Since Most Everythings's right with SCO Can we make it smaller?

[Sean Eric Fagan]

In article <1991Apr25.153709.552 at bilver.uucp> bill at bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes:
>In article <545 at jahangir.UUCP> marc at jahangir.UUCP (Marc Rossner) writes:
>>In article <204 at mnopltd.UUCP>, neal at mnopltd.UUCP writes:
>>> I noticed that the Xenix 2.3.2 kernel is about 1000K.   The SCO Unix
>>> kernel is about 2000K.                                      ^^^^^^^^ 
>>I thought that the advantage of Xenix was that it was supposed to be tiny.
>                                 ^^^^^
>SCO manufactures BOTH Xenix and Unix.   Xenix is small in comparison to
>Unix.

kithrup 1> size /unix
591700 + 79492 + 465460 = 1136652

I wish kithrup still had it's xenix kernel, so you could see the difference.
What was it, you ask?  Well, kithrup's xenix kernel was about 500k total,
and that included STREAMS and whatnot (my ex-housemate ran X on it, so we
bumped up some limits, and put in a few extra device drivers).  kithrup is
running with networking, STREAMS, and whatnot.  (No NFS, though.)

I have seen SCO UNIX kernels approaching 4Mbytes (lots and lots and lots of
drivers, mostly); I have also seen xenix kernels approaching 2Mbytes.  The
main difference, at that point, is that there *is* so much more for unix:
filesystems (cd-rom, dos, nfs, rfs), more device drivers out there, etc.

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it;
sef at kithrup.COM  |  I had a bellyache at the time."
-----------------+           -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.