From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Oct 9 17:53:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA11357 for questions-outgoing; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 17:53:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions) Received: from pili.adn.edu.ph (pili.adn.edu.ph [165.220.57.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA11350 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 17:53:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from art@pili.adn.edu.ph) Received: from localhost (art@localhost) by pili.adn.edu.ph (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA09552; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:03:11 +0800 (PHT) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:03:11 +0800 (PHT) From: Arthur Alacar To: Julian Elischer cc: Annelise Anderson , Greg Lehey , Robert Rusk , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Linux vs freeBSD In-Reply-To: <343D4991.446B9B3D@whistle.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk how about security issues?.. are they equally _secured_? |art| > > > not really. The NFS code still lags. > > > they re-wrote their networking top work along similar lines toours > > > (except with a more modern approach) it works well. > > > > > I think maybe what I meant was the TCP/IP stuff....which at one > > time was supposed to be better....is the answer to that different? > > > > AA > That's what they rewrote. > basically, because we were embarrasing them.. > that's why 2 systems is an advantage.. >