Just my two cents...

Re net-booting: if the alternative is booting from some weirdo proprietary
tape, I'll go to the net!

Not a diss of FreeBSD specifically but in general, when those graphical
installers screw up, they leave the user with little recourse: restart or
question the integrity of the installation. The many possible paths
through the menus are hard to test, and you may find that "you can't get
there from here".

I've sent a note via their feedback page, mostly about OpenBSD but
mentioning that they were also rough on NetBSD.

Ciao
 --Louis  <louis@bertrandtech.on.ca> 

Louis Bertrand       http://www.bertrandtech.on.ca/
Bertrand Technical Services, Bowmanville, ON, Canada  
Tel: +1.905.623.1500  Fax: +1.905.623.3852

OpenBSD: Secure by default.  http://www.openbsd.org/

On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Jan 2001 hubert@feyrer.de wrote:
> 
> > ... for this: http://bsd.tucows.com/conhtml/preview/74141.html
> 
> Besides the article's several problems (wrong license, license link URL is
> bad, download calls NetBSD a "FreeBSD Version", and various other
> misunderstandings), the review says it easily installs under i386, "but on
> many of the other platforms you have to set it up manually to boot from
> another machine." Is this true ("many")?
> 
> How many is "many"?
> 
> Or do several other ports install the same as i386 or just as easy?
> 
> Any examples?
> 
> Also I am curious about the statement about FreeBSD being "more user
> friendly"; does anyone have any examples on why someone may feel FreeBSD
> may be more user-friendly?
> 
> I may write an editorial about this for BSD Today. Feel free to send me
> any thoughts on any points that I should cover.
> 
> Even with all the misunderstandings, this review does give some valuable
> feedback.
> 
>    Jeremy C. Reed
>    http://bsd.reedmedia.net/
> 
>