Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 11:51:44 -0800 From: Johnson David <DavidJohnson@Siemens.com> To: freebsd@celestial.com, freebsd-newbies@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BSD Unix vs. Linux Message-ID: <200401121151.44360.DavidJohnson@Siemens.com> In-Reply-To: <20040112193631.GD89868@alexis.mi.celestial.com> References: <1691D8C9A2220149A8AF30209B5D0EB4A6A8F0@sc3.shuaacapital.co.ae> <200401121052.57987.DavidJohnson@Siemens.com> <20040112193631.GD89868@alexis.mi.celestial.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 12 January 2004 11:36 am, Bill Campbell wrote: > ``A bit harder to configure'' is the key when deploying systems for > commercial use, particularly in the desktop world. I can buy a $300 > machine from Wal-Mart with SuSE pre-installed, and have it up and > running on the network with all the essential desktop applications in > less than fifteen minutes including adding a couple of RPMS (pam_ldap > and nss_ldap) necessary for network logins. I can plug an Apple > running OS X into the same network, install X11, and have access to > all the same software plus some very high-end commercial packages > that aren't available on any non- Windows Intel systems. I was thinking of businesses that have their own admins available, either as employees, contractors or third party support. I haven't done this for a living, but from my perspective, FreeBSD is easier and quicker to install than Windows for an experienced admin. Is FreeBSD that much more difficult to install and administer than Solaris? Yet there are hundreds of businesses (maybe more) deploying Solaris on the desktop. David
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200401121151.44360.DavidJohnson>