-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 26 September 2002 09:38, you wrote:
> > freebsd is not linux, of course, and is more difficult to
> > install. it is not
> > more configurable.
>
> Whoa! Religious war stuff. But I won't. ;-)
well, at least i didn't bring licensing up ;-)
> (Ok, maybe a little: FreeBSD is not particularly hard to install, I'd chalk
> that one up to "myth". Compared to OpenBSD and NetBSD, there are more
> steps, but that means the installer is more complete, helps you get more
> set up at install time instead of later, and in the end, it all works. And
> if you've ever installed Slackware, you'll be right at home - it's
> basically the same installer.
the other two data points were Mandrake and Red Hat. *bsd (and slackware) are
indeed more difficult to install given those as comparisons, wouldn't you
say? =) there's nothing wrong with difficult to install, unless they were
aiming for user friendliness (in which case they failed)
> I wouldn't say FreeBSD is "more"
> configurable, but it is certainly "as" configurable is Linux.
yes, it's more about differences in how you configure it than what you can
configure it to be... it's all UNIX ...
> And ports are pretty slick too.
indeed; they are a decent solution
> But hey, this is CLUG, not CBUG, so I'll shut up now.
> ;-) )
heh... i think we are generally a friend to all things Free software =)
- --
Aaron J. Seigo
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler"
- Albert Einstein
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE9ky491rcusafx20MRAmAHAKCRDCP1EWq7Cxoa2UM1oOAVOaukaACgrfEI
e+Bs9O2Y278v4AIxQmddGPE=
=zoxu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
