From: news@hrd769.brooks.af.mil (InterNet News)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Is MINIX much better than LINUX?
Date: 13 Dec 1992 21:08:29 -0600
Organization: Armstrong Lab MIS, Brooks AFB TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: hrd769.brooks.af.mil

>
>Can't pass on this one... The simple answer is a resounding NO.
>

Linus,
  How soon they forget.  They leave home and the folks seem like such
bumphins :-).

  You DID cut your operating system teeth on Minix, as I recall.  It was
pretty spiffy at the time, wasn't it?  

>There are two circumstances when you may find minix better:
>
> - studies with the book: minix documentation is better, and if you are
>   reading the Tanenbaum book, minix will naturally be closer to what is
>   covered in the text. 
> - if linux won't run on your hardware (ie PS/2 or any non-386
>   hardware, or <2MB memory).
>

  It seems to me that these are both pretty convincing reasons.  To make the
latter clearer, If you are using less machine than a 386 (like the '286
I am writing this on), then Minix is an EXCELLENT choice.  As the system
becomes more and more POSIX compliant, it is getting steadily better.  It
does COST more than Linux, it is not as good as choice as 386bsd or Linux
for 386 and bigger machines.  

>Linux has all the features that minix has (except minix-specific things
>like amoeba support), as well as a lot of features minix doesn't have:
>
[lots of excellent reasons to get Linux deleted]
>
>And a lot more...
>

and requires a lot more memory, a bigger CPU, and more hard disk space.
Let's see how many processes you can get running on a 8088 and a 20Meg
hard drive using Linux (trick question, Linux is 386 specific).

>Linux is lacking in (relative to some other unixes, not minix):
>
> - No sysv shared memory yet (well, there are patches, but not part of
>   the official kernel), and no real mmap(). 
> - Not binary compatible with anything
> - Documentation and "real" support (although the c.o.linux newsgroup is
>   pretty good)
> - ...?
>

  Minix doesn't have these either.

>386bsd has a more mature networking setup, as well as having the
>advantage of being "the real McCoy".  Check out both comp.os.linux and
>comp.unix.bsd for details. 
>

  386bsd won't run on a 286 either.

>Note that both linux and 386bsd are good for people who aren't afraid to
>set up the system themselves, and are willing to find documentation from
>various sources.  Coherent (USD $99) might be an alternative if you want
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |-X

  If you can't say something nice, don't say anything; so I won't.

  All kidding aside, Minix is the right choice for people who can't afford
to jog out everytime Intel tells us to upgrade.  Glen Overby told me once
that 'you have to get the best computer you can before you're married, because
it has to last you a lifetime.'  I've been married 15 years and can think about
either sending my oldest to college, or a 386.  Decisions, decisions.  With
those kinds of constraints, my el cheapo '286 will support three or four
virtual consoles at a time, and do a lot of the Unix stuff I want to do.  Some
of it is out of range (X for example), but I'll deal with it, and develop
clever ways to work around those problems.
  It is still a compact little OS that uses the features of my 286 rather
smartly.  I like it and will continue to use it (at least until I win the
lottery).
  I just thought I'd jump up to defend this poor beast.  It seems that so many
of the faithful (remember the PDP-11 memory Management debate, or the
efficient vs. effective falmefest?) have departed for sexier waters.  I'll
hang around here as long as there is power in this old '286, and keep on
trying to figure out how the 'nice' patches work :-)

  Just call me one of the old fogeys...

TSgt Dave Burgess
NCOIC AL/MIS
Brooks AFB, TX
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix