Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.misc:2219 comp.os.linux.misc:12386 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!yeshua.marcam.com!usc!cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!lilo From: lilo@slip-10-11.ots.utexas.edu (lilo) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux Followup-To: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc Date: 4 Apr 1994 11:02:28 GMT Organization: String to put in the Organization Header Lines: 39 Distribution: world Message-ID: <2nos44$jul@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> References: <CMzw69.92K@tower.nullnet.fi> <2nmeb4$ro@menudo.uh.edu> <JKH.94Apr3184442@whisker.hubbard.ie> <MAGNUS.94Apr3194958@haukugle.ii.uib.no> <2nnjcb$pdo@larch.cc.swarthmore.edu> <2nob90$dlq@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> <2nok28INN57u@owl.csrv.uidaho.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: slip-10-11.ots.utexas.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] On 4 Apr 1994 08:44:56 GMT, Lester Igo (igo921@cs.uidaho.edu) wrote: > I am somewhat surprised at the Linux people talking about the instalation as > "dos-like". I found it to be absolutely nothing like a dos installation. > It could be caracterized as bug free, informative, menu driven, self > explanitory, etc. but definutely not dos like (for one thing DOS instalations > have bugs). Anyone out there ever try and hack around Microshafts copy > protection on their upgrade (just exit with F3??, run fdisk, sys the partition, > and run install from their [absolutely no previous version required, as the > install program claims]). Well, this is obviously a matter that could give rise to a whole different thread (and has, repeatedly ;) but I assume the intent of the speaker (it wasn't me) was to refer to those DOS-software installations which are exceptionally bug-free. It's simple economics; there are many MANY more DOS users than other operating systems, due to price and availability considerations. With that large (and diverse) a user base, there are a lot more vendors to choose from and a lot more competition. While there is certainly a lot of really bad software (and, paradoxically, Microsoft themselves are one of the worst offenders), there is also probably more really good software just due to these factors. I've found that the Borland development tool installs I've run have generally been very clean, though some probably are not. I can cite a number of other examples (but won't here ;); the point is that if we can achieve the clean, crisp installs that *various* (though certainly not by any means all) DOS vendors have achieved, we'll be doing really well. Unix installs tend to be more difficult and less clean, in *general*, in part due to the fact that the Unix-compatible market is so (relatively) small and the competitive pressures are less. Power does not have to imply difficulty. But, this is a debatable point, and I'm sure there are other newsgroups where this can be better debated. Feel free to suggest one rather than replying in copious detail in these forums.... ;) lilo