Re: NetBSD vs. FreeBSD

[Aleksej Saushev <asau%inbox.ru@localhost>]

Dima Veselov <kab00m%lich.phys.spbu.ru@localhost> writes:

> On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 09:57:13PM -0500, Alex Goncharov wrote:
>
>> | NetBSD is really designed for people, moved to NetBSD by their wise
>> | looking for really working things, proved for simplicity. If you
>> | can't understand some deeply technical things - don't even try and
>> | use FreeBSD or Linux.
>> 
>>    What are the most important advantages of NetBSD over FreeBSD?
>
> The most advantages of NetBSD are lightness, fair and ideology.
> In common they prefer to make nice mozilla port instead of developing
> nice ftp utility.

Sorry? As a matter of fact we have nice ftp utility while everyone around
avoids setting up FTP services, which are problematic (always were), to
add to that we don't have any working web browser with Macromedia/Adobe
flash support, which is common in the Web today. NetBSD is impractical
in this respect.

> It is nice, but when your work is an administration of several server
> boxes via ssh - you are coming to hell with Free or Linux, you will blaim
> any developer included KDE instead of really simple and nice utilities.
> FreeBSD usually have them not in best state, and Linux usually don't have 
> them at all.

Sorry? Which utilities are lacking on Linux? Almquist shell? C shell?

> The most problem this thread appeared is that a way of strictness make some 
> users
> abused by a lack of comfort they wish about. Generally some just don't 
> understand
> that this is just a different type of comfort.

Now this really sounds like Russian reversal,

"In Soviet Russia, you don't have comfort, it is Comfort that has you."

> So, NetBSD as a low-level system is for those, whos work is low-level,
> who thinks that way.

Stuff and nonsense. Why don't you use L4? It is even lower level system,
which is proved to have higher quality (it is real-time, remember?).
Sure, it doesn't provide you with Xen domains, but that shouldn't stop
"Real Siberian man."

>> | All core NetBSD utilities is at most simple as they should be for
>> | people understanding how it works in production, not in a desktop
>> | play.
>> 
>> | You wish a nice desktop or simple installer for your play with that
>> | wild unknown OS, meanwhile others use hundreds of NetBSD boxes,
>> | praying for noone coming with 'fresh' Linux-like ideas to turn it
>> | user-friendly.
>> 
>> As a user with a three day's experience, I feel that `pkgsrc' may be
>> more worth improving than the installer.
>
> Pkgsrc is so much great, it's just an excellence. It's a diamond.
> It does anything, it have enough.

No Fortran 95 support, no Fortran at all, except f2c, which is far from
usable state. Bit-rotten OpenPBS, inefficient reference BLAS. Outdated
Erlang OTP. Problems with self-bootstrapping packages like GNATS or SBCL.
No usable Java.

All above are industrial level packages.

> Next week we would have to build up more than 40 Solaris servers,
> with pkgsrc it is a work for several scripts. Really, there is no other
> package system doing that.
> Using that technologies for years I don't see any defects in pkgsrc system.

Living your eyes closed it is hard to see, I agree.

> Try using NetBSD more and you will find out.


-- 
HE CE3OH...