Re: LINUX is obsolete Linux Inside
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: LINUX is obsolete

 In article <12696@star.cs.vu.nl> ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) writes:
 >In article <6121@skye.ed.ac.uk> richard@aiai.UUCP (Richard Tobin) writes:
 >>If you wanted a full-featured Unix with paging, job-control, a window
 >>system and so on, would it be quicker to start from basic Minix and
 >>add the features, or to start from Linux and fix the 386-specific
 >>bits?  
 >
 >Another option that seems to be totally forgotten here is buy UNIX or a
 >clone.  If you just want to USE the system, instead of hacking on its
 >internals, you don't need source code.  Coherent is only $99, and there
 >are various true UNIX systems with more features for more money.  For the
 >true hacker, not having source code is fatal, but for people who just
 >want a UNIX system, there are many alternatives (albeit not free).
 >
 >Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vul.nl)
 
 Coherent is limited by a compiler that only supports the small memory model,
 making it just as difficult (perhaps more in some instances) to port 'standard'
 Unix programs to Coherent as it can be under Minix.  Also, Coherent is not
 portable (or at least, to the best of my knowledge, has not been ported), so
 this advocacy contradicts one of your arguments against Linux.
 
 Since a true Unix system often costs as much as the machine it runs on (even
 more since many Unix providers un-bundle networking and development packages),
 buying a true Unix system is more than beyond the budget of many people.
 
 John W. Linville