> > Whoa! Religious war stuff. But I won't. ;-) > > well, at least i didn't bring licensing up ;-) > How about a rousing discussion of "Linux" vs "GNU/Linux"? :-)
> 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) > Point taken, sort of. I guess I'm less addicted to using my mouse than some people. I found the FreeBSD install to be comparable in difficulty to a RedHat install - it's all the same steps if you look at the big picture - partition, pick packages, watch progress bars, configure network, reboot. But then, the first Linux install I ever did, many years ago, was a Slackware install, so I guess I got used to this process a looooong time ago. :-) > > 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 ... > Ya, I guess this comes back to the classic "editing text files is hard" argument. Mandrake gives a lot of GUI stuff to do configuration (and from the news today on CNet, RedHat has a bunch of that in their new 8.0 as well). Probably an easier transition for people who are used to Windows. > > 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 =) > :-) Ian
