On Wed, 10 Jan 1996, Shunsuke Baba wrote:

> <30F2A7E2@gwpc.richuish.ac.uk>の記事において
> 5FARRANDJ@year1m.richuish.ac.ukさんは書きました。
> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Within the next couple of months, I will hopefully have upgraded my Amiga 
> >> enough to run a Unix system.
> >> 
> >> I'll have an A1200, 50mhz 030/882, 8meg fast RAM, 0.5 gig harddisk.
> >> 
> >> Which should I go for, Linux or NetBSD?
> >> 
> >> Yours Virtually...
> >> 
> >> Jim Farrand
> >> 
> 
> 	I think.. your 030 has MMU, you can use NetBSD on your A1200.

Or Linux/68k, it's a matter of taste :)
I have this *funny* feeling that netbsd consumes more ram than linux, 
but that's "just me" ofcourse :)

--- kolla


PS. 

I tried the tiny almost completely new little "unix" feelalike OS called 
mapux, on my brothers stock 1200 and found to my suprice that ... 
"Wow virtual consoles!"   Now wouldn't that be nice on NetBSD ? 
The typical answer: 
"what you need it for, run X, besides you've got "screen" havent you ?" 
Well.. I've just seen the game "Abuse" on linux(PC), a lisp game, quite 
cool, runs both in consolemodus and in a tiny window on X. The X version is 
actually too small, so I prefer the console version. Do I have to shut 
down the X server to that ? No, "ctrl+alt+Fx" there, a console to run the 
game. Not that such games are very common in unix envirement yet, but in 
the future ? As amiga-owners we _should_ know what use there is in 
virtual consoles, and I dont understand those who dont.
I would really prefer consoles on netbsd since the AGA support for X is 
so limited when it comes to size and resolution. (If I want X I use amiwin)

Why isn't virtual consoles implemented ?
How difficult would it be to implement it ?
Why do some people seem to prefer "screen" instead of virtual consoles ?

Comments please ?