From owner-freebsd-advocacy  Tue Apr 13  0:51:43 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org
Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (zippy.cdrom.com [204.216.27.228])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 2FB1D14D48; Tue, 13 Apr 1999 00:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com)
Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by zippy.cdrom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA58592;
	Tue, 13 Apr 1999 00:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com)
To: Nik Clayton <nik@nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk>
Cc: Charles Henrich <henrich@flnet.com>, advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG,
	Dan Langille <junkmale@xtra.co.nz>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Charles Henrich a Star? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 13 Apr 1999 08:27:12 BST."
             <19990413082712.A7233@catkin.nothing-going-on.org> 
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 00:49:49 -0700
Message-ID: <58590.923989789@zippy.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> "Movie FX company chooses FreeBSD over Linux for increased reliability"

Or, even less combatatively:

"Movie FX company chooses FreeBSD for overall reliability"

Then in the article you can have a paragraph saying how Linux was
evaluated and FreeBSD chosen instead, even though the renderman binary
was a Linux one.  Even if it just states reasons of personal
preference for this, it's fine.  Just so long as it's not in the
headline or makes claims that Linux is somehow less reliable in
general (stating a preference is not the same as making bold claims),
we're fine.

- Jordan


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message