* Oliver Jones <oliver(a)deeper.co.nz> [2004-06-30 06:46]:
I've never used BSD so I don't know what benefit there would be. All I can see from *BSD is more work, more difficulty to install, less hardware support, etc etc.
Sorry, are we talking about the desktop here, or servers?
Does that matter? I realise *BSD is intended for servers primarily.
Your original point was:
Personally I can't think of a good reason to run any other OS than Linux on a server.
So I'm not sure anymore what you were trying to assert. Are you
That's what they still say about Linux, btw.
I realise that. I never said Linux was perfect. I just said from what I know of *BSD it's worse in this regard than Linux.
I was trying to show you that purported "facts" about a system aren't necessarily to be taken at face value. Maybe I shouldn't try to be subtle.
Yes, it doesn't have a graphical point and click installer. So? A menu based curses GUI is no harder.
I wasn't referring to it's UI. I phrased that slightly incorrectly. I should have said "*BSD looks to an outside observer to be like Linux was 4 years ago." As in it appears to be less refined, harder to use and generally harder to get running and use.
FreeBSD was easier to run than Linux before Linux was even born. Maybe to home Windows users it looked that way. See above about purported facts.
As I clearly stated in my email I've never installed or used *BSD (unless you count SunOS). But as an external observer who knows Linux well, *BSD holds little appeal. It appears to be a step backwards.
Linux is a step backwards, if you ask a Windows user. Regards, -- Aristotle "If you can't laugh at yourself, you don't take life seriously enough."