, Arney@agape.twu.ca, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BSD's Message-ID: <19980114135905.45103@lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980113192548.24708K-100000@gdi.uoregon.edu>; from Doug White on Tue, Jan 13, 1998 at 07:26:28PM -0800 References: <199801121927.OAA00311@dyson.iquest.net> <Pine.BSF.3.96.980113192548.24708K-100000@gdi.uoregon.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 13, 1998 at 07:26:28PM -0800, Doug White wrote: > On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, John S. Dyson wrote: > >> Greg Lehey said: >>> On Tue, Jan 13, 1998 at 09:34:47PM -0800, Nathanael Arney wrote: >>>> I, not knowing much about BSD, would like to know the difference between >>>> the different versions(?) of BSD (eg. open, free etc.). >>>> >>>> I have a intel based pc 200mmx and 32meg of ram. >>>> >>>> important to me are: >>>> >>>> easy instilation >>> >>> FreeBSD >>> >>>> emulation of other unixs (including linux) >>> >>> FreeBSD. I think. >>> >> (NetBSD, OpenBSD) are perhaps a little better with esoteric >> emulations. However, I think that for multimedia emulation >> of Linux, FreeBSD is better. Otherwise, for SCO binaries, >> etc, each is probably pretty good. > > I believe the expression is `FreeBSD runs SCO better than SCO runs SCO.' There's a certain truth to this, but don't go overboard. Thanks to the internal architecture, FreeBSD can often perform better than SCO on the same machine when running SCO programs. Nothing is more compatible with SCO than SCO, however, and sometimes it shows. > I think s/SCO/Linux/ is also true :-) I think you'd have a much harder time proving this one. Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980114135905.45103>