Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.wildstar.net!news.ececs.uc.edu!newsfeeds.sol.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in3.uu.net!165.254.2.53!nonexistent.com!not-for-mail From: le@put.com (Louis Epstein) Subject: Re: Linux or FreeBSD (or something else?) Followup-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] X-Nntp-Posting-User: le Lines: 34 Organization: Putnam Internet Services Message-ID: <E84Kwp.8ox@nonexistent.com> References: <332c9a76.3278270@news.adelaide.on.net> <01bc32f2$3783f300$04000001@Colin> <E79F14.n7z@forthdv.pfm-mainz.de> <332f5ffb.519605@news.sprynet.com> <5h51ma$b1u$2@kayrad.ziplink.net> <3337e3ad.1847437@news.sprynet.com> <5hbh2g$gah$1@kayrad.ziplink.net> <333990e3.2587820@news.sprynet.com> <333EE698.41C67EA6@kzin.dorm.umd.edu> <3343cbbf.1091644@news.sprynet.com> <5i1216$gc4$1@news3.realtime.net> <33457087.6003026@news.sprynet.com> X-Trace: 860177112/28289 X-Nntp-Posting-Host: main.put.com Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 18:05:13 GMT Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au alt.os.linux:19834 comp.os.linux.misc:168166 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:38517 Goatboy (lcappite@sprynet.com) wrote: : >More stable than "any" other OS but Linux or freebsd? You're kidding, : >right? And what about the "bug fix" set of patches that introduced : >more bugs than it fixed? : : 1) I didn't say all OSs. : 2) That bug fix was for NT4. And they fixed in with the second patch. : : >Of course, when talking about networking you're usually not talking : >about home networks. : : For real networks, FreeBSD is better. [snip] : >Sheesh, give me a break from the "Goatboys" of the world who haven't : >been around long enough to support their theories...and who buy into : >Microsoft's BS about how great they are. : : I don't need to be around as long as you to know that an OS designed : 25 years ago on computers with less than 64K RAM is easier to use than : one that was made on computers running at 200MHz and with 64MB RAM 4 : years ago (like NT). 4 years ago(when FreeBSD started) there were no 200 MHz x86 CPUs! If you want to look at the UNIX family tree,you trace back to Multics, of which Unics(as it was first spelled) was a single-processor version (so is SMP UNIX really Multix?);if you do the same for NT,you get Seattle Computer's Quick and Dirty Operating System for 8088s, designed to make CP/M apps portable for an 8-bit data line leading into 16-bit logic. Which was designed for more serious computing...Multics or Q-DOS? Which one's descendant makes more sense to the DP professional?