23 May
1998
23 May
'98
12:28 a.m.
Ward Griffiths wrote:
I've got both. FreeBSD supports at best a quarter
of the hardware
that Linux does -- in large part because it _is_ just the one
distribution with the one design team, instead of a planetwide
anarchist cooperative. Linux runs SCO binaries just fine as well,
the iBCS module was migrated to FreeBSD from Linux.
So do I. I have both and like both. I respect the Linux community
for their evangelism.
I've run Linux since about 99.10 back in the days of the SLS->Slackware
migration. I love it. If it wasn't for FreeBSD I'd still make it
my main platform. It may even be a better desktop answer for many
folks. I find as a server platform I prefer FreeBSD for ease of
maintenance and reliability. I'm running two web servers on it at work.
This is _not_ the forum for that particular (and peculiar) religious
war. I've been a Unix junkie since I first tried Xenix on a TRS-80
Model 16 shortly before it officially shipped to the RSCC where I
did tech support.
Ah, well. My real favorite things are DEC OS's and CP/M 2.2.
Unix came along after I was hooked on RT11, RSTS, VAX/VMS.
One of the things that made Unix successful was it's spread through
universities. Once you get hooked on an OS you tend to want to
stay with it. AT&T was very lucky with Unix and no one's been
able to duplicate the spread except Linux.
(Now I'm at Lucent Technologies in Holmdel and I'm being pushed to NT
and Microsoft OS stuff... 8-( )
The problem is I need to be "MS Word and MS Excel bug and file compatible"
to do my job (Sys Admin)... this gets me to using Win95 on my
desktop.
(I know NT's better -- but the @##$%&^* desktop's a 486 with 16MB memory).
Bill