Alfredo Estuar wrote:
> I was wondering why many linux websites dont list *BSD
> OSes.. Are they not that related?? I did see the diff
> in the device naming conventions... (I prefer hda,
> etc..)
> 

Linux and the BSD's are related to the extent that they
both implement similar system calls and semantics. But
while the BSD's can trace their roots back to the public
Unix releases from the 1970's, Linux was written from
scratch from the early 1990's onwards.

Why you might choose one over the other come down to a
matter of taste, as software that runs on one flavour
increasingly works on the others. I prefer NetBSD for
my home machines because I can run the same operating
system on my Sparc, Vax and Intel machines. I also like
the readability of the source code, the simplicity
of the init scripts, and the lack of dependencies on
unusual libraries (see PAM's dependence on glib in
RedHat Linux for an example of a dubious dependency).

At work I run RedHat Linux because I need to use Java,
and (for lazy old me) it's more convenient than NetBSD
and Linux emulation. Everyone else at my company runs
SuSE, but I prefer RedHat. Freedom of choice is great!

Chris

-- 
chris.wareham@iosystems.co.uk (work)
cwareham@btinternet.com (home)