Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 09:52:49 +0100 From: "Bond, Jeffery" <Jeff.Bond@nectech.co.uk> To: "'freebsd-questions@freebsd.org'" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: re: linux vs fbsd Message-ID: <014CB6ADC0BCD0118B1B006097827D5B022CBE@exchange>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>freebsd users tell me linux sucks. >linux users tell me freebsd sucks. > >what's the big difference? from what I've heard, linux is cooler to play >around with, and fBSD is cooler for security/stability (and maybe even to >lay aroud with ;-)). > >'m running linux right now...but I've got fBSD 2.2, and I don't wanna >ait to get another puter to install it on... > > > : BBoBB : I used to run Redhat linux 2.0.30 on an ageing 486. I also ran SAMBA (provides SMB Win3.11/95 disk and printer shares) on this machine. I was plagued by total system lockups when accessing the SAMBA shares from a DOS box on a Win95 machine. That is, the Linux machine would crash, not the Win95 client. After many pleas to the Samba mailing list for help, with no response, I tried FreeBSD instead. To date (about 2-3 months), I have never had a crash. I'm still running the exact same version of SAMBA on the same PC, so Linux must have been at fault. FreeBSD seems to use less disk space too. I've no idea how, but I've got just as much crap installed as I used to have on the Linux system. In my opinion, FreeBSD is much more stable, and less muddled. --------------------------------------------------- Jeffery Bond <mailto:jeffbond@compuserve.com> <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jeffbond>; ---------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?014CB6ADC0BCD0118B1B006097827D5B022CBE>