Linux Vs. FreeBSD 7120

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 23:34:13 -0600, Ed Heagle staggered into the Black Sun and said:

Yep, and there are people using *BSD on their desktops.

Um. Back in 2002, I installed the then-current FreeBSD. 5.2, probably. The installer was terribly primitive and unfriendly compared to the Redhat-SuSE VESA-framebuffer GUI installers of the time. Back then, the *BSD people had certainly not made the install process easy. If they haven't done that, then it's no wonder that FreeBSD adoption is lagging.

Er, yeah. I don't get what you mean either.

This is both a good and a bad thing for FreeBSD. Good in that the core group is accountable for everything. Bad in that useful stuff can languish in committee forever because the core group doesn't like it.

Mach microkernel + BSD-ish syscalls + "Display PostScript" + Cocoa-Carbon proprietary GUI libraries = BSD? OS X is pretty different from the *BSD projects, mostly because of the last 2 things. Though the Unix utilities in its install are the BSD versions, not the GNU versions.

Yep. I've heard reports of some hardware (hotswappable IDE devices, really ancient laptops) working better in FreeBSD than in Linux, though.

AOL! Daveman750, you may wish to get the latest FreeBSD, install it, and see what you think. Get the answers you're looking for straight from the horse's mouth.

-- Matt GThere is no Darkness in Eternity-But only Light too dim for us to see Brainbench MVP for Linux Admin mail: TRAP + SPAN don't belong ----------------------------- penguins, is Tux." --MegaHAL