> > * different kernel, so throw your hardware expectations out the > > window. > > Having said that hardware support is very good in my experience.
Not in mine - I had to replace a perfectly good network card in a pfsense box because BSD couldn't hack it with some TLA needed for traffic shaping. I think it would be fair to say that under the bottom line, Linux hardware support is better. > The reason for installing to /usr/local is because there is a > distinction between the base system, ie. the parts that are actually > FreeBSD, and 3rd party software. Cool. I thought the standard said that 3rd party goes to /opt? Where do I put locally compiled software which isn't under any package management? > Yes, http://wiki.freebsd.org/AvoidingLinuxisms. <flame> Why avoid? If *ix wants to get somewhere, there better be some more common ground. The "least-common-denominator" concept has hindered *ix for decades and was a strongly contributing factor for *ix losing out to Microsoft. So far I haven't seen much that BSD actually does better, as opposed to different. The service startup scripts are another area, but not even Linux is standardised there. Debian is stoneage compared to chckconfig. </flame> > Linux doesn't have > strlcpy(3) as the glibc maintainer doesn't like it. I don't have sympathy for Linux-Egos either. No way I'll switch to desktop BSD though, that's no competition, and a number of commercial apps aren't available. I'm glad they are for Linux, though not in 64bit. Volker -- Volker Kuhlmann is list0570 with the domain in header http://volker.dnsalias.net/ Please do not CC list postings to me.
