Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!howland.erols.net!EU.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.iij.ad.jp!iijnet!tyd0.tydfam.iijnet.or.jp!usenet
From: Takeshi Yamada <ken@tyd1.tydfam.iijnet.or.jp>
Subject: Re: *** Is FreeBSD easy to install ??? ***
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Newsreader: September Gnus v0.75/Emacs 19.30
Sender: usenet@tydfam.iijnet.or.jp (Charlie Root)
Nntp-Posting-Host: tyd1.tydfam.iijnet.or.jp
Lines: 19
Organization: Takeshi "Ken" Yamada Family Net
Message-ID: <vtvicjtscx.fsf@tyd1.tydfam.iijnet.or.jp>
References: <3248ab21.5993197@news.inetnow.net> <53ens0$lrs@uriah.heep.sax.de>
<53g9fe$e8j@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.50)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 03:23:25 GMT
pleung@cs.buffalo.edu (Patrick Leung) writes:
> And in answer to the original poster's questin, FreeBSD is supereasy to
> install. ;-))
>
Maybe easiness of installation depends on how many drivers it supports
recognizes and installs them automatically.
OS/2 installation to notebook was nightmare in the beginning of 1996.
Windows95 maybe one of the best OS from installation viewpoint - not OS
itself, it is a different issue. And FreeBSD follows it exceeding OS/2.
We'd better mind how much MS spent for that one time fancy graphics/
images at installation which does nothing to do with the OS performance.
MS spends a lot for customers' first glance like comodity producers.
Performance wise, I love FreeBSD over Win95.
ken@tydfam.iijnet.or.jp
Takeshi "Ken" Yamada