Henry Lenzi wrote: > On 4/13/07, Claude Menski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Why is freebsd better then ubuntu? >> _______________________________________________ > > I'll give you a real example. I have a licensed mathematics package > called Maple. It expensive. Ubuntu (Debian) just broke the > installation from one upgrade to another. They take pride in not > keeping backwards compatibility. Then, I used FreeBSD with the Red Hat > emulation software, ad I have it running.
We'll have to take your word for that on this. > Another example: documentation (with whole books on the system desgin) > and a community more knowledgeable. While I myself agree that FreeBSD documentation is damned good - Ubuntu is pretty damned good also. I can't say either pro nor con for Debian. > Plus, ports. You don have to wait 6 months like in Debian. This may or may not be true - I myself have not used Debian. I have used Ubuntu (6.10 and upgraded to 7.04) and I was happy with the applications I installed/used. One thing to mention - you keep saying Debian. While it's true Ubuntu is Debian-ish (A distro of, a fork - whatever they call it), I think that you may be tainting your overall opinion based on Debian. IIRC - the op specifically stated Ubuntu and NOT Debian. Just ensureing that you don't cloud the already murky waters of this thread. > > Additionally, you can run Linux software under emulation layer. Agreed - and in many cases, even better then on a Linux distro. > BSD license. This goes without saying. > Cheers. > > Henry > -- Best regards, Chris BOFH excuse #345: Having to manually track the satellite. _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"