From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Dec 15 18:16:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA10920 for questions-outgoing; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 18:16:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions) Received: from fly.HiWAAY.net (root@fly.HiWAAY.net [208.147.154.56]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA10912 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 18:16:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dkelly@nospam.hiwaay.net) Received: from nospam.hiwaay.net (tnt2-150.HiWAAY.net [208.147.148.150]) by fly.HiWAAY.net (8.8.7/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA29878; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 20:16:42 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nospam.hiwaay.net (8.8.8/8.8.4) with ESMTP id TAA23870; Mon, 15 Dec 1997 19:27:59 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199712160127.TAA23870@nospam.hiwaay.net> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: Pedro Fehlauer cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG From: David Kelly Subject: Re: Linux vs. FreeBSD In-reply-to: Message from Pedro Fehlauer of "Mon, 15 Dec 1997 15:18:53 PST." <3495BADD.43F4@internet.siscotel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 19:27:59 -0600 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Pedro Fehlauer writes: > > > I didn't find this question in the FAQ. So please tell me, which OS is > better, Linux or FreeBSD ? I have only little experience with Linux and > I find it good. But I must upgrade, and I'm evaluating to choose > FreeBSD. Is it worth to make the change ? Well, checking Pedro's email headers: X-mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; I) I'd say if Linux has been bad enough for Pedro to be running Windows to web surf and send email, its time to try FreeBSD. :-) Netscape 3 and Communicator 4 are some of the most popular commercial applications available for FreeBSD. Easy to download and install via the FreeBSD ports collection. -- David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@nospam.hiwaay.net ===================================================================== The human mind ordinarily operates at only ten percent of its capacity -- the rest is overhead for the operating system.