[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: NetBSD vs. FreeBSD
Stopping this thread fork, which begin to lose respect, I wish to say, that you
seem disunderstanding me a little. The only I wanted to say - I'm not choosing
OS, I've already done, and it is not NetBSD always. I wish to remind, that
different people get different things in different way. You need Java in
pkgsrc, but I need stable secure named in pkgsrc, compiling on whatever
platform I want. We have pretty different tasks to manage, and your criticism
shows that maybe another OS is more suitable for yours.
If developers will suit system for your tasks, where I should solve mine? You
have a number of systems with Java, Gnome, KDE embedded, get it and use, but
what should I do, when last of suitable platform will disappear?
Nobody is against Java in pkgsrc, me too, but for me and I hope for developers
too - T1 processor support is much more actual.
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 08:23:34AM +0300, Aleksej Saushev 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...
Main Index |
Thread Index |