healyzh skrev:
>Cameron Kaiser wrote:
>> > Are Net and OpenBSD light-weight OSes? Holy smokes!
>>
>> OpenBSD, no. NetBSD, yes.
>I'm curious why you say OpenBSD isn't light-weight. It'll run just fine on
>a system with as little as 16MB, and works great on something like 24MB
>(which I think is what my firewall has). I think I've run it in as little
>as 8MB on a Alpha based DEC Multia.
Are you saying 16 MB is little? And I thoiught the over 4 MB demands of NetBSD
was pushing it...
>Basically I'm just wondering if this is a different version of Light-Weight
>than I'm used to. (Of course I've run Linux and X-Windows on a 386sx/16
>based laptop with Math Coprocessor and 4MB RAM, now that's a tight fit)
Linux is a big heap of bloat. It seems every UNIX is, too.
My definition of light-weight is floppy-based, sub-4 MB.
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6.
Php/fi: The syntax does a very good job on combining the drawbacks of C with
the disadvantages of Perl, in general resulting in a completely unreadable
sequence of seemingly random characters. Therefor it became quite popular
among Unix-fossils.
-- README for the HTML preprocessor "hsc"
Received on Wed Feb 14 2001 - 18:15:46 GMT