Subject: Re: as seen on /.
To: Andy Ruhl <email@example.com>
From: mouss <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/01/2005 00:11:00
Andy Ruhl wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:17:59 -0500, Jan Schaumann
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> I think you already said it, but maybe you didn't.
> There's a few ways to look at this:
> 1. Wow. They noticed!
how many are they?
> 2. Hmm, how to respond?
> He did say one thing that is absolutely true, that each OS still has
> it's merits. This is 100% the case. FreeBSD still has some cool toys
> that the other 2 can't match.
> But I still think that NetBSD is the correct place to start from,
the correct place for what? almost nobody on earth cares about *bsd.
> the platform independence model is showing itself to be extremely
> relevant these days.
where do you say so?
If NetBSD had some of the same cool toys FreeBSD
> had, I don't think there would be much of an argument.
do you really think so? most people have never heard of bsd. almost all
those who've heard about "know" it is a nice/good/... OS but they all
believe they have something else to do than advocate for bsd. most of
them think the battle against other OSs is too hard to defend but linux.
> I've got a FreeBSD 4.10 server that I've been using since about 4.1
> (was Linux before that), and I'm having to make a tough decision about
> whether to do FreeBSD 5.x or NetBSD 2.x.
It's almost all the same. NetBSD is still free: no commercial company
has taken over:)
> Even though I am mostly using NetBSD for everything else these days,
> the decision is not at all clear.
why need a decision between *bsd?
> In the end, I think the drama-less upgrades of NetBSD are going to win out.