-Questions (Request) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. RedHat
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Jerry McAllister wrote:
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 10:59:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jerry McAllister [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: FreeBSD-Questions (Request) [EMAIL PROTECTED
SoloCDM wrote:
Is FreeBSD Linux or UNIX?
http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcone/bsdversuslinux.html :-)
A more serious link:
http://people.freebsd.org/~murray/bsd_flier.html
BSD is UNIX. Linux is a kernel.
Good luck,
Richard.
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing
R. Zoontjens wrote:
SoloCDM wrote:
Is FreeBSD Linux or UNIX?
http://www.xs4all.nl/~marcone/bsdversuslinux.html :-)
A more serious link:
http://people.freebsd.org/~murray/bsd_flier.html
it's quite outdated... interesting for indiana jones maybe... ignores
many new features of linux and
Jerry McAllister wrote:
SoloCDM wrote:
Why do the ISOs seem to be three CDs of 600Mb each for RedHat compared
to 1.5 CDs for FreeBSD? I thought the files were larger with FreeBSD
and its tarballs.
Does FreeBSD offer all the packages from A to Z in their CDs?
There are some packages which are
Just educational...
Probably old news but it's an interesting site and the
Unix Timeline is quite awesome. (There is also a
Windows Timeline for those interested).
http://www.levenez.com/unix/
Bye
Javier Soques
__
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with
FreeBSD is a child of System V, so UNIX. Linux was written from scratch
by Linus with the GNU Public License, as opposed to FreeBSD which
originated from BSD, which originated from System V.
No doubt you will hear a lot of corrections to your statement.
That is because it is
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 01:32 pm, Erik Steffl wrote:
both freeBSD and linux distros (most of them at least) give you
choice what you install. Just because it's on CD does not mean it's
Yes, but RedHat installs piles more junk which you dont use (At least last
time I did an install about a
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 10:27:05PM -0600, SoloCDM typed:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Todd Stephens wrote:
On Wednesday 01 October 2003 10:42 pm, SoloCDM wrote:
Why do the ISOs seem to be three CDs of 600Mb each for RedHat
compared to 1.5 CDs for FreeBSD? I thought the files were larger
JacobRhoden wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 01:32 pm, Erik Steffl wrote:
both freeBSD and linux distros (most of them at least) give you
choice what you install. Just because it's on CD does not mean it's
Yes, but RedHat installs piles more junk which you dont use (At least last
time I did an
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:02:20 -0600 (MDT)
SoloCDM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Todd Stephens wrote:
On Wednesday 01 October 2003 10:42 pm, SoloCDM wrote:
Why do the ISOs seem to be three CDs of 600Mb each for RedHat
compared to 1.5 CDs for FreeBSD? I thought the
Todd Stephens wrote:
On Wednesday 01 October 2003 11:26 pm, Kevin D. Kinsey, DaleCo, S.P.
wrote:
I imagine you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but when you install
RH you get KDE and Apache, automagically, right? This
makes it a complete OS, but it's a little more structured
in that some choices
On Thursday 02 October 2003 03:13 am, Erik Steffl wrote:
I just don't think that your fairly general statement about linux
distros pushing kitchen sink on you while freeBSD being more
traditional unix is true...
I have tried RH, Mandrake, SuSE and Slackware Linux distros. Sure, you
can
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 11:23:37PM -0400, Todd Stephens wrote:
On Wednesday 01 October 2003 11:09 pm, Daniel Hawton wrote:
4.4BSD Lite 2 is BSD.. which is from SysV.. heh That's what I said.
Let me give acknowledgment to Greg Lehey ahead of time for this as this
bit that follows comes
Let me give acknowledgment to Greg Lehey ahead of time for this as this
bit that follows comes from _The Complete FreeBSD_.
.. by the mid-80s, there were four different versions of UNIX: the
Research Version ... the Berkeley Software Distribution ... System V
... and XENIX,
Sorry for omitting
On 10/01/03 10:02 PM, SoloCDM sat at the `puter and typed:
SNIP
Is there FreeBSD ISOs with all the packages included.
That would be a bit excessive
I'm tired of waiting for RPMs, when they are usually first made into
tarballs. Would a person prefer Slackware, RedHat (good installation
On Thursday, October 2, 2003, at 07:42 AM, Lucas Holt wrote:
Let me give acknowledgment to Greg Lehey ahead of time for this as
this
bit that follows comes from _The Complete FreeBSD_.
.. by the mid-80s, there were four different versions of UNIX: the
Research Version ... the Berkeley Software
On 10/01/03 10:27 PM, SoloCDM sat at the `puter and typed:
SNIP
Most of the packages are tar-ed (so to speak -- into balls; ergo:
tarballs), which makes them larger (they usually install to many types
of operating systems and that makes them large), the RPMs are strictly
for RPM based
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 08:24:33 -0400 (EDT)
Steve Coile [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
[...]
That is one of the things we like most. We can always find things
where they're supposed to be, not where someone chose to put them
for some particular reason. And
SoloCDM wrote:
Why do the ISOs seem to be three CDs of 600Mb each for RedHat compared
to 1.5 CDs for FreeBSD? I thought the files were larger with FreeBSD
and its tarballs.
Does FreeBSD offer all the packages from A to Z in their CDs?
There are some packages which are only
Why do the ISOs seem to be three CDs of 600Mb each for RedHat compared
to 1.5 CDs for FreeBSD? I thought the files were larger with FreeBSD
and its tarballs.
Does FreeBSD offer all the packages from A to Z in their CDs?
Well, sort of. FreeBSD itself does not offer any CDs. It has
some
Todd Stephens wrote:
On Thursday 02 October 2003 03:13 am, Erik Steffl wrote:
I just don't think that your fairly general statement about linux
distros pushing kitchen sink on you while freeBSD being more
traditional unix is true...
I have tried RH, Mandrake, SuSE and Slackware Linux
SoloCDM wrote:
...
When RedHat started out, it had some conveniences, but it quickly
become so bizarre and discombobulated that I am feed-up, a voodoo act
and standing on one's head is involved. Most of the so-called-experts
in RPMs don't know what they're doing from one minute to the next.
From: Erik Steffl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2003/10/02 Thu PM 01:55:57 EDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. RedHat
Todd Stephens wrote:
On Thursday 02 October 2003 03:13 am, Erik Steffl wrote:
I just don't think
Robert G. Waycott wrote:
...
undeniably human character, a inexplicably spectral quality of
being 'alive,' that is far more apt to aid a user solve a problem
or resolve a conflict or learn something new than sending a not to
Redhat, use FreeBSD. Whoa, that turned a bit proselytic. Sorry.
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:43:39 -0600 (MDT), SoloCDM [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[snip]
Is it possible to go from one distribution version to another (4.x to
5.x) without entirely removing the old version? Do the upgrades with
the ports allow this possibility?
A new install is usually considered to
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:47:51 -0600 (MDT), SoloCDM [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[snip]
What CPU (i386, i486, i586, ...) are the packages compiled and geared
towards?
You can easily set this to your own CPU type in /etc/make.conf for all the
ports you build. Packages in FreeBSD are precompiled
On October 2, 2003 08:57 pm, Jud wrote:
There are several ways you can do this. There's pkg_delete for packages,
'make deinstall clean' for ports, and for deleting an older version of a
port to replace it with a newer one, there's the intelligent and lovely
'portupgrade.' (The upgrade can be
SoloCDM wrote:
Why do the ISOs seem to be three CDs of 600Mb each for RedHat compared
to 1.5 CDs for FreeBSD? I thought the files were larger with FreeBSD
and its tarballs.
Does FreeBSD offer all the packages from A to Z in their CDs?
There are some packages which are only available through
Quoting Daniel Hawton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
SoloCDM wrote:
Why do the ISOs seem to be three CDs of 600Mb each for RedHat compared
to 1.5 CDs for FreeBSD? I thought the files were larger with FreeBSD
and its tarballs.
Does FreeBSD offer all the packages from A to Z in their CDs?
There
4.4BSD Lite 2 is BSD.. which is from SysV.. heh That's what I said.
Kenneth Culver wrote:
Quoting Daniel Hawton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
SoloCDM wrote:
Why do the ISOs seem to be three CDs of 600Mb each for RedHat compared
to 1.5 CDs for FreeBSD? I thought the files were larger with FreeBSD
and its
On Wednesday 01 October 2003 10:42 pm, SoloCDM wrote:
Why do the ISOs seem to be three CDs of 600Mb each for RedHat
compared to 1.5 CDs for FreeBSD? I thought the files were larger
with FreeBSD and its tarballs.
Not sure what you mean by that its tarballs. Linux distributions come
with an
Quoting Daniel Hawton [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
4.4BSD Lite 2 is BSD.. which is from SysV.. heh That's what I said.
But that's my point, it's NOT from SysV. It's always been it's own thing,
parellel to SysV. It had some ATT code in it at some point, but is not from
SysV.
Ken
Kenneth Culver wrote:
SoloCDM wrote:
Why do the ISOs seem to be three CDs of 600Mb each for RedHat compared
to 1.5 CDs for FreeBSD? I thought the files were larger with FreeBSD
and its tarballs.
Red Hat Linux is a Linux kernel+distribution, which means
that the company not only provides a Linux kernel, compiler
Todd Stephens wrote:
On Wednesday 01 October 2003 10:42 pm, SoloCDM wrote:
Why do the ISOs seem to be three CDs of 600Mb each for RedHat
compared to 1.5 CDs for FreeBSD? I thought the files were larger
with FreeBSD and its tarballs.
Not sure what you mean by that its tarballs. Linux
On Wednesday 01 October 2003 11:26 pm, Kevin D. Kinsey, DaleCo, S.P.
wrote:
I imagine you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but when you install
RH you get KDE and Apache, automagically, right? This
makes it a complete OS, but it's a little more structured
in that some choices are made for you
On Wednesday 01 October 2003 11:09 pm, Daniel Hawton wrote:
4.4BSD Lite 2 is BSD.. which is from SysV.. heh That's what I said.
Let me give acknowledgment to Greg Lehey ahead of time for this as this
bit that follows comes from _The Complete FreeBSD_.
.. by the mid-80s, there were four
SoloCDM wrote:
Is there FreeBSD ISOs with all the packages included.
I'm tired of waiting for RPMs, when they are usually first made into
tarballs. Would a person prefer Slackware, RedHat (good installation
package, but they complicate matters with RPMS and don't conform to
the same directories
On Wednesday 01 October 2003 11:26 pm, Kevin D. Kinsey, DaleCo, S.P.
wrote:
I imagine you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but when you install
RH you get KDE and Apache, automagically, right? This
makes it a complete OS, but it's a little more structured
in that some choices are made for you in terms
38 matches
Mail list logo
