Linux or FreeBSD?
Aaron Ka Ho Leung
Hi everyone,
I would like to switch to a Unix-like operating system, and the biggest
ones out there seem to be Linux and FreeBSD. I'm a PC user who studies
CS and needs to program, and I would also like internet connectivity.
Which OS is right for me, or does it not really matter? By the way, I'm
not trying to start any religious wars; I just want to know which OS I
should get.
Also, are there any docs on the 'net where I can read about objective
comparisons between different Unixes?
Thank you very much-
Aaron Leung
Mark Menard
My advice would be to get both of them and try them out. Personally I
have tried a log of PC Unix's, and I seem to keep coming back to Red Hat,
but YMMV.
Later,
Mark
--
Mark Menard <ma...@capital.net> http://www.capital.net MarkX on IRC
Will the [Linux] assault [on the desktop] succeed?
"Yes," says Bob Young. "Categorically. There is not a doubt in our minds."
Alexander Viro
In article <6njuhk$d3l$1...@hirame.wwa.com>, Bloody Viking <nos...@wwa.com> wrote:
>
>Aaron Ka Ho Leung (al2...@uclink4.berkeley.edu) wrote:
>: Hi everyone,
>: I would like to switch to a Unix-like operating system, and the biggest
>: ones out there seem to be Linux and FreeBSD. I'm a PC user who studies
>: CS and needs to program, and I would also like internet connectivity.
>Hard choice, to be sure. I chose Linux becuse it's more easally available,
>and the fact that more equipment is supported. Also, there's more
>information on the net for Linux than FreeBSD. Granted the info in
>question is more flaming than anything, you'll find more newsgroups about
>Linux than FreeBSD. You can use DejaNews to sift out the flamers.
Yes. Moreover, you can use DN to find answers to your questions. DN
archives everything (well, almost) since '95. And they have very
convenient search engine. So odds are 9:1 that you'll find an answer to
your question there - most likely somebody asked it before ;-)
>Personally, I think Linux's biggest problem is the RTFM flamers. It's
>better to use DejaNews or lurk the newsgroups. However, if you have an
>esoteric problem, it's a case of putting up with the flamers. This sad
>fact has prevented me from making use of Samba. :(
Wow! BV, you just reproduced, word to word, the standard RTFM mantra: lurk
around and look on DN, just to check if the question was already asked and
answered. If you couldn't find the answer - ask here.
>In both cases, be prepared to be a do-it-yourself-er!
And yet another one... ;-)
>There are no helping
>hands out there! Also, as far as hardware, be prepared to find things that
>work fine on one system but not on the next. I found this out with a
>Wearnes CDD-110 Cd drive in the old days. It worked on a PCI motherboard,
>but not on a VESA motherboard! UNIX on a PC is fun, but there are caveats
>to be aware of. :(
Yep. Speaking of that: check the Linux Hardware-HOWTO (it's available on
sunsite.unc.edu in /pub/Linux/docs/HOWTO/ along with other useful texts).
It's hardware compatibility list. Must-read thing if you are going to buy
a new hardware. Other text: Installation-HOWTO (the same place). Look it
through - it will save you a lot of frustration. If you'll go for FreeBSD
(BTW, you can get both - they can live together) look at www.freebsd.org -
they have a hardware compatibility list and installation/troubleshooting
instructions there.
>In most cases, Linux is the better choice between Linux and FresBSD. Of
>course, your exact situation is what will make you to make the choice.
Yep. Additional advice: look around for clued friends. If you know
somebody well-clued in Linux - go for Linux. If you have a good BSD guru
around - go for FreeBSD. Both systems are pretty similar and your main
problem will be the same: need to read. Big way. Moreover, topics will be
the same no matter which system you'll pick and experience that you'll get
will apply to both systems. Again, the most severe problem for newbies
with non-UNIX background is the same on both systems: you'll have to read
manuals. Having somebody who can give explanations in real-time is a big
win.
There are performance, etc. differences between Linux and FreeBSD,
but it depends. It depends on _what_ you are going to do. For some tasks I
prefer Linux. For some - FreeBSD. Anyway, when the differences will become
significant for you... well, you will know enough to (a) learn another
system with almost no pain and (b) decide what suits your needs better
yourself.
Welcome aboard and good luck ;-)
HAND,
Al
--
"You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!"
"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a real computer" - Dilbert.
Bloody Viking
Aaron Ka Ho Leung (al2...@uclink4.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: Hi everyone,
: I would like to switch to a Unix-like operating system, and the biggest
: ones out there seem to be Linux and FreeBSD. I'm a PC user who studies
: CS and needs to program, and I would also like internet connectivity.
Hard choice, to be sure. I chose Linux becuse it's more easally available,
and the fact that more equipment is supported. Also, there's more
information on the net for Linux than FreeBSD. Granted the info in
question is more flaming than anything, you'll find more newsgroups about
Linux than FreeBSD. You can use DejaNews to sift out the flamers.
Personally, I think Linux's biggest problem is the RTFM flamers. It's
better to use DejaNews or lurk the newsgroups. However, if you have an
esoteric problem, it's a case of putting up with the flamers. This sad
fact has prevented me from making use of Samba. :(
In both cases, be prepared to be a do-it-yourself-er! There are no helping
hands out there! Also, as far as hardware, be prepared to find things that
work fine on one system but not on the next. I found this out with a
Wearnes CDD-110 Cd drive in the old days. It worked on a PCI motherboard,
but not on a VESA motherboard! UNIX on a PC is fun, but there are caveats
to be aware of. :(
In most cases, Linux is the better choice between Linux and FresBSD. Of
course, your exact situation is what will make you to make the choice.
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
A cult founder's rustbucket freighter is his battleship.
2737006 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
Curtiss Howard
Aaron Ka Ho Leung wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> I would like to switch to a Unix-like operating system, and the biggest
> ones out there seem to be Linux and FreeBSD. I'm a PC user who studies
> CS and needs to program, and I would also like internet connectivity.
> Which OS is right for me, or does it not really matter? By the way, I'm
> not trying to start any religious wars; I just want to know which OS I
> should get.
> Also, are there any docs on the 'net where I can read about objective
> comparisons between different Unixes?
>
> Thank you very much-
> Aaron Leung
I'd probably have to say go with Linux.
Most of the FreeBSD zealots I know are assholes when it comes to Linux. A few
friends of mine see Linux as completely unsecure and unworthy of being on their
LAN. Most of these views are based on old (~ version 1.x) kernels. Granted,
FreeBSD is probably your best bet if you're going to set up a REAL server... hell,
I doubt I'd actually use Linux in a networking environment. However, FreeBSD is a
fairly bad choice for the home user. Linux gets ALL the attention and software
first, basically <g>. Ever heard of a Linux ports collection? Neither have I,
but FreeBSD has one because you have to hack a lotta programs to get 'em running
<eg>. Kidding aside, Linux is the superior choice for the home environment, hands
down.
Navindra Umanee
Bloody Viking <nos...@wwa.com> wrote:
> Personally, I think Linux's biggest problem is the RTFM flamers. It's
Well, the biggest problem with Linux is having to RTFM at all but that
equally applies to FreeBSD which prolly has less FM than Linux.
For sure, having to do a little RTFM isn't all that bad but the novice
Linux user is going to have to do much more than a little RTFM unless
some poor Unix guru is easily available.
Of course, some distributions are having more and more success at
making this RTFM initially unnecessary, but sooner than later the user
*will* find something that requires non-trivial RTFM... whether
having to configure their apache webserver for virtual webhosting or
some Linux software out there on the web which doesn't conform to the
distribution's specific rules.
> esoteric problem, it's a case of putting up with the flamers. This sad
> fact has prevented me from making use of Samba. :(
Well, just because someone flames you and tells you to RTFM doesn't
mean you *shouldn't* RTFM.
> In both cases, be prepared to be a do-it-yourself-er! There are no helping
> hands out there!
Uh, yes there are. You just have to know where to look or how to
approach them.
> Also, as far as hardware, be prepared to find things that [...]
> but not on a VESA motherboard! UNIX on a PC is fun, but there are caveats
> to be aware of. :(
Yeah, the complexity is bewildering and unfortunate though probably
inevitable.
This is why Microsoft is having such a success at getting people to
standardise on their products and PC '98.
unix-is-cool-but-only-when-you-know-it-ly y'rs,
Navin
David M. Cook
On Sat, 04 Jul 1998 07:51:15 +0000, Curtiss Howard <po_bo...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Most of the FreeBSD zealots I know are assholes when it comes to Linux.
I think this is a bit unfair. However, I suspect there are those who use
FreeBSD because Linux is too popular ;}
Dave Cook
Alexander Viro
In article <6nkja9$s...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
Curtiss Howard <po_bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Aaron Ka Ho Leung wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>> I would like to switch to a Unix-like operating system, and the biggest
>> ones out there seem to be Linux and FreeBSD. I'm a PC user who studies
>> CS and needs to program, and I would also like internet connectivity.
>> Which OS is right for me, or does it not really matter? By the way, I'm
>> not trying to start any religious wars; I just want to know which OS I
>> should get.
>> Also, are there any docs on the 'net where I can read about objective
>> comparisons between different Unixes?
>>
>> Thank you very much-
>> Aaron Leung
>
> I'd probably have to say go with Linux.
>
>A few friends of mine see Linux as completely unsecure and unworthy of
>being on their LAN. Most of these views are based on old (~ version 1.x)
>kernels.
_average_ clue level of Linux users. Result of publicity ;-/. It's not a
problem of OS quality. Luser with root password on any box of your net is
pain in ass, no matter what OS he (ab)uses.
Advocates are another problem. _Way_ too common variant is vocal
clueless moron, all too happy that now he can be M$-free (BFD!) and
believing that he knows everything about UNIX just because he went through
the RH 5.0 install. Look around in c.o.l.a and you'll see what I mean.
>Granted, FreeBSD is probably your best bet if you're going to set up a
>REAL server... hell, I doubt I'd actually use Linux in a networking
>environment.
Tell it to DejaNews folks... If DN isn't a _real_ server... Well,
then I don't know _what_ is. Both systems are good enough if you are
_clued_ enough. DN runs on Linux, Yahoo on FreeBSD...
>However, FreeBSD is a fairly bad choice for the home user. Linux gets
>ALL the attention and software first, basically <g>.
>Ever heard of a Linux ports collection? Neither have I, but FreeBSD has
>one because you have to hack a lotta programs to get 'em running <eg>.
Let me introduce you into the concept of coherent distribution
policy... Look at the Debian packages. They are pretty similar to ports in
the concept: upstream package+diffs making it compatible with the common
policy re file locations, attributes, UIDs, rc scripts, make / install /
uninstall / upgrade, etc.
>Kidding aside, Linux is the superior choice for the home environment,
>hands down.
Depends on what you are doing. Hell, take both - you'll find uses
for both of them and learn about the differences between Unices. Oh, BTW
it's great chance to learn that there is no One and Only True UNIX Flavour
(tm).
--
Luser, n.:
Human-like creature that doesn't dare to use elevator, because of
its belief that only horrible geeks can master arcane and obscure art of
using control panel.
Curtiss Howard
Alexander Viro wrote:
No, it's more of a security issue than anything else. Security options for the
extremely anal -- that's what FreeBSD has over Linux, basically. The only argument
*I* hear is "why should I have Linux on my LAN if FreeBSD is totally secure out of
the box? I'd have to spend days getting Linux as secure as my FreeBSD box".
> Advocates are another problem. _Way_ too common variant is vocal
> clueless moron, all too happy that now he can be M$-free (BFD!) and
> believing that he knows everything about UNIX just because he went through
> the RH 5.0 install. Look around in c.o.l.a and you'll see what I mean.
>
> >Granted, FreeBSD is probably your best bet if you're going to set up a
> >REAL server... hell, I doubt I'd actually use Linux in a networking
> >environment.
> Tell it to DejaNews folks... If DN isn't a _real_ server... Well,
> then I don't know _what_ is. Both systems are good enough if you are
> _clued_ enough. DN runs on Linux, Yahoo on FreeBSD...
>
> >However, FreeBSD is a fairly bad choice for the home user. Linux gets
> >ALL the attention and software first, basically <g>.
> >Ever heard of a Linux ports collection? Neither have I, but FreeBSD has
> >one because you have to hack a lotta programs to get 'em running <eg>.
>
> Let me introduce you into the concept of coherent distribution
> policy... Look at the Debian packages. They are pretty similar to ports in
> the concept: upstream package+diffs making it compatible with the common
> policy re file locations, attributes, UIDs, rc scripts, make / install /
> uninstall / upgrade, etc.
>
But the point is that the software contained in those packages aren't generally
specific to Debian only -- You can run them on any Linux. Yes, ports is basically
the same as a packaging system with the difference that the ports are programs
PORTED to FreeBSD. In other words, they won't run as they are normally distributed,
and have to be hacked to work under FreeBSD.
> >Kidding aside, Linux is the superior choice for the home environment,
> >hands down.
>
> Depends on what you are doing. Hell, take both - you'll find uses
> for both of them and learn about the differences between Unices. Oh, BTW
> it's great chance to learn that there is no One and Only True UNIX Flavour
> (tm).
>
But the reason I said Linux is the winner is because not only of the software but of
the better single-user (in other words, home user) performance. Not to mention that
Linux is a LITTLE less of a bitch to install over a modem. Seven disks for Debian
gets you up and running. FreeBSD wants to grab about 14MB of binaries (tarballs),
man pages, info, etc. Plus it always wants to use 512 byte clusters for my HD. Ugh.
Bloody Viking
Navindra Umanee (navi...@cs.mcgill.ca) wrote:
: Of course, some distributions are having more and more success at
: making this RTFM initially unnecessary, but sooner than later the user
: *will* find something that requires non-trivial RTFM... whether
: having to configure their apache webserver for virtual webhosting or
: some Linux software out there on the web which doesn't conform to the
: distribution's specific rules.
I found that to be true with PGP. On some Linux boxes, 2.6.2i works, but
on other boxes, 2.6.3i works instead. In this case, I'll try different
versions to see which one compiles up, and go with that one. Fun note
here: I will edit the file pgp.c to remove the "i" from the version number
to "americanise" it! Then, I redo the compile. (I don't trust the Yank
version.) You'll find that many people will do the sourcecode hack or for
DOS, the hex hack to americanise international PGP versions.
I have two Linux boxes, and on the kernel 1.2.13 box, I compiled 2.6.2i
but 2.6.2i doesn't compile right on the kernel 2.0.0 box. On that one, I
compiled 2.6.3i, with the source hack.
A similar adventure is with Procmail, which I've used for email bot
experiments. Becuse of these types of adventures, I think of each Linux
box as having a "personality", which I also think of ISP shell accounts.
Instead of trying to fix the "personality" of a given box, I merely accept
the "personality" of the box!
Markku J. Salama
In article <6nmdhm$m...@steklov.math.psu.edu>, Alexander Viro wrote:
>Erm? Lusers are unable to learn by definition. And please, don't confuse
>newbies with lusers.
To call somebody a "luser" reeks of racism.
Who decides somebody to be a "luser"? Is it you, or is it maybe the People's
Executive Committee of Ueber-Hackers? And what are non-"lusers", then?
Uebermensch, perhaps?
And what is, ultimately, a "luser"? Is it somebody who is too thick to learn,
say, regular expressions and their usage in couple of hours without having any
prior experience in programming? How the hell do you define it?
Even "lusers" _do_ learn something, given enough time. And if they really are
totally hopeless, then let's hope they have enough smarts to delegate some of
the more difficult setup & config work to somebody with enough Linux savvy.
>BTW, returning to the original question: do you like
>the idea of clueless newbie (or worse yet, luser) with root password
Nobody does, of course.
If it is your net, don't give them root passwords. If they are "lusers" (I
prefer the term "clueless newbies" since I don't believe in complete "lusers"),
_you_ do the administration, not them, even when it's their workstations we're
talking about. See?
If they really want to play root 'cause it's so "c00l", or whatever, then set
up one box without _any_ kind of network connection or root passwd, even. Also
make clear that you don't clean out their messes if they f**k up something.
Just leave them on their own and they'll learn.
But yeah, when some rich yobbo with no clue about anything has a box with a
permanent Net connection, there is a problem that might affect other people
too... you just have to wish they know how to avoid their boxes being used as
spam relays, for example. But then again, if we want Linux to succeed big-time,
we must put up with everybody, including those much-feared "lusers". Question
is: do we want a big market share, or don't we?
>As for 'c00l' bit - WTF?!? Where the hell did you dug this shit out? If you
>think that I spend days mastrubating on "I can use the system" you are _very_
>wrong.
OK, so you don't. But there's s**t like that out there, and I've always
thought it to be bad for Linux itself. People behind that are usually
adolescent boys, and while arrogancy _is_ a part of anybody's teen years I still
think it's childish.
> ??? Parse it, please. I use Linux 'cause it suits my needs and I
>can fix the things that I don't like. Ditto for FreeBSD, BTW. I don't know
>WTF is 'THE operating environment'.
Operating environment = an environment where you operate, software- or
otherwise. Softwarewise, the OS and progs you are using.
Yeah, the reasons for using Linux are the same for me too (I don't do FreeBSD).
And yeah, I even use Windoze if I have to, though I don't necessarily like it.
So I'm no more a religious bigot than you are, then.
> Overall: take your medication and stop putting the words into my
>mouth, OK?
Oh dear, now we're getting angry. Oh, my.
One piece of advice: it's only computers, and therefore it's not important.
So take it easy, there's no need to get upset.
Cheers,
MS
--
------------------------------------
Remove you-know-what to send me mail
------------------------------------
Sam Trenholme
>A few friends of mine see Linux as completely unsecure and unworthy of
>being on their LAN.
This impression comes form the fact that most exploits you see on bugtraq
are designed for Linux/x86 systems, since people who write exploits have
ready access to Linux/x86.
Linux is secure as long as you stay current.
Back to the original topic, I would suggest a copy of RedHat Linux 5.1
from www.cheapbytes.com for first time users. It is the easiest Linux to
install and learn. Be sure to also get the book "Running Linux".
If you have any curiosity about any other low-cost PC UNIX solutions, get
the whole works from www.cheapbytes.com. This means, get both the MONDO
Linux pack and FreeBSD 2.2.6 from them, in addition to the book "Running
Linux". This will let you become familiar with other options once you
get your feet wet with RedHat Linux.
- Sam
--
Unique Linux information: http://linux-rules.samiam.org/linux/linux_links.html
Flames directed to /dev/null -|- Spam sent here may be posted to n.a.n-a.email
Sam Trenholme
Something to keep in mind with Alex is that he is a very much
"old-school" UNIX person. He sees Linux as simply an extension of the
old-school UNIX--a technically sophisticated OS for technically
sophisticated users.
I, on the other hand, see Linux as something having the potential to
become easy to use for the end user and enterprise solutions where you
may have new hires not intimately familiar with the inner workings of
UNIX. I can also see it making inroads to the end user desktop.
Unlike some Linux advocates, I see that Linux is not there yet, but I do
wish for that to change.
Sam Trenholme
>On some Linux boxes, 2.6.2i works [e.g. compiles], but on other boxes,
>2.6.3i works instead.
FYI, there are RedHat/Caldera/SuSE, Debian, and Slackware packages for PGP
here:
ftp://ftp.replay.com/pub/crypto/linux/
(Use the RedHat directory if you are a WGS, Caldera, TurboLinux, or SuSE
user)
Alexander Viro
In article <slrn6q24kc...@client.salama.fi>,
Markku J. Salama <sal...@no.spam.at.techno.cultnet.fi> wrote:
>In article <6nmdhm$m...@steklov.math.psu.edu>, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
>>Erm? Lusers are unable to learn by definition. And please, don't confuse
>>newbies with lusers.
>
>To call somebody a "luser" reeks of racism.
>
>Who decides somebody to be a "luser"? Is it you, or is it maybe the People's
>Executive Committee of Ueber-Hackers? And what are non-"lusers", then?
>Uebermensch, perhaps?
Who decides somebody to be a paranoid? Usually psychiatrists and/or those
who have to deal with the person in question. If you see somebody talking
(absolutely seriously) about aliens wanting to replace him with the clone
and seeing an agent of aforementioned aliens in anybody around + claiming
that almost everybody around are already replaced...
>And what is, ultimately, a "luser"? Is it somebody who is too thick to learn,
>say, regular expressions and their usage in couple of hours without having any
>prior experience in programming? How the hell do you define it?
OK, here we go: it's a psychological disorder. It has nothing with
genetics, BTW.
Common symptoma include: selective falling into childhood
(usually only in computer-related areas, but there are other variants);
irrational fear of learning (again, selective); huge lapses of common
sense.
Examples: victim tends to blame everything (a everybody) but
itself in case of any real or imaginary fault. E.g. in situation when
the victim can't login to ISP the first reaction is 'ISP folks changed
something' instead of 'probably I mistyped the password'. Getting a
description of their problems is usually complicated, because instead of
'my program doesn't work' they tend to tell 'compiler is broken' or 'what
the hell did you change with compiler'. Another characteristic symptom is
aggressivity (see example above). They tend to claim that 'they did
everything right', e.g. in situations like '-Is your monitor turned on?
-Sure it is! -Well, check it once more. -I _know_ that it is turned on!
-Please, check it. -OOPS, it isn't'. This is mild example. Such a dialog
can be _very_ long. Another examples of childish behavior: if it doesn't
want to work let's ask it again and again (ending up with hysteria)
instead of trying to figure out what's wrong (usually it turns out that it
_does_ what the luser asked, but not what he wanted). Yet another one:
deep reluctance to accept the physical limitations (even when somebody
explains their existance and nature). E.g. 'why does it tell me that disk
is full?!?' Answering that there's nothing on that disk except users'
home directories doesn't help; luser either requires to remove files
belonging to somebody else or just falls into tantrum [for example, files
a complaint to your boss]. Notice that this luser would consider an adult
human acting in similar way wrt to the capacity of his car as absolutely
crazy person.
As for the learning... well, some expalantion is needed here.
Simple unwillingness to learn something isn't a pathology, indeed. There
is a lot of situations when learning something new doesn't pay off. E.g.
need to type in a letter isn't a reason to learn touch-typing. I mean
_irrational_ fear of learning. Victim believes that it can't learn
anything (or that learning is terrible experience, etc). It doesn't
correlate with the amount (or nature) of the new stuff or with potential
pay-off. It's an absolute block. Notice, that this effect is selective -
victim may regulary learn a lot of new things in its professional life.
Lack of common sense may be fantastic - up to the lack of
understanding that printer willn't print anything unless filled with paper
and plugged into the socket. Now, show me a sane person who seriously
believes that printer (or any device) can produce paper from nothing. It's
way beyond the lack of technical knowledge. It may be akin to the belief
in magic (i.e. 'anything can happen around these computers, common sense
doesn't work here').
It _is_ desease. Sad fact being that many people suffer from it
and many companies do everything to increase the number of victims.
Please, don't insult clueless newbies assuming that they suffer from
_that_.
[snip]
>If it is your net, don't give them root passwords. If they are "lusers" (I
>prefer the term "clueless newbies" since
>I don't believe in complete "lusers"),
You are either extremely lucky or live in complete denial. Sorry,
no offense intended.
>_you_ do the administration, not them, even when it's their workstations we're
>talking about. See?
>
>If they really want to play root 'cause it's so "c00l", or whatever, then set
>up one box without _any_ kind of network connection or root passwd, even. Also
>make clear that you don't clean out their messes if they f**k up something.
>Just leave them on their own and they'll learn.
Yeah, right. Try to say it to your boss. BTW, there is another
problem: suppose you administer Linux (or FreeBSD) LAN. Fine, here comes
a FreeBSD (or Linux) advocate with no clue and asks you to install FreeBSD
(or Linux) box for him. He _will_ want to do upgrades. You are facing a
nice dilemma: either give him root on his box, or do upgrades for him any
time when he'll ask (or fail to ask, 'cause he has no f*cking clue about
CERT). You can't just keep /usr NFS-mounted as you do with regular boxen.
So he asks you to double your efforts or... give him a root access to the
powerful OS. Have fun...
BTW, if you think that I have a snobbish attitude towards newbies
you are wrong - look on DejaNews, it's all there.
>But yeah, when some rich yobbo with no clue about anything has a box with a
>permanent Net connection, there is a problem that might affect other people
>too... you just have to wish they know how to avoid their boxes being used as
>spam relays, for example. But then again, if we want Linux to succeed big-time,
>we must put up with everybody, including those much-feared "lusers". Question
>is: do we want a big market share, or don't we?
Dunno. Big market share by itself isn't that great - it may be a
tool, but not a goal.
[snip]
>
>> ??? Parse it, please. I use Linux 'cause it suits my needs and I
>>can fix the things that I don't like. Ditto for FreeBSD, BTW. I don't know
>>WTF is 'THE operating environment'.
>
>Operating environment = an environment where you operate, software- or
>otherwise. Softwarewise, the OS and progs you are using.
Erm... So you are claiming that there is an OS that is the best
solution in all situations? Get real. I like Linux, but I wouldn't use it
for real-time process control (QNX). Or for massive database server (MVS).
Or for _really_ mission-critical system (really==failure will lead to
somebody's death) (I don't like VMS, but it would be definitely higher in
the list). BTW, two of three are profoundly non-UNIX and it doesn't make
me happy - I got accustomed to UNIX and feel less comfortable with other
systems. BTW, if I'll need to work with graphics big way I'll go for
Slowlaris simply because I don't have 21" monitor at home (and alas, SunOS
boxen I can get access to also don't have such luxury). Sure like hell,
everybody has its own preferences (in my case: UNIX, preferably BSD-ish or
POSIX-ish branch; better if it's free), but THE simply doesn't apply to
OSes.
HTH. HAND,
Al
ObDefinitionOfLusers: see .sig ;-)
Timothy J. Lee
However, one does have to watch out for some distributions that install
lots of extra software that has potential security holes, such as console
games that are setuid root and IPX/SPX file server services.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee timlee@
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. netcom.com
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.