SCO versus Linux kernel size

SCO versus Linux kernel size

Post by Eugenio LyseiJ » Tue, 25 Feb 1997 04:00:00



Hello.

Does anybody know the size of SCO's kernel
compared to Linux Red Hat's kernel.
(Please cite the Linux kernel version :) )

 
 
 

SCO versus Linux kernel size

Post by Michael Eng » Wed, 26 Feb 1997 04:00:00


Hi,

: Does anybody know the size of SCO's kernel
: compared to Linux Red Hat's kernel.
: (Please cite the Linux kernel version :) )

Take into consideration that - at least in older SCO Unix kernels -
everything is linked in statically. A typical SCO 3.2.4.2 kernel executable
is between 900kB and 1.3MB incl. TCP/IP and NFS, IIRC - can't say anything
about the size of the source :-).
A standard Linux 2.0.x kernel is compressed between ca. 350kB and 450kB in
size (depends on the drivers etc. you compiled in) which should make it
about 800-900kB uncompressed. If I'm not mistaken, there's still the limitation
that an uncompressed kernel has to fit in one MB (maybe because LILO runs in
real mode ?) - ever seen the messages "low 1M tight" when booting big
kernels ?

Now compare that to a SCO Xenix/286 kernel - only 127 kB and also a nice
Unix :-) ...

regards,


 
 
 

SCO versus Linux kernel size

Post by Tim Curri » Fri, 28 Feb 1997 04:00:00




Quote:> Hello.

> Does anybody know the size of SCO's kernel
> compared to Linux Red Hat's kernel.
> (Please cite the Linux kernel version :) )

Got SCO OpenServer 5 running here, it's kernel is 1,811,050 bytes.

Also got Slakware 4.0, Linux Kernel 2.0.27, and it's 341,857 bytes.

-Tim

--
********************************************************


  http://members.aol.com/waldotim/myhome.htm
********************************************************

 
 
 

1. Linux versus SCO versus NT advice.

I need some advise.

Until know I've spent a lot of time and money
trying to get a Linux server running.
I was better of if I just had bought an NT server !!

I've tried Slackware 3.4 first.
But the documentation is a mess.
Allthough that isn't the biggest problem.
It isn't a stable OS.
When a program crashes it can take the whole system down.
Also the documentation isn't correct.
For example:
It states to use a gcc version x.x.x or newer to compile the kernel.
But people on the net say you will have to use a newer version than that.
(also the new compile will not install)

Then I tried Red HAt 5.1.
Same problem unstable.
Documentation seems to be a little better.
But also this OS hangs if a program crashes.
The OS doesn't even read out the keyboard anymore.
Also some basic things are wrong.
Don't try this:
cd /
ls -l */*/XF86Config
If you do this as normal user you only can shut the
server down with the power button

I've tested the above on two different PC.
One which is new the other an old one.

To let the story be short
Is an OSC server more stable than Linux ?

Can it run with the following hardware ?
ABIT LX6
64 MB ECC ram
Quantum FireBall 6.4 se ide (not my favorit brand)
Aopen 32x aku  CDROM (ide)
Intell Pentium II 300mhz
Tornado 4MB pci (s3virge DX)
microsoft ps/2 mouse.
I've several brands of ethernet and modems so that isn't a problem.

Or should I directly buy an NT server ?

Perpose:
Mainly learning a bit more of Unix.
I'm NOT interested in development in C language.
Conect my local net periodecly and automatic with the internet
when needed.
(reading email/browsing)
Whe don't have cable jet , so it will be a PPP dial up.
Design and testing of perl CGI scripts
I need a running web server for that.
I don't like the asp thing.

Please mail me at

2. 192.168 - why?

3. LinuxPPC kernel 2.1.127 versus Linux kernel 2.1.129?

4. Help: PLIP install on laptop

5. Comparing Unix versus Linux versus Windows NT/2000

6. back to X11

7. Linux versus OS/2 versus Cairo and so on

8. Caldera Lite fs problem

9. low latency versus sched O(1) - and versus preempt

10. DEC 3000 model 3000, ESA0 versus EWA0/ MOP versus BOOTP

11. XP Pro versus Home versus 2000

12. Allow for profile_buf size = kernel text size

13. Pentium-pro versus Pentium II SCO 5.0.2