Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 21:33:26 -0700 (PDT) From: "Brian W. Buchanan" <brian@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> To: Sam Stephenson <sam@conio.net> Cc: freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: Marketing / Differentiating FreeBSD Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908072129110.88884-100000@smarter.than.nu> In-Reply-To: <NDBBLFFHAKMHCGPCGNFAKEGCCAAA.sam@conio.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Sam Stephenson wrote: > > o Run forever. Uptimes of months are the norm. > > Stability seems to be one of the Linux community's favorite claims. We > first must prove (or attempt to prove) that FreeBSD is more stable than > Linux -- perhaps by pointing out that kernel updates are nowhere near as > often as Linux's four-times-a-week? I fail to see what the frequency of kernel updates has to do with stability. And FreeBSD's kernel updates are *hourly* if you use CVSup. I've never heard anyone say that Linux is more stable than FreeBSD, and there's a lot of anecdotal evidence the other way around, but no good studies to support this. > > o Internet-secure. Fewer security issues than any other popular > > OS. > > We might sound a little pretentious here, since OpenBSD's emphasis is on > strong security. But that's just a thought. If I'm recalling correctly, OpenBSD's had a root compromise bug more recently than we have. They talk big, but I don't think there's a significant difference in security between an out of the box FreeBSD system and out of the box OpenBSD system, or between hardened systems of each OS. -- Brian Buchanan brian@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU -------------------------------------------------------------------------- FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! http://www.freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9908072129110.88884-100000>