Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 21:38:13 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com> To: "Steve Brown" <gtabug@prayforwind.com>, <questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: home pc use Message-ID: <00af01c17203$4a437dd0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <3BF9B12B.3D521A4D@nycap.rr.com> <0111191831240Q.60958@chip.wiegand.org> <20011119220243.A268@prayforwind.com> <009a01c171a9$4eedbee0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <20011120061026.A2767@prayforwind.com> <013201c171b7$22d78cb0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <000401c171ed$5594fda0$660f129f@bro5637>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Steve writes: > ... I found FreeBSD's FTP install, online doc's, > and configuration slightly less "geeky" than Linux's > (wanna see geeky? try a Debian install ;) works great once past > it though). This is just my intuition, but I consider Linux to be at the absolute rock bottom of the UNIX heap--probably the worst possible choice of a UNIX variant for someone who wants UNIX. It is too ragged, too inconsistent, too "hobbyist" to be taken seriously. It has received incredible hype, and that is the only reason it even appears on the radar. In fact, it has received so much hype that people who never heard of UNIX are treating Linux as if it were God's gift to the IT community, not realizing that far better and more stable versions of the same operating system have been available and running in production for three decades. I don't like to run with the crowd just for the sake of running, so when I took an interest in UNIX, I turned to FreeBSD--it's free, and the developers seem to take UNIX a lot more seriously than the Linux kiddies do. I want an OS that can be used for real production, not just for tinkering on the kitchen table, and I've already seen proof that FreeBSD is capable of this ... it has been running my production Web site on the Net for four years, without any problems at all. > I'm not a "Microsoft hater", but I did make the > mistake of buying a new OEM machine with Win98 > pre-installed back when Win98 was unfit for a > desktop or anything else outside a test-lab ... I always blast anything that is preinstalled, and reinstall from scratch. I like to know exactly what's on the machine, and the only way to know that is to install it all yourself. > ... (HP replaced entire system twice thinking > the PC was bad). See my other comments here about prematurely blaming hardware. HP hardware, in particular, is legendary for its reliability (even their OEM parts are often screened to get only the cream of the crop). > Now that they've fixed Win98 it gets the other > half of my drive... All the consumer versions of Windows are garbage, IMO. As soon as NT came out, I installed it, and I've never looked back. NT can run for years without a reboot, just like UNIX. > FreeBSD: multiuser, webserving & networks, > stable, powerful > Windows: friendly to non-geeks, hardware & > software compatability Excellent summary. Windows is what I recommend to non-IT friends and relatives--my parents run it. FreeBSD is what I'd recommend to a computer-savvy party that wants something lean and mean to run a network in the most optimal way--_especially_ if that network is going to have any contact at all with the evil Internet and all the dark dangers it conceals. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00af01c17203$4a437dd0$0a00000a>