From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Oct 15 21:05:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA01893 for chat-outgoing; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 21:05:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat) Received: from onyx.atipa.com (user23682@ns.atipa.com [208.128.22.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA01874 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 21:04:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd@atipa.com) Received: (qmail-queue invoked by uid 1018); 16 Oct 1997 04:09:50 -0000 Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 22:09:50 -0600 (MDT) From: Atipa X-Sender: freebsd@dot.ishiboo.com To: Tim Vanderhoek cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Linux vs. the rest of the world, poor OS comparison on web page In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, Tim Vanderhoek wrote: (snip, snip, ...) > Because FreeBSD is easier than Linux to install on a non-Internet > computer, (snip, snip, ...) Come on, guys. I hate seeing the "good guys" stoop to the level of the competition. Tim's statement is very opinionated, with about as much substantiation as Linux's 6 million users. We need to stay away from arbitrary, opinionated comments like the above. I personally feel Linux's installation is easier than FreeBSD's, especially Red Hat Linux. Slackware is not bad either. The "installation" I am speaking of is primarily: 1) Setting up partitions 2) Installing kernel 3) making devices 4) installing system binaries 5) generating a working /etc directory I think Linux's install routines for these processes are typically easier. I think FreeBSD excels in: 1) Application software (ports and packages are excellent) 2) Security (much more secure out-of-box) 3) Patches and updates (due to unified source) Since these steps can also be considered "install"-related, FreeBSD puts up a fight, but I think we need to be careful here. Let's stick to the facts if we are going to flame the unsubstantiated :) Kevin