From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 17 21:36:58 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ADC316A41F for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:36:58 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from algould@datawok.com) Received: from smtpauth04.mail.atl.earthlink.net (smtpauth04.mail.atl.earthlink.net [209.86.89.64]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9E0443D6A for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:36:52 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from algould@datawok.com) Received: from [206.255.31.21] (helo=grokwell.org) by smtpauth04.mail.atl.earthlink.net with asmtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.34) id 1EyyVY-0000RY-7W for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:36:52 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:36:55 -0600 From: "Andrew L. Gould" To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20060117153655.39e285e1@grokwell.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20060117183824.45395.qmail@web33312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 1.9.100 (GTK+ 2.8.9; i386-portbld-freebsd6.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: ee791d459e3d6817d780f4a490ca69563f9fea00a6dd62bcf66b55f0105fce2c76c0d2841b83b7dc350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 206.255.31.21 Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:36:58 -0000 On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:57:04 -0700 "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" wrote: > > On Jan 17, 2006, at 11:38 AM, Danial Thom wrote: > > > No, thats ridiculous. Linux has multiple > > distributions that use the same kernel. The fact > > that freebsd only has one distribution doesn't > > make it any more complete. > > Actually it is spot on. Linux is a kernel. The various > distributions add a ueserland and tools to it but if you go look at > the actual definition of Linux you will find it is just a kernel. > > Chad > --- > Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC > Your Web App and Email hosting provider > chad at shire.net I think the kernel vs OS difference is very important. "Linux" has a reputation of being very stable. If you survey the many (many, many) Linux distributions, however, I don't think you can justify one reputation for all of them. Advising someone to switch to "Linux" is dangerous because the advice is horribly incomplete. The advice needs to include information about specific distributions. Linux distributions can differ significantly. At this point, the decision process becomes much more complicated. This also explains why experienced Linux users are tired of hearing newbies ask "Which Linux is best? Which distribution should I use?" I enjoyed my time using Linux. There are still days when I miss Caldera's eDesktop 2.4. (What other OS let you play pacman _during_ the OS installation?!) I still try Linux distros every now and then for driver support; but greener grass seems to come with taller weeds. Andrew Gould