Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 22:09:50 -0600 (MDT) From: Atipa <freebsd@atipa.com> To: Tim Vanderhoek <hoek@hwcn.org> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Linux vs. the rest of the world, poor OS comparison on web page Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.971015212944.23326A-100000@dot.ishiboo.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.971015170303.21061B-100000@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.971015212944.23326A-100000>